When researchers at Boston University (BU) in Massachusetts inserted a gene from the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 into a strain of the virus from the beginning of the pandemic, they were trying to understand why Omicron causes mild disease.
But the experiments, described in a 14 October preprint1, have ignited a red-hot controversy over what constitutes truly risky SARS-CoV-2 research — especially now that much of the world’s population has some immune protection from the virus and COVID-19 treatments are available.
At issue is whether — and when — researchers modifying SARS-CoV-2 or other deadly pathogens need to keep regulators and funding agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) informed about their work, even if the agencies didn’t fund the experiments in question. Studies that make pathogens more transmissible or virulent are sometimes called ‘gain of function’ research.
The controversy sparked by the BU study highlights “the lack of clarity that people have on exactly what sorts of experiments have benefits that outweigh risks, and who decides how it’s all reviewed”, says Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington.
“Some guidance is really needed,” says Pei-Yong Shi, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, whose team is seeking permission from the NIH to study whether SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to antiviral drugs the group is developing.
News (2)
Saeed's team created the highly pathogenic Omi-S, hybrid of BA.1 and Wuhan-Hu-1
The brouhaha over the BU research started after a team led by Mohsan Saeed, a virologist at BU’s School of Medicine, posted a preprint1 on bioRxiv showing that the properties of Omicron’s spike protein — the part of the virus that allows it to infect human cells — might not explain the clinical mildness of the COVID-19 cases it causes. Saeed’s team had created a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 which they named "Omi-S" by putting the spike protein from the Omicron BA.1 lineage into the backbone of a viral strain isolated in the early days of the pandemic.
Unlike BA.1, which usually causes mild, non-fatal disease, this strain caused severe disease in mice engineered to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight of the ten mice exposed to the strain died or had to be killed as a result of weight loss and other consequences of the infection. However, that wasn’t quite as lethal as the unaltered ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain, which killed all six mice that were infected in the study.
This research is valuable because it suggests that the factors that make certain strains of SARS-CoV-2 deadly might lie outside the spike protein, says David Ho, a virologist at Columbia University in New York City. “But it raises concerns that we have an Omicron virus that’s evasive to many antibodies and yet is more pathogenic than the current version of Omicron.”
The work had been approved by a BU biosafety committee, as well as a Boston city public-health board, and was conducted in a biocontainment facility deemed safe for work with SARS-CoV-2. But it is unclear whether the BU study has run afoul of any rules governing risky pathogen research. Under current guidelines, any research funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — of which the NIH is part — that can be “reasonably anticipated” to make a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) more virulent or transmissible should undergo extra review.
Saeed’s team acknowledged grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and other branches of the NIH in the preprint. But in a statement this week, BU said that the experiments “were carried out with funds from Boston University”, which it said means that they are exempt from the additional review. NIAID’s support was acknowledged “because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not fund this research directly”, said the university.
On the spectrum of coronavirus research, the experiments are relatively low-risk, Bloom says. The hybrid virus is derived from two strains that have been out-competed by successive variants, so it would be unlikely to spread widely if it ever escaped. Shi points out that the virus the researchers created is less pathogenic than the ancestral strain, which laboratories around the world continue to work with.
“This type of work needs to be reviewed carefully, and it needs to undergo risk–benefit assessments. But I would not put this in sort of the category of the most alarming types of coronavirus studies,” says Bloom. “It seems exceedingly unlikely that this virus would have pandemic potential.”
In a statement, the NIH said that it did not fund the specific experiments reported in the preprint, and it is looking into whether the research still fell under its oversight.
News (3)
Regular communication between researchers, funders and local biosafety committees is important to prevent problems and misunderstandings
Shi says that in his experience, regular communication between researchers, funders and local biosafety committees can prevent problems and misunderstandings of the kind surrounding the BU study. After such discussions, his team created similar strains to study variants’ ability to evade vaccines that are made with a weakened form of SARS-CoV-2.
When Luis Martinez-Sobrido and Chengjin Ye, virologists at the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, wanted to conduct experiments nearly identical to those described by Saeed’s team, they contacted NIAID, which was supporting the researchers through an existing grant.
