With the military still failing to intervene, it is time for controlled radicalisation. In times like these, controlled radicalisation is little more than a civic duty. Controlled radicalisation is done for someone else. The time of coloring within the lines is over. That means for the controlled radical: scratching, folding, cutting, erasing, searing, chiselling and tearing neatly within the lines. A start.
We've seen1 in the Previous Virusvaria Article that even a match of the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the WIV lab virus does not provide conclusive evidence that the virus comes from the lab. Not every smoking gun fired the fatal bullet. What would be definitive proof: the hasty laundering of the PCR test as it was used in the WIV lab. Is there any evidence of this?
Het Corman-Drosten paper, de onderbouwing van de PCR-test, was onwaarschijnlijk snel klaar. Destijds was er, los van de kritiek van Pieter Borger et al2 Pieter Borger's criticism of the Corman-Drosten paper, al ophef over de onmogelijk snelle peer review want alleen die cyclus loopt gemiddeld al enkele weken tot maanden, inclusief alle aanpassingen, discussies en opnieuw te beoordelen revisies. Dr. Simon Goddek maakte zich daar vorig jaar ook al druk over on his Substack, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Proximal Origin timeline
The overnight peer review wasn't the only amazing aspect of that paper. Because how long does it normally take to produce such a (pseudo-)scientific paper? For example, let's take a look at the super-fast arranged "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2", the article that convinced the world with the much-quoted conclusion: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or deliberately engineered virus.”
That article, written by five scientists, was published on 17 March 2020 door Nature Medicine. Het leidde tot forse kritiek. Of die kritiek terecht is laat ik in het midden, belangrijker is hoe de auteurs er zelf in werkelijkheid over dachten. Dat weten we nu dankzij Claimed private correspondence. But we care about the timeline. The date of the start of production is February 1, we read in a Wall Street Journal article:
[Lead author] Mr. Andersen's posts confirm that top scientists in charge of major funding agencies urged them to draft the document after a conference call on 1 February 2020, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version. 3These were Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins and Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust. Shortly before their paper became public, evolutionary biologist and virologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney reported to his fellow authors that "Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins are very pleased" with the final design. Two of the authors wrote in private messages that they had rushed to publish their paper under pressure from unnamed "higher-ups." The role of these senior scientists was not recognized in the article.
The first version of Proximal Origin was sent to Nature on February 17. So that was already two or three weeks after the briefing. That version was rejected by a peer reviewer who found any reference to a possible lab leak unnecessary (presumably Marion Koopmans). In the end, the total delivery time was just under seven weeks, when the modified item was accepted by Nature Medicine. There was blood rush behind it, the fire was on the shins. Proximal Origin was a 15,000-word article prepared by a small, united team of 5 authors (a productive team size) who already knew in advance what the conclusion should be. That's nice work. It can hardly be faster – you would think.
The timeline of the PCR test (Corman-Drosten paper)
Let's take that production period of 3 to 7 weeks next to the Corman-Drosten paper4 Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR the scientific basis for the corona PCR test. 20,000 words, 24 authors. Twenty-four. So how long did the total production of that PCR study take?
- December 31, 2019: The Chinese Center for Disease Prevention and Control from Wuhan confirms the existence of a cluster of [Covid-19] patients.
- January 11, 2020: Edward Holmes shares the virus genome.
- January 23, 2020: Publication date of the peer reviewed paper that served to support the PCR test.
- February 8, 2020: the virus named SARS-CoV-2 is identified as the causative agent of the pneumonia 5wikipedia, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
The paper had already been written, peerreviewed and published when the virus had yet to be officially identified! You can't. That's writing a news story about an event that hasn't happened yet. And that in less than two weeks after the (possibly correct?) genome could be downloaded. This is remarkably energetic, especially since 24 authors contributed to the article. Anyone who has ever done co-creation knows how egos want to pee on something like this. In a scientific process, these authors provide the necessary revision work among themselves, many times more time-consuming than those five ghostwriters from Proximal Origin, who had already been instructed in advance what science should look like in their paper.
A key figure is Edward Holmes who, according to multiple sources including NRC, made the virus genome available for download on January 11, 2020. He is not mentioned in the study. He had the information again from Dr. Yong-Zhen Zhang, from the Chinese National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention. Zijn teugels zijn sindsdien sterk aangehaald. Zhang staat wel genoemd bij de referenties.
Let's just say that the link between the available genome and Chinese health institutes and laboratories was not exactly put in the spotlight. Holmes was indeed the link between 'our' PCR test and the Chinese. He somehow doesn't have such an active memory of it (see the bit from The Australian).
Edward Holmes would later reappear as one of 24 authors who appeared in The Proximal Origin trying to debunk any link to the Wuhan lab.
Was the Wuhan PCR test not suitable for this virus?
