What's new
By:

The Lab Virus: WLV19

B

babe

Well-Known Member
Time for history to revise some terminology.

CoVid 19 was mislabeled. I propose we call it the Wuhan Lab Virus 2019., WLV19. Or the Fakedemic Fascist Excursion.

Not sure we have all the valid alternative names yet. I'll be looking for them, maybe do a poll with this thread.

Just tooting my own horn. I saw the genome online in January 2020 and noticed that it had to be a splice job that was extremely improbable in nature. Then the virus library closed the door on the information, which meant high level political pressure. All this when dems like Pelosi and Cuomo were encouraging folks to go out on the town and enjoy life and not bother with masks, and Trump was being called out for racism for preventing Chinese from Wuhan getting on planes to the US..

www.politico.com

In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.

After seeing a risky lab, they wrote a cable warning to Washington. But it was ignored.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Calls for Fauci to resign or be fired intensify after doctor admits to $600,000 NIH funding for Wuhan lab

Calls for Dr. Anthony Fauci to resign or be fired have intensified over the infectious disease expert’s continuously shifting positions.“Dr. Fauci
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
The pandemic that ended millions of lives and has harmed untold numbers of others with lingering damage is something we naturally to want to find someone to blame for. These are family members and friends. I personally believe responsibility is going to fall across some strange lines by the time the story is told.

This virus was likely made in a lab in Wuhan where it infected a lab worker, but the only reason it was there at all was due to a chain of very American events. In 2014 there was influenza Gain-of-Function research happening here in the United States when the CDC accidently mailed out an influenza virus they shouldn’t have. There was an investigation and a group of concerned scientists published a letter advising that viral Gain-of-Function research be banned. The Obama Administration listened and banned Gain-of-Function research in 2014.

The $600k NIH grant, which is part of the Executive Branch of the US Government, happened in 2018 under the subsequent administration.

Also, the machines used to build these custom viruses likely weren’t Chinese. They were American. I believe the gene synthesis was done on equipment invented by Invitrogen which is now a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific who conveniently has an office in Wuhan.



There were even American PhDs helping the Wuhan Institute of Virology out with their bat coronavirus research, namely Dr. Ralph Baric out of The University of North Carolina. You’ve got American machines being at least partially funded by American tax dollars with technical help from American researchers outsourcing so-dangerous-it-got-banned research to a Chinese lab.

Does that make it a Chinese virus? Is it an American virus? There is a huge reason everyone pushed the story of this virus being a cross-infection from an animal. There is a lot of embarrassment and a lot of fault to go around if this came out of a lab.
 
Please explain your professional and educational training that leads you to these conclusions.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The $600k NIH grant, which is part of the Executive Branch of the US Government, happened in 2018 under the subsequent administration.
Click to expand...
Wrong, it wasn't the Trump administration that had control over it, it was the CDC. Why would the CDC continue GOF research under Trump after Obama stopped it?
 
gandalfe said:
Please explain your professional and educational training that leads you to these conclusions.
Click to expand...
I’m going to skip the professional and educational training because there is no way you’d know if I’m telling you the truth without completely doxing myself and I’m not going to do that but I can explain why I believe this virus was likely made in a lab.

SARS-CoV-2 is a ball with mushroom-like structures on all sides. Those structures are called S-Spike proteins and they are what facilitate the attachment of the virus to human cells, specifically the cells with ACE2 receptors.

The S-Spike has 2 substructures labeled S1 and S2. You can think of S1 as the top and it has the “sticky” part called the Receptor Biding Domain (RBD) that binds to the ACE2 Receptor. The S2 is the structure that anchors the S-Spike to the ball. What makes SARS-CoV-2 so suspicious is the existence of a furin cleavage site between S1 and S2 that causes the S-Spike to spring open like a 3-jawed monster.

That furin cleavage site isn’t in any other beta-coronaviruses. In the tens of thousands of beta-coronaviruses researchers all over the world have sequences, I believe they’ve only found 1 other beta-coronavirus with an S-Spike furin cleavage site but even that was different from the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site.