NIAID and the researchers’ institutional biosafety committee both gave the green light to the work — with the proviso that if any of the changes significantly enhanced the pathogenicity of the strain in animals or its capacity to replicate in cells, the researchers would halt the work and quickly inform the funder. Martinez says his obligations are clear.
Ho’s lab, which also receives NIH funding, has been one of the world leaders in studying SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic. Ho says it wasn’t always clear what research was subject to review and what wasn’t, and he found himself frequently checking in with officials. When his team reported2 privately funded work showing that SARS-CoV-2 can evolve resistance to a component of the antiviral treatment Paxlovid, NIAID officials got in touch to confirm that the experiments didn’t fall under its oversight.
In another instance, Ho’s team was growing the virus in the presence of monoclonal antibody drugs, to study its ability to evolve resistance. The studies identified a host of antibody-dodging mutations that would later emerge in Omicron offshoots, including a sublineage called BQ.1 that is likely to drive an infection wave later this year.
But Ho says he scaled back the research and decided not to publish the findings, because of his concerns about how officials at NIAID would perceive the work if it were made public. The agency didn’t fund those experiments, but supported related work characterizing SARS-CoV-2 variants. “There’s a lot of valuable information that could have been shared, but because of these concerns, that was held back,” Ho says.
News (4)
The U.S. calls for expansion in the studies on pathogens
The discussion around the BU preprint comes amid a years-long effort to revise the US government’s funding guidelines for research involving enhanced PPPs (ePPPs). In February, the NIH asked the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to revisit its current policy, which was set in 2017. The NSABB released draft recommendations in September, and plans to release its final report late this year or early next. One recommendation calls for a significant expansion in the pathogens that could fall under the policy.
Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, says that the draft recommendations provide more clarity, but do not address the fundamental concerns that the BU study raises. The final policy should cover any ePPP research done at any US institution — not just research funded by HHS — and should allow for the additional review step to occur if potential for an ePPP to be created becomes apparent, even after the project is funded, he says.
Researchers hope that the update will provide clearer direction on which SARS-CoV-2 research needs NIH approval, and how the agency conducts its extra review. As Shi and his team develop COVID-19 antivirals, he would like to study how readily the virus can evolve mutations to evade drugs, and whether mutations linked to existing drugs can foil new ones. But he says that he has not yet received clear guidance from the NIH on what experiments he can and cannot do.
In some cases, discussions seem to be driven by publicity surrounding experiments such as the BU study, instead of by considerations of the potential risks and benefits of such work, says Bloom. The latest controversy highlights the disconnect between how scientists and the public perceive the risk of research into certain pathogens, he adds. “It’s important for scientists to recognize it’s the general public that’s funding all this research. And there are good reasons that people want more transparency and understanding.”
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03344-w
References
1. Chen, D.-Y. et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.13.512134 (2022).
2. Iketani, S. et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.07.499047 (2022).
News (6)
Moderna has patented the nucleotide sequence of the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2
On 23 February 2022 the Daily Mail ran an article showing that Moderna has patented the 19 base letter (nucleotide) sequence which codes for the furin cleavage site in covi.
They cited a Paper by Scientists in India, Switzerland, Italy and the US (cautiously entitled: MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site) in which they calculated that the chances of a 19 nucleotide sequence patented by Moderna randomly appearing in covi in circumstances where it does not appear anywhere else in nature are 1 in 3 trillion. However, they failed to make the obvious deduction there from. Had they made said obvious deduction I fear that might have been the last scientific deduction they ever got published!
They decided to investigate the RNA sequence for the Furin cleavage site in the covi spike protein to see if it occurred anywhere else in nature.
Fortunately the NCBI/NIH have produced the wonderful BLAST database which catalogues every gene sequence in nature known to man and every synthetic patented gene sequence known to the patent office.
The researchers chose the Furin cleavage sequence because it is the only continuous gene letter sequence (nucleotide sequence) in covi with more than 3 nucleotides, that differs from the respective letters in its closest natural relative the Bat Coronavirus RaTG13 (all other differences are 3 letters or less long). So it was by far the best candidate for determining whether or not covi was man made.
The reader might consider it more likely that a furin cleavage site would appear in the Sun than in the Daily Mail. But this cleavage refers to the separation of spike from virus rather than pillow from pillow.
Furthermore the furin cleavage site is key to the pathogenicity of covid. So if there was to be some man made gain of function included in the covid virus, this is where one might expect to find it.
