Maybe it’s time to take a moment with someone who was literally scrubbing prison toilets a few years ago, and yet can still easily explain how obviously engineered SARS-CoV-2 actually is.
H2BH -- have read your articles for the last year and appreciate your ongoing attempts to break things down critically. So let me ask a question as I'm curious what your view is....
This is the first time I've read an argument that COVID is a de-attenuating virus. So I'm curious how you reconcile this theory with suggestive evidence that fatality of the virus was higher in the past and then the circumstantial evidence the virus targeted women more virulently than men early on.
By the former I mean more than the early videos of people collapsing in the street, but also projections of the mortality rate as somewhere in the 1-2% range based on cases like the Diamond Princess. On the latter, there is the rumour that one of the earliest researchers to die was a young women, and then the suggestion from the Washington Post (?) that one of the early fatalities was the wife of one of the three WIV researchers who got sick. But now men are affected disproportionately it seems.
Wondering if you have any thoughts. How can a de-attenuating virus be both increasing infectiousness and danger and yet also losing those properties relatively quickly? What am I missing here?
Whoops, I'd meant to add it - it was in another file but it's in part ii now:
So the largely asymptomatic spread of a deattenuating live-attenuated vaccine only just beginning to become airborne would explain the fractal and unexpected nature of new pockets of infection, as well as what’s been described as EVALI in America. This odd medical puzzle could have been a less-fit strain of the novel coronavirus, whose quasispecies swarm only managed to flitter across the populations it encountered before burning out.
On the other end of that spectrum was the solution that the PLA likely attempted on the citizens of Wuhan once they realized the virus was airborne and deattenuating out of control, a solution which created the need for draconian lockdowns and gave videos of people collapsing in the street to the world: Discovering a novel airborne RNA virus, the CCP applied some of the lessons learned attempting to vaccinate against another airborne coronavirus, Feline Infection Peritonitis Virus (FIPV), and attempted design a bespoke live-attenuated vaccine with a select groups of genes removed in an attempt to retard its swarm’s overall virulence.
This approach has been on the table for decades, since it was seen to possibly “allow the development of vaccines against infections with other pathogenic coronaviruses, including that causing severe acute respiratory syndrome in humans.”[i] And although it can be incredibly effective if the right genes are removed, take away the wrong ones and 80% of your subjects drop dead inside a month.
And so desperately attempting to contain the growing pandemic, the CCP rushed out a gene-removed live-attenuated vaccine - applying it not to its retreated military already outside the city limits, but instead only to the hapless citizens of Wuhan. Creating a mass casualty event as the bespoke vaccine burned too hot, effectively stopping the swarm but only by killing off its hosts and creating so much death that the Chinese government began welding apartment buildings shut, unsure if this newly juiced swarm would be able to escape the city or only consume the hosts it was administered to.
Awesome questions, I think there's too much fuzziness in the data to talk about gender-differences meaningfully, or individual people who purportedly died, but the early situation in Wuhan is the big outlier - with people appearing to just drop dead in the street.
Once the CCP realized what was happening at the Wuhan Military Games, my guess is they tried to stop the spread by introducing strains with deleterious mutations - so instead of a vaccine, you hit the population with a strain of the virus that's meant to retard its growth and ability to get stronger.
However that's well-known to be very risky when it's tried with livestock and in the lab, and so I think the early disaster we saw in Wuhan was due to the lethality of that introduced strain, which by definition would've burnt itself out once it was done killing.
I explore it more in part ii of my Quasispecies piece:
I will never forget reading your first article in Sars-cov19 and thinking you are onto something. Here we are today and you were right all along. I guess the next question is the big one. Why was gain of function funding continued, the players involved, how was the virus released and why and who is profiting from this. Frightening.
Check the quasi-species post for how it got started.
And it all just comes down to money, they want to protect both the vaccine research as well as the ability to tinker with the human genome like they want to do at the Broad Institute.
Why GoF? Because the Modern Age is addicted to speed. Instead of focusing on sampling nature, I speculate a high valuation was placed on quickening the evolutionary timescale. Who hasn't dreamt of peering into a real crystal ball. The reward?: accolades, pats-on-the back, phat-checks/royalties. A valued member of the club. The hubris of it is religious. Building an Index is a multi-generational, painstaking legacy endeavor. People are so impatient these days.
Couple of questions... Is it possible to predict (it is really a look backwards into its history, to which it is returning by deattenuation), what will it revert to?
Also, do you think that a hypothesis that Omicron is lab made, is based on strong evidence, weak evidence, or is false?