Where we go from suspicious to unbelievable is in how that furin cleavage site is contructed. It is done with 2 arginine amino acids sitting back-to-back in the sequence. Arginine can be encoded in RNA using the codons CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, or AGG. Any of the 6 makes arginine, but coronaviruses have a natural bias into which codons are used for arginine and rarely use the CGG codon. SARS-CoV-2, in its furin cleavage site, has back-to-back double CGG codons. That has NEVER been seen before in any beta-coronavirus. I’m not saying just in a cleavage site, or in an S-Spike, but anywhere.

SARS-CoV-2 also seems to hate that double CGG codon because it keeps trying to evolve out of it. Variants with changes to that site are vastly over-represented when we shouldn’t see that at all because the furin cleavage site is what make the virus so infectious to human cells. Evolving out of either CGG typically ruins the furin cleavage site which effectively ends its ability to reproduce.

That double CGG-CGG arginine codon in the SARS-CoV-2 is what Nobel laureate and former President of CalTech David Baltimore called the “smoking gun”, and that is exactly what it is.

There are many other pieces that point to this virus coming out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology but if I have to point to a single piece of evidence making the case that this virus isn’t natural, it is the double CGG-CGG furin cleavage site.

If it is something else you wanted reference material to back something I’ve said, just let me know and I’ll be happy to provide links to reputable scientific sources (usually Nature, Science, Lancet, Wiley, or the NIH site).
 
Hax0rs said:
Wrong, it wasn't the Trump administration that had control over it, it was the CDC. Why would the CDC continue GOF research under Trump after Obama stopped it?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, Trump is responsible for everything in the Executive Branch. Off-hand, I think a lot of bureaucrats just haven't got the memo.

Presidents come and go. Civil Service Jobs are eternal, and beyond reproach.

It's like what would happen if God's angels decided God doesn't matter.
 
babe said:
Theoretically, Trump is responsible for everything in the Executive Branch. Off-hand, I think a lot of bureaucrats just haven't got the memo.

Presidents come and go. Civil Service Jobs are eternal, and beyond reproach.

It's like what would happen if God's angels decided God doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
So the CDC falls under the executive branch? Then theoretically, would they even have to advise a sitting president of their decisions?
 
Gameface said:
How does you first sentence and second sentence have anything to do with one another?

It's like saying "So marsh mellows are under the baking isle? Then theoretically, would marsh mellows even have to advise the grocery store of their recipes?"

Like, huh?
Click to expand...
Because, most uninformed Americans would believe that if CDC falls under the executive branch, then the President of the United States has some sort of control over decision making that falls under the executive branch.

I shouldn't have asked a rhetorical question to Babe, is was more meant for you. I now see my mistake in that.
 
gandalfe said:
Please explain your professional and educational training that leads you to these conclusions.
Click to expand...
I might have thought you were asking me this question.

I think there is someone here who knows more than I know about this, so it doesn't matter.

I've been around some labs where this kind of research was being done. I've worked for some world-famous people whose expertise in this field is exceptional, including one Nobel-prize winner. all that a long time ago. I was in some cases the library gofer before the internet and computer printers made me obsolete. I read everything.

Obviously, I have a great imagination and I specialize in basic creative writing...... here for some value in developing some conversation.

I recognize Al-O-meter above as someone who knows more than I do.
Hax0rs said:
So the CDC falls under the executive branch? Then theoretically, would they even have to advise a sitting president of their decisions?
Click to expand...
I haven't got the damnmap of our guvmint under my elbows. Lessee..... Health and Human Services..... that would be a place. But maybe it's under the BATF. That's as close as this story gets to bats.

www.cdc.gov

CDC Organization

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Leadership
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
 
Al-O-Meter said:
It is not the CDC, but the NIH, and yes they would advise a sitting president. They'd also issue press releases that Gain-of-Function funding was once again starting to flow.
www.cidrap.umn.edu

Feds lift gain-of-function research pause, offer guidance

www.cidrap.umn.edu www.cidrap.umn.edu
Click to expand...
Okay, I just read that.

In 2014 Obama stopped GOF research until they could come up with stricter guidelines. In 2017, days before he left office, he approved those guidelines.

I'm not seeing where it got re-approval from a president...Tom Inglesby said later in the article "the requirements for the multidisciplinary, department-level pre-funding review and the involvement of the White House OSTP are excellent."

WTF does that mean, would Trump have been notified that they had restarted GOF research or this OSTP? I'm not seeing anywhere in the article where GOF was re-approved, just the release of the funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top