The amino acid sequence of the furin cleavage site is Proline Argenine Argenine Alanine (PRRA). Each amino acid is coded for by a codon, consisting of 3 nucleotides (genetic sequence letters). So all the differences in the genetic code between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 are at most one codon long, one amino acid long, other than the furin cleavage sequence, which is…
CCT CGG CGG GCA
The complimentary sequence (the opposing DNA strand of the double helix is (GGAGCCGCCCGT) because C binds with G and A binds with T
The reverse compliment (the same thing written backwards) is therefore TGCCCGCCGAGG
The researchers did a BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) alignment search (which means they search for the gene sequence, the reverse gene sequence, the complimentary gene sequence and the reverse complimentary gene sequence) through every gene sequence in nature known to man for CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG which is the 19 nucleotide sequence containing the furin cleavage sequence, which also appears in SARS-CoV-2, and which is found actually in the reverse compliment form CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG patented by Moderna.
Their search results can be found here.
Table 1 shows that it does exist in the 5 U.S. patents cited below…
US9149506B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding septin-4 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9149506B2/en
Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc
2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618953P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-05-22 Publication of US20140141067A1
2015-10-06 Publication of US9149506B2
2015-10-06 Application granted
2020-01-10 First worldwide family litigation filed
US9216205B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding granulysin – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9216205B2/en
Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc
2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618873P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-04-24 Publication of US20140113960A1
2015-12-22 Publication of US9216205B2
2015-12-22 Application granted
US9255129B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding SIAH E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9255129B2/en
Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc
2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618868P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-05-22 Publication of US20140141068A1
2016-02-09 Application granted
2016-02-09 Publication of US9255129B2
US9301993B2: Modified polynucleotides encoding apoptosis inducing factor 1 – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9301993B2/en
Inventor: Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc
2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618957P
2013-12-16 Application filed by Moderna Therapeutics Inc
2014-04-17 Publication of US20140107189A1
2016-04-05 Application granted
2016-04-05 Publication of US9301993B2
2020-01-10 First worldwide family litigation filed
US9587003B2: Modified polynucleotides for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides – https://patents.google.com/patent/US9587003B2/en
Inventor: Stephane Bancel, Tirtha Chakraborty, Antonin de Fougerolles, Sayda M. Elbashir, Matthias John, Atanu Roy, Susan Whoriskey, Kristy M. Wood, Paul Hatala, Jason P. Schrum, Kenechi Ejebe, Jeff Lynn Ellsworth, Justin Guild
Current Assignee: ModernaTx Inc
2012-04-02 Priority to US201261618868P
2016-02-04 Application filed by ModernaTx Inc
2016-06-02 Publication of US20160152678A1
2017-03-07 Publication of US9587003B2
2017-03-07 Application granted
News (7)
Moderna applies for a patent for 19 nucleotide sequences on 16 December 2013
So Moderna first applied for a patent for the 19 nucleotide sequence in 2013 on 16 December.
Table2: Shows that the sequence occurs in covi from nucleotide 23601 to 23619.
Table3: Shows that this gene sequence does not exist in nature (but 14 nucleotide parts of it do).
The Google patent page for US9587003B2 does not contain the gene sequence. The pdf of the patent does not contain the gene sequence and is not searchable from pages 101-304 but it does have a link to a lengthy ‘Sequence Listing” section which link one cannot copy. So I manually transcribed it in my fair hand – http://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageRequest=docDetail&DocID=US09587003B2
From that page you can enter the Sequence ID quoted in the paper as 11652 and get to https://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageRequest=viewSequence&DocID=US09587003B2&seqID=11652 which has the following at Nucleotides 2751-2733 reading backwards…
gccctgatca ccatcatggc ccagatcggc agctacgtgc ccgccgagga ggccaccatc 2760CTACGTGCCCGCCGAGGAG patented by Moderna is the reverse compliment of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG, the 19 nucleotide sequence which appears in Covid-19 DNA from nucleotide 23601-23619 (which would therefore be covered by their patent).