I recall a video of Peter Dazchak discussing "modeling" of what changes are likely to happen once a virus is in circulation, how realistic is this?
As far as I can tell the only thing that can be inferred is that it will be highly pathogenic because it was built on humanized mice, which are a mix genetically of two species.
Something close to SARS or MERS given the additional surrounding context here.
And I'm not sure what you're asking, I think omicron is just a step back toward the original virus.
What I am thinking is that Omicron is a product of someone who worked in a lab and made Omicron for whatever reason. I do not think that it appeared without active lab intervention. You think that I am wrong and it occurrred naturally, right?
I recall a video of Peter Dazchak discussing "modeling" of what changes are likely to happen once a virus is in circulation, how realistic is this modeling? Can we model how this swarm will change in the future?
I don't think it occurred naturally, only so much as it's part of the process of this vaccine going back to full strength, which is inherently unnatural.
it's going to be highly pathogenic I'm not sure what you're asking, but no no one really measures it.
Without anal swabs there is no way, none of this is ever going to happen it doesn't matter anymore.
Some Chinese rumors are that people in Xi'an China are hemorrhaging blood from their eyes and noses. Xi'an is under extreme lockdown where ppl are starving in apartments.
I am not sure whether it is true and there is a lot of unfounded BS reported in general, is that hantavirus or covid etc? Why would they lock down a city over a non-transmissible hantavirus?
So, what is/was it de-attenuating to? Is it a worse virus or is/was it getting milder, well, milder before I suppose we applied evolutionary pressure via lockdowns and social distancing, and then deployed a Gain of Function serial passage experiment disguised as a vaccine.
"The binding epitope on S harbors a sequence motif unique to SARS-CoV-2 (not present in other SARS-related coronaviruses), which is highly similar in both sequence and structure to the bacterial superantigen staphylococcal enterotoxin B."
H2BH -- have read your articles for the last year and appreciate your ongoing attempts to break things down critically. So let me ask a question as I'm curious what your view is....
This is the first time I've read an argument that COVID is a de-attenuating virus. So I'm curious how you reconcile this theory with suggestive evidence that fatality of the virus was higher in the past and then the circumstantial evidence the virus targeted women more virulently than men early on.
By the former I mean more than the early videos of people collapsing in the street, but also projections of the mortality rate as somewhere in the 1-2% range based on cases like the Diamond Princess. On the latter, there is the rumour that one of the earliest researchers to die was a young women, and then the suggestion from the Washington Post (?) that one of the early fatalities was the wife of one of the three WIV researchers who got sick. But now men are affected disproportionately it seems.
Wondering if you have any thoughts. How can a de-attenuating virus be both increasing infectiousness and danger and yet also losing those properties relatively quickly? What am I missing here?
Whoops, I'd meant to add it - it was in another file but it's in part ii now:
So the largely asymptomatic spread of a deattenuating live-attenuated vaccine only just beginning to become airborne would explain the fractal and unexpected nature of new pockets of infection, as well as what’s been described as EVALI in America. This odd medical puzzle could have been a less-fit strain of the novel coronavirus, whose quasispecies swarm only managed to flitter across the populations it encountered before burning out.
On the other end of that spectrum was the solution that the PLA likely attempted on the citizens of Wuhan once they realized the virus was airborne and deattenuating out of control, a solution which created the need for draconian lockdowns and gave videos of people collapsing in the street to the world: Discovering a novel airborne RNA virus, the CCP applied some of the lessons learned attempting to vaccinate against another airborne coronavirus, Feline Infection Peritonitis Virus (FIPV), and attempted design a bespoke live-attenuated vaccine with a select groups of genes removed in an attempt to retard its swarm’s overall virulence.
This approach has been on the table for decades, since it was seen to possibly “allow the development of vaccines against infections with other pathogenic coronaviruses, including that causing severe acute respiratory syndrome in humans.”[i] And although it can be incredibly effective if the right genes are removed, take away the wrong ones and 80% of your subjects drop dead inside a month.
And so desperately attempting to contain the growing pandemic, the CCP rushed out a gene-removed live-attenuated vaccine - applying it not to its retreated military already outside the city limits, but instead only to the hapless citizens of Wuhan. Creating a mass casualty event as the bespoke vaccine burned too hot, effectively stopping the swarm but only by killing off its hosts and creating so much death that the Chinese government began welding apartment buildings shut, unsure if this newly juiced swarm would be able to escape the city or only consume the hosts it was administered to.
Just coming back to say thank you for the answer H2BH!
Sure thing, and there's a bit more below as well!!