The paper does not build on the hard work of the Wuhan scientists. No: the authors (including Marion Koopmans) were given the idea by social media:
The authors of the Corman-Drosten PCR paper, virologists from the Fauci network, explain why they thought it might be SARS virus even before it was announced.
That vagueness doesn't fit in a scientific paper. That raises questions.
Realize that coronaviruses have been used in laboratories for decades. That means: tinkering with viruses, in vitro research, infecting laboratory animals with them, letting laboratory animals infect each other, often in series one after the other. And constantly measure what the viruses do, how the infections progress, whether there may be infections with or without symptoms, monitor antibodies.
In these labs, PCR tests are used to detect the presence of a virus. Every PCR test comes with a scientific justification stating why that specific test with those particular primers works well on a certain type of virus. Such a paper must also have been available in the Wuhan lab for the tests used there for (SARS) coronaviruses. That paper will have disappeared when the WIV databases are taken offline.
Why did a separate paper have to be made? Weren't those Wuhan tests suitable for this particular virus? If so, which Twitter account(s) knew that, in early January 2020? Who thought it likely that it was just that one virus family, and so convincing that they started downloading those virus sequences instead of asking the lab if they might have suitable tests ready? Or perhaps there was another source that informed them about this?
Surely you would say that a test used in the Wuhan lab must have been suitable, possibly with a small modification. Understandably, they weren't going to sell it. There is not even a reference to the WIV, the epicenter of corona research. Was there no useful knowledge there?
All in all, it is quite conceivable that that corona PCR paper only had to be translated from English (or Chinese). With some extra editing due to the uncertain situation of an uncharted virus of unknown origin and without references to the lab. It could just be a smokescreen.
If the test was NOT used in the Wuhan lab (and how did they know?) I would like to know how in Wuhan the infections with an almost identical coronavirus were tested. The accompanying paper can then be placed next to the Corman-Drosten paper.
What is most likely:
- A PCR test has never been used in the coronavirus study in Wuhan.
- The PCR test has been used, but involved virologists, vaccine manufacturers, regulators assumed that no research was being done in Wuhan on exactly those viruses.
- The PCR test was in use, but neither the lab nor the virologists involved could come forward with it. With that, they would raise their finger: "Look here! We already tested for that virus!" Then you do attract attention.
- In order to prevent a pandemic disaster and, in a desperate attempt to perhaps end the case with a hiss, a test really had to be carried out immediately. How do you solve that when you know that the test can be found at the source of the virus, without exposing the source? This can be done, for example, via a detour, from laboratory technician or researcher to superiors, to a government agency that lets it 'leak' through a foreign connection and turn it into a dead end.
Exciting, isn't it?
Actually, it doesn't really matter if the disease is zoonosis or leaked from a lab. The greatest damage has been caused by the hysterical overreaction of the medical bio-industry: virologists, pharmaceutical companies, regulators and subsidizing governments. All the focus is on now the virus but the test certainly deserves so much attention. Similarities between tests say more than similarities between viruses. It could be an irrefutable missing link.
The virologists have set in motion a hysterical cascade of measures. Maybe the virus didn't even come out of the lab, but at least they did. They were shocked when the sick were spotted: a red-hot act, we are the bastard. With Fauci leading the way. They knew that the Chinese PCR test would suffice and worked that method into a new paper for a test for a novel virus, to circumvent the link with the lab. That's a quick snap. This prior knowledge would then show that SARS-CoV-2 does indeed originate from the lab.
De oorzaak van dit soort speculaties is het achterhouden van bewijsmateriaal waarmee zo’n scenario eenvoudig zou kunnen worden ontkracht danwel bevestigd. Dat krijg je ervan. Weg vertrouwen. Op naar gecontroleerde radicalisering.
References
- 1in the Previous Virusvaria Article
- 2
- 3These were Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins and Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust. Shortly before their paper became public, evolutionary biologist and virologist Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney reported to his fellow authors that "Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins are very pleased" with the final design. Two of the authors wrote in private messages that they had rushed to publish their paper under pressure from unnamed "higher-ups." The role of these senior scientists was not recognized in the article.
- 4
- 5
What an ingenious idea: instead of looking at differences between viruses, you can also investigate differences in PCR tests. But in fact, in both cases you are facing a closed door: Wuhan is of course not going to release anything, no virus definitions and no PCR test prescriptions. What stands like a rock is the ridiculously fast publication of the Corman-Drosten paper. Almost proof that information can travel faster than the speed of light.
Surely the well-known top virologists, but also important politicians (including Chinese), who all seem to benefit from the fact that the coronavirus did NOT escape from the Wuhan lab, could simply ensure that WIV plays the open card? And release the database? Rara why doesn't that happen.
Yes, exactly. It smacks on all sides. I wonder how criminal cases deal with the withholding of decisive evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory. Has there ever been a precedent of someone withholding exculpatory evidence? Seems stiff to me!