Likewise search for the sequence in US9149506B2 by going to https://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageRequest=viewSequence&DocID=US09149506B2&seqID=11652, whereupon the same thing again can be found
gccctgatca ccatcatggc ccagatcggc agctacgtgc ccgccgagga ggccaccatc 2760Search the gene sequence of Wuhan-Hu-1 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512 and the following is found
23581 ttatcagact cagactaatt ctcctcggcg ggcacgtagt gtagctagtc aatccatcat from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_045512
This has the 19 nucleotide sequence CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from 23601-23619 as described in Table 3.
A non-aligned blast search of all patented gene sequences for the reverse compliment directly (or perhaps for a back handed compliment) yielded the same results as the researchers
It is the same for the other 3 U.S. patents.
So based on the links above, Moderna did apply for a Patent not only on the reverse compliment of the 12 nucleotide furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 but actually on the 19 nucleotide sequence containing it as described above.
News (8)
Moderna's further patents in 2013 and 2016 exposed
Furthermore they did not merely apply for a patent on 4 February 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied on 16 December 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2 as well.
So Moderna had developed the 19 nucleotide gene sequence containing the Furin Cleavage Site which gives Covid19 its infectivity to humans by patented gain of function research as early as 2013, 6 years before the Wuhan outbreak took place. Not 3 as reported in the Mail and virally elsewhere..
So now we look at the chances of this occurring naturally. The paper calculates the probability of this particular 19 nucleotide sequence occurring randomly in a 30,000 nucleotide virus as
(30,000-18) x (1/4)19 = 1.09 x 10-7
Which is correct because there are 30,000-18 places to start the sequence given that it needs a further 18 more letters to complete it. But there are actually 29,904 nucleotides in Wuhan HU1 (alpha). So a more accurate calculation would be
(29,904-18) x (1/4)19 = 1.087 x 10-7
Then they calculate the chances that the 19 nucleotide sequence occurs in the patented library of 24,712 sequences with a mean length of 3300 nucleotides. But that calculation is irrelevant because the sequence did not randomly appear in 5 Moderna Patent applications. The sequence was known to code for a furin cleavage site, which is known to provide gain of function to Coronaviruses.
It was put there deliberately and patented due to its infecting power in humans, which we shall see, later in the article, results from the normal viral Arginine (R) codon AGA (used in 45% of viral Arginine codons) being replaced by the human Arginine codon CGG (used in 0% of viral Arginine codons) in the furin cleavage site.
All we are trying to work out here is what the chances are of a 19 nucleotide sequence patented by Moderna turning up in covi through natural causes, the natural mutations of Bat Coronavirus RaTG13 or some other virus.
The nucleotides form Codons which are triplets. So there are 64 possible triplets of the 4 DNA nucleotides ACGT (4x4x4 = 64) but all triplets do occur. 61 code for 20 amino acids redundantly and 3 are stop codons which tell the ribosome to stop making the protein.
Things are not this simple because the furin cleavage site appears in the spike protein where it needs to be and the spike protein only has 1273×3 = 3819 nucleotides. The chances of the 19 nucleotide furin cleavage sequence appearing in the spike protein are
(3,819-18) x (1/4)19 = 1.389 x 10-8
Or 1 in 72 million. So those would be the chances that one particular variant, say the first covi variant, had the 19 nucleotide sequence in the right place (the spike) and it did. So certainly by the balance of probabilities, and certainly beyond a reasonable doubt (1 in 72 million being an unreasonable doubt) Moderna made SARS-CoV-2.
The Double CGG Codon used in the Moderna Specific Furin Cleavage site does not occur in any other furin cleavage site in any other virus in nature. Furin cleavage sites do occur in other viruses but NOT at all in other betacoronaviruses like Covid-19 and NOT at all with the double CGG codon.
Arginine ( R), can be encoded by any of the 6 triplets: AGG, AGA, CGA, CGC, CGG, CGT. In Covid-19, the furin site (PRRA), has 12 nucleotides (3 x 4). In SARS-CoV-2, the RR doublet of the furin site is encoded by CGG-CGG.
Two Biochemists Prof Antonio R. Romeu and Assistant Prof Enric Ollé analysed the RR doublet from a large sample of furin cleavage sites of several kinds of viruses. They found that there were no RR doublets encoded by the CGG-CGG codons in any virus in nature. They observed that the AGA triplet was the majority codon involved in these viral RR doublets.