Awesome questions, I think there's too much fuzziness in the data to talk about gender-differences meaningfully, or individual people who purportedly died, but the early situation in Wuhan is the big outlier - with people appearing to just drop dead in the street.
Once the CCP realized what was happening at the Wuhan Military Games, my guess is they tried to stop the spread by introducing strains with deleterious mutations - so instead of a vaccine, you hit the population with a strain of the virus that's meant to retard its growth and ability to get stronger.
However that's well-known to be very risky when it's tried with livestock and in the lab, and so I think the early disaster we saw in Wuhan was due to the lethality of that introduced strain, which by definition would've burnt itself out once it was done killing.
I explore it more in part ii of my Quasispecies piece:
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/part-ii-understanding-covid-19-and
I will never forget reading your first article in Sars-cov19 and thinking you are onto something. Here we are today and you were right all along. I guess the next question is the big one. Why was gain of function funding continued, the players involved, how was the virus released and why and who is profiting from this. Frightening.
Thanks so much for coming along for the ride!
Check the quasi-species post for how it got started.
And it all just comes down to money, they want to protect both the vaccine research as well as the ability to tinker with the human genome like they want to do at the Broad Institute.
Why GoF? Because the Modern Age is addicted to speed. Instead of focusing on sampling nature, I speculate a high valuation was placed on quickening the evolutionary timescale. Who hasn't dreamt of peering into a real crystal ball. The reward?: accolades, pats-on-the back, phat-checks/royalties. A valued member of the club. The hubris of it is religious. Building an Index is a multi-generational, painstaking legacy endeavor. People are so impatient these days.
Couple of questions... Is it possible to predict (it is really a look backwards into its history, to which it is returning by deattenuation), what will it revert to?
Also, do you think that a hypothesis that Omicron is lab made, is based on strong evidence, weak evidence, or is false?
I recall a video of Peter Dazchak discussing "modeling" of what changes are likely to happen once a virus is in circulation, how realistic is this?
As far as I can tell the only thing that can be inferred is that it will be highly pathogenic because it was built on humanized mice, which are a mix genetically of two species.
Something close to SARS or MERS given the additional surrounding context here.
And I'm not sure what you're asking, I think omicron is just a step back toward the original virus.
What I am thinking is that Omicron is a product of someone who worked in a lab and made Omicron for whatever reason. I do not think that it appeared without active lab intervention. You think that I am wrong and it occurrred naturally, right?
I recall a video of Peter Dazchak discussing "modeling" of what changes are likely to happen once a virus is in circulation, how realistic is this modeling? Can we model how this swarm will change in the future?
I don't think it occurred naturally, only so much as it's part of the process of this vaccine going back to full strength, which is inherently unnatural.
it's going to be highly pathogenic I'm not sure what you're asking, but no no one really measures it.
Without anal swabs there is no way, none of this is ever going to happen it doesn't matter anymore.
Okay, thanks, I learned a lot.
Some Chinese rumors are that people in Xi'an China are hemorrhaging blood from their eyes and noses. Xi'an is under extreme lockdown where ppl are starving in apartments.
I am not sure whether it is true and there is a lot of unfounded BS reported in general, is that hantavirus or covid etc? Why would they lock down a city over a non-transmissible hantavirus?
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1242782.shtml
Good question, interesting times indeed.
So, what is/was it de-attenuating to? Is it a worse virus or is/was it getting milder, well, milder before I suppose we applied evolutionary pressure via lockdowns and social distancing, and then deployed a Gain of Function serial passage experiment disguised as a vaccine.
Oh all your answers can be found right here, kind reader:
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/understanding-covid-19-and-seasonal
Hi Dan,
Could you please confirm if the omicron theory below is true? Thanks!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7568239/ Superantigenic character of an insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with hyperinflammation Sept. 2020
"The binding epitope on S harbors a sequence motif unique to SARS-CoV-2 (not present in other SARS-related coronaviruses), which is highly similar in both sequence and structure to the bacterial superantigen staphylococcal enterotoxin B."
https://www.cell.com/structure/fulltext/S0969-2126(21)00121-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0969212621001210%3Fshowall%3Dtrue A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro April 2021
https://www.reddit.com/r/cvnews/comments/rdtb0c/omicron_529_staphylococcus_enterotoxin_b_is_a/ "Now look at Omicron spike protein 671-692. Two amino acid changes and one is the infamous proline change near the FCS. Prolines are right angle brackets in proteins. When they change, they alter structure. P681H N679K This may attenuate the SEB toxicity. Fewer Cytokine storms."