In all genetic recombination (where a part of one genome merges with another genome), the donor code is passed to the acceptor. But there is simply NO KNOWN VIRUS with a Moderna Specific Furin Cleavage Site (having the CGG-CGG codon pair) that exists to donate a Moderna Specific furin cleavage site to Covid19. So the only way that sequence could get into SARS-CoV-2 is from Moderna. Moderna was the donor. Nature was not. QED. Case Closed..
But it gets worse.
The Spanish Profs decided to analyse the arginine codon usage in every single protein in Covid-19. The found the following…
AGG (13%)
AGA (45%)
CGA (5%)
CGC (10%)
CGG (3%)
CGT (24%).
So the AGA codon triplet was the majority, and interestingly, CGG was the minority codon for Arginine in the virus.
But it gets worse still.
In the specific case of S protein, of the 42 Arginines (R) it has, 20 are encoded by AGA, and only 2 by CGG. These 2 of course, are the two in the Moderna Specific Furin Cleavage Site.
So the only Arginine in the spike protein that is encoded a la Moderna are in the Furin Cleavage site. The other 40 instances do not use CGG at all.
They then go on to comment that each individual species in nature has its own codon preferences. Obviously viruses like AGA, and do not like CGG at all, in nature.
But guess which species does use CGG for Arginine more than the other 5 competing codons – yes its jolly old homo sapiens. Our coding preferences for Arginine are
AGG (20%)
AGA (20%)
CGA (11%)
CGC (19%)
CGG (21%)
CGT (9%).
So the CGG codon in the furin cleavage site WILL have come about through Chimeric (human animal combination) gain of function research.
Papers, confirmed as genuine by a former member of the Trump administration, show they were hoping to introduce “human-specific cleavage sites” to bat coronaviruses which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells.
When Covid-19 was first genetically sequenced, scientists were puzzled about how the virus had evolved such a human-specific adaptation at the cleavage site on the spike protein, which is the reason it is so infectious.” – the Telegraph
Since the Moderna Specific furin cleavage sequence CGG codon does not occur in any furin cleavage site in any natural virus, it cannot have been the result of natural genetic recombination. So it has to be the result of man made genetic insertion.
In theory a further party involved with the NAIAD or the NIH could have used the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna and made Covid19 themselves. This would not have broken any patent of Moderna. The Furin cleavage site itself is not patentable having been known since at least 2004
US7223390B2: Insertion of furin protease cleavage sites in membrane proteins and uses thereof
2004-05-07 Application filed by Research Development Foundation
2004-11-11 Publication of US20040224391A1
2007-05-29 Application granted
Although Moderna could actually have patented the Moderna Specific (CGG for AGA) encoding of the furin cleavage site which was is not known in nature even today (if we accept that SARS-CoV-2 is man made).
But given that the lab leak (deliberate or accidental) came from Wuhan, and given the Chinese cover up and given the Fauci denials exposed by Senator Rand Paul, and given the NIH, NIAID cover ups and the US Intelligence services cover up, when their 3 month long report into the origin of Covid-19 ordered by presidential impersonator Biden yielded nothing, and given the relationships between the NIAID, the NIH, the WIV, the EcoHealth Alliance, the University of North Carolina and Moderna, there is no room for other arguments.
Furthermore the entire unholy cabal of bad actors started developing the Moderna Vaccine before the pandemic struck – https://www.infowars.com/posts/must-watch-nih-claimed-joint-ownership-of-moderna-mrna-vaccine-began-development-weeks-ahead-of-pandemic/
Things are not as simple as that because nature has had certainly 100,000 years to make human viruses and it never once put a Moderna specific (CGG for AGA) furin cleavage site into anything, nor did it put the 19 nucleotide sequence in anything before.
Yet within 6 years of Moderna patenting it, we find it in SARS-CoV-2 in circumstances where Moderna is working with that virus. So just there the probability is not 100,000 to 6 or 16,666 to 1 that Moderna is responsible rather than nature. No it is 100% because nature has not done it. It never has and there is no evidence that it ever will.
Nature never creates SARS-CoV-2.
Prof Luc Montagnier, before he died on 8 February 2022, did a total assassination of the concept that Covid-19 evolved naturally by showing that it had massive equivalence to HIV. The diagram below shows a 275 nucleotide region of SARS-CoV-2 which has 200 nucleotides from HIV/SIV (Simian ImmunoVirus) in it. Remember there are 61 codons specifying 20 amino acids. So one can say the same thing in on average 3 different ways with codons.
You can download a pdf of his study here and the supplementary materials here. It is very technical but he did win the Nobel prize for discovering the HIV virus. So if anyone would know if SARS-CoV-2 had been boosted with HIV, it would be him. He pointed out that covi was man made early in the pandemic and was himself assassinated by the press and the fact checkers as a result. Every single fact checker who attacked him was wrong.
Since we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond a 1 in 72 million doubt statically and with 100% certainly biochemically from the Moderna Specific Furin Cleavage Site) that Moderna made SARS-CoV-2 Moderna and Fauci have not admitted to having made it and have in fact covered up evidence to that effect, it may be the case that they are hiding something else as well.
The only two theories now left are the accidental lab leak theory and the deliberate lab leak theory. The vast majority of political leaks are not accidents. They are deliberate strategies to provide advantage to the leaker or his paymaster. It is well known in the IT industry that viruses appear when antivirus sales are needed. Why would things be any different with human viruses, now that they can be man made too? Especially when you consider the massive role of Bill Gates and his foundation and GAVI and GVAP in the global vaccination business.
The only reason that Moderna would make SARS-CoV-2 is to release it. Otherwise the entire exercise would be financially futile, commercially pointless
The reason adduced by Fauci for doing gain-of-function research is that man needs to be ahead of nature or bad actors in order to have a vaccine in good time if a disease mutates or is genetically modified by the Chinese or the Russians to be lethal.
Although Moderna is interested in the saving people’s lives, interested in vaccinating people at the risk of costing their lives, their ultimate interest is in profit that comes from a pandemic. They are not saviours of mankind as they represent. They are our exploiters and our abusers.
They produced the virus in order to leak it, in order to pose as our saviours from their own leak. These are not the activities of a saviour figure. Luc Montagnier was trying to be our saviour from them and he was assassinated (professionally) by their groupies. Moderna were doing gain-of-function research in order to release the virus and force a vaccine for it in a manner which would maximise their profits. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is what happened precisely. Their share price went up by 20x.
They released it in order to sell their vaccines and to destroy the immune systems of their customers because humans enhancing their immunity systems without vaccines reduce their profits. That is Big Pharma business.
News (12)
Hold the vaccine makers, funders, enforcers to account for covid and covi vaccine deaths
The covi variant makers, the genetic vaccine makers. their funders and their enforcers, which include government and public sector and health services that impose vaccine mandates, are therefore guilty of crimes against humanity. They have pushed genetic rape and sickness and death onto half of the population of the world in order to enrich the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
In the UK, all of the income tax we pay goes to the health service and all of its protocols are determined by its regulators and all of its regulators are controlled and funded by Big Pharma who seek to damage then manage Britons' health for their profit.
So every penny spent in income tax brings people one step closer to sickness, to death and to drug dependency.
So why did Prof Montagnier choose to spend the last years of his life proving that SARS-CoV-2 was man made and that the spike proteins, and therefore the vaccines, were an existential threat to the species? What did he have left to prove to himself or to anybody else at 87-89? He certainly did not do it to increase his reputation in the profession.
No, he was driven by the same passion that drove him to discover HIV. A passion to SAVE mankind from viruses and those who would engineer them to damage us. Why did he die in February 2022? Because he knew that Omicron had the vaccines beat. His job was done by a greater virologist even than him. He could therefore rest in peace and go see some people who understood the magnitude of his contribution.
COVID-19 was not made in 2019 and therefore the disease is covid. The covid virus SARS-CoV-2 was made from the 19 nucleotide Moderna specific chimeric (CGG for AGA) furin cleavage site which does not occur anywhere in nature.
In countries where Moderna vaccine is used widely, every covid death and every covi vaccine death is parked squarely on the doorstep of ModeRNA waiting for justice.
News (13)
New research: Lab-leak origin is very highly likely
In essence, the laboratory editing and reassembly of viral material involve in vitro genome assembly (“IVGA”) utilising special enzymes known as restriction enzymes. To create a viable novel engineered virus, each added sequence needs to have sticky ends added. You could imagine these are analogous to the couplings between carriages of a train. This relates to the need to efficiently stitch together engineered segments. Each joint leaves a genetic signature in the final virus at the re-joined ends of each reassembled segment. The presence and regularity of these signature joins serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly. The authors report:
The likelihood that this could have happened by chance through natural mutation in an animal host is estimated by the authors to be less than 0.0002. In other words, they show that the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 is 99.98% supported by their analysis. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions independently.
This conclusion is in addition to other earlier findings that genetic segments of Covid-19 at the Furin cleavage spike protein site were known to biotech science pre-pandemic and had been used in laboratory experiments. Taken together the findings point to Covid-19 being the result of gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function research involves genetic manipulation of viruses to make them more infective and in some cases more deadly for humans. The stated aim of this research is to aid in the development of vaccines – an aim whose achievement has in practice proved very elusive.
One important point to note is that natural viral mutation in animal hosts is very common. Tens of thousands of novel viral types are created through natural mutation each year, but they very rarely result in a sustained spillover into wider animal populations or into human populations. Covid-19 however had additional, apparently engineered characteristics which caused a deadly pandemic. A pandemic which has resulted in millions of deaths worldwide.
The authors conclude:
News (16)
Current biotech regulatory controls are wholly inadequate
The authors no doubt reach a sincere conclusion, but are improvements in lab biosafety sufficient to control pathogen escape? No. Lab escapes are inevitable. Global control of the types of research being undertaken is also necessary.
Gain-of-function research was briefly outlawed in the USA in 2014, but the ban was lifted in 2017. At the time, Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, said that gain-of-function studies “have done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics – yet they risked creating an accidental pandemic”. He was entirely right, but no one listened to him.
On their own, biotechnologists are highly unlikely to regulate the scope of biotech research. Over 800,000 people work in the field in the USA alone. Entry-level annual salaries start at around US$85,000. This doubles if your work is relevant to medical research. Biotech CEO salaries rise to a peak of US$45 million. If you were working in the biotech field, would you limit research with such mouth-watering funding?
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (“NSABB”) chair Samuel Stanley was one of those pleased that the three-year gain-of-function moratorium ended in 2017. He felt it may have delayed research and reduced interest in research on deadly pathogens. “I believe nature is the ultimate bioterrorist and we need to do all we can to stay one step ahead,” he said at the time. He was wrong, research on deadly pathogens turned out to be the real ultimate threat. The new lab-origin study confirms this.
Philosophical biotech musings like Stanley’s often label nature as a dangerous terrorist waiting in the wings to destroy us all, while biotechnologists are described as (well-paid) white knights selflessly working day and night to save our souls. This is for all intents and purposes a self-justifying fantasy designed to glorify a very risky profession whose possible end games, as we have seen all too clearly during the last three years, include genetic Armageddon.
In fact, we share a mutually beneficial co-evolutionary relationship with nature. We rely on a supportive epigenetic relationship with our natural food sources. Our health depends upon it. Research shows for example that five servings of fresh fruit and vegetables a day is protective against mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease.
News (17)
Biotech research has become a race to the bottom
There is no doubt that there was a perception in the USA among some biotechnology researchers that they would fall behind if they stopped such gain-of-function research while those in other countries continued. The cessation of the US moratorium in 2017 initiated a biotech arms race that very quickly led to the outbreak of the pandemic and a precedented era of global mass death that is reducing human longevity worldwide.
The closure of the US moratorium was not absolute, there were stricter protocols of oversight instituted. They didn’t work. The US government-funded offshore work in the Chinese Wuhan virology lab which effectively circumvented these protocols. Progress, outcomes, and safety couldn’t be policed effectively at a distance or even locally. There is even a suspicion that the arrangements were designed to circumvent regulation.
You must be getting the picture by now. Biotechnology is a huge scientific and commercial juggernaut involving the livelihood of millions of people and trillions of dollars. Biotech research is a fascinating field where newly minted biotechnologists can play God and be very well paid. It is being undertaken across international borders. It is driven by investment dollars coming from commercial, speculative, and government sources.
Nationally-based regulation has either failed or in many countries is completely absent. It is still failing. The authoritative Financial Times reports: ‘US health officials probe Boston University’s Covid virus research’. The Financial Times reports evasion of controls on gain-of-function research is still apparently very simple. Boston University scientists engineered a covid virus that killed 80% of mice. They were working under the radar:
We now have fresh evidence of what went very wrong at Wuhan, and will go wrong again unless global controls are put in place.
These cannot involve easily circumvented regulatory systems like those which failed spectacularly in the past and are still failing. As long ago as 2014, a scholarly article estimated that the risk of a lab escape pandemic was unacceptably high. Effective controls have to involve outright bans on certain types of research.
Put aside for the moment the serious safety arguments surrounding the relative effects of Covid infection and vaccination, in a rather weird sense they are a sideshow to a much bigger danger that we all face. Genetically engineered sequences in many research contexts, including medical applications, pose huge unquantified and uncontainable risks. They are potentially recombinative, highly mobile, impossible to contain, inherently mutagenic, and have been pathetically ineffective at achieving stated aims. If we don’t collectively deal with these risks, we will become victims. In fact, we already are suffering from the result of lax controls.
Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated need to take common cause and call for an end to risky biotechnology experimentation.
News (18)
GLOBE aims to bring an end to risky experimentation
The Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation (GLOBE), which involves a public and political education programme, is inaugurated on 22 October 2022. It requires cooperation between concerned doctors and scientists. It will necessitate global cooperation to bring an end to risky experimentation.
This is not for the faint-hearted. We should not underestimate the difficulty of stopping a global biotech research endeavour. Effective control of biotechnology is also hampered by overlapping financial interests shared by biotech scientists, pharmaceutical companies, medical professionals, regulators, media owners, and politicians.
We have to understand that the current open-ended nature of biotech research programmes is suicidal in character. A sea change is required. The commercial creators and funders of biotech research are putting themselves as well as everyone else at risk. By failing to act on controls, we are collectively putting ourselves at huge risk. We have arrived at a crossroads. Our decisions now are formative for the chances of our survival. Therefore, we have to take collective action. It is a matter of collective self-interest. There is no other way.
You can contribute to this effort. Alert individuals can register at our new website. Authors are invited to submit commentary and information. Telling points include:
- Labs can never be secure
- Pathogens cannot be contained
- Human genetic stability needs to be protected
Look for the ‘About’ page on our new website. Participants are invited from every nation. Go to: WWW.GLOBE.GLOBAL
New Zealand’s Guy Hatchard, PhD, is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine. He was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory. He has lectured and advised governments in countries around the world on health and education initiatives. You can find more articles by Hatchard on his website The Hatchard Report HERE.
News (19)
Source : The Expose / https://expose-news.com/2022/10/25/58k-children-injured-covid-vaccination-in-the-usa/
An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted on 20 October 2022 in favour of adding the covid vaccine to the recommended immunisation schedule for children aged 6 months and over.
Was the CDC’s advisory committee aware of figures published by the Centers for Disease Control that reveal nearly 58,000 children had been injured due to covi vaccination across the USA by 29 September 2022?
Was the committee aware that 1,201 of these children either suffered a life-threatening event or a permanent disability?
Did the advisory committee know that a further 163 children tragically sadly lost their lives?
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hosts a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that can be found here.
Unfortunately, the CDC reveals that at least 57,622 children (Aged 0 to 17) have suffered an injury due to covi vaccination as of 29 September 2022.
The Janssen vaccine is responsible for 1,358 of these injuries, the Moderna vaccine for 10,751, and the Pfizer vaccine for 45,425.
The CDC also reveals that 14,728 children have either visited a hospital or been hospitalised due to an injury caused by covid vaccination.
The Pfizer vaccine has caused 13,636 children to be hospitalised, the Moderna vaccine 1,001, and the Janssen vaccine 62.
Sadly, the CDC reveals that 1,201 children have either suffered a life-threatening event or been left permanently disabled due to covid vaccination.
The Pfizer jab has nearly killed or permanently disabled 1,073 children, the Moderna jab 119 children, and the Janssen jab 4 children.
Tragically, the CDC reveals that at least 163 children have lost their lives due to covid vaccination.
The Pfizer vaccine has killed 143 children, whilst the Moderna vaccine has killed 20 children.
What is even more unfortunate is that these figures do not illustrate the true consequences of covid vaccination among children. This is because the CDC estimates just 1 to 10% of adverse events are actually reported to VAERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment