WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE [1].
You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [2].
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE [3].
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work. [4]
Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES [5].
FTR #1130 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment. [6]
[7]Introduction: In addition to reviewing and highlighting cogent arguments that the SARS-Cov2 (Covid-19) virus may indeed have been made in a laboratory, the program examines significant aspects of the heretofore puzzling epidemiology of the virus. (We do NOT believe that the virus was synthesized by China, as “Team Trump” is charging.)
First, however, the broadcast sets forth information about the quest for a Covid-19 vaccine.
The makeup of Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” [8]program to develop a Covid-19 vaccine in record time is alarming. (No vaccine has ever been developed for human use in less than four years.)
“Operation Warp Speed”:
- Is headed by Moncef Slaoui, formerly the chairman of Moderna’s product development committee: ” . . . . Dr. Slaoui served on the board of Moderna, a biotechnology company that has an experimental coronavirus vaccine that just entered Phase 2 of clinical trials to determine if it is effective. As the chairman of the Moderna board’s product development committee, Dr. Slaoui might have been privy to the early indications of tests of whether the company’s approach appeared promising, now that it is being injected into human subjects. . . .”
- Is seen by Slaoui as promising by Slaoui, who may well be referencing tests on Moderna’s mRNA vaccine: “. . . . Dr. Slaoui, now a venture capitalist, said that he had ‘recently seen early data from a clinical trial with a coronavirus vaccine, and these data made me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine’ — enough to inoculate much of the United States — ‘by the end of 2020.’ . . . .”
- Will be assisted by a four-star general: ” . . . . . . . . Mr. Slaoui will serve as the chief adviser on the effort, and Gen. Gustave F. Perna, a four-star general who is in charge the Army Matériel Command, will be the chief operating officer. . . .”
- Perna was recruited by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: ” . . . . General Perna, who runs the Army’s complex supply chain, said that he was asked by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help run the manufacturing logistics related to the vaccine development. . . .”
[9]Note that Moncef Slaoui holds 10 million dollars worth [10] of Moderna stock, which has tripled in value since the Covid-19 outbreak began:” . . . . The former pharma executive tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the federal government’s hunt for a COVID-19 vaccine has more than $10 million in stock options in one of the companies receiving federal funding. . . . Described across four separate filings, Slaoui has 155,438 options in Moderna. The stake is worth $10,366,000 at Moderna’s current share price, $66.69 at the time of publication. Moderna shares have almost tripled in value during 2020. The $66.69 figure represents an increase of 184% from the $23.46 it was trading for on January 1. . . .” (The day the program was recorded, Moderna’s stock increased by 25% in value, and Slaoui announced he would sell his stock.)
In past posts [11] and programs [12], we have noted the Moderna–one of the companies selected to develop a Covid-19 vaccine, has been substantially underwritten by the Pentagon (DARPA).
Key points of discussion in that regard:
- Moderna is using novel vaccine technology using the injection of genetic material to create antibodies. This technology has never been used on human beings. “. . . . The second pharmaceutical company that was selected by CEPI to develop a vaccine for the new coronavirus is Moderna Inc., which will develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus of concern in collaboration with the U.S. NIH and which will be funded entirely by CEPI. The vaccine in question, as opposed to Inovio’s DNA vaccine, will be a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Though different than a DNA vaccine, mRNA vaccines still use genetic material ‘to direct the body’s cells to produce intracellular, membrane or secreted proteins.’ Moderna’s mRNA treatments, including its mRNA vaccines, were largely developed using a $25 million grant [13] from DARPA and it often touts is strategic alliance with DARPA in press releases [14]. . . .”
- The technology has alarming possible negative side-effects. “. . . . Both DNA and mRNA vaccines involve the introduction of foreign and engineered genetic material into a person’s cells and past studies have found [15] that such vaccines ‘possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards’ and that ‘there is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.’ Nonetheless, the climate of fear surrounding the coronavirus outbreak could be enough for the public and private sector to develop and distribute such controversial treatments due to fear about the epidemic potential of the current outbreak. . . .”
- Looming large in the background of the Moderna vaccine technology is DARPA funding of “gene drive” technology. “. . . . Concerns about Pentagon experiments with biological weapons have garnered renewed media attention, particularly after it was revealed in 2017 that DARPA [16] was the top funder of the controversial ‘gene drive’ technology, which has the power to permanently alter the genetics of entire populations while targeting others for extinction. At least two of DARPA’s studies using this controversial technology were classified and ‘focused on the potential military application of gene drive technology and use of gene drives in agriculture,’ according to media reports [17]. . . . Co-director of the ETC Group Jim Thomas said that [17] this technology may be used as a biological weapon: ‘Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused, The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.’ . . . . However, the therapies being developed by Inovio, Moderna and the University of Queensland are in alignment with DARPA’s objectives regarding gene editing and vaccine technology. For instance, in 2015, DARPA geneticist Col. Daniel Wattendorf described how [18] the agency was investigating a ‘new method of vaccine production [that] would involve giving the body instructions for making certain antibodies. Because the body would be its own bioreactor, the vaccine could be produced much faster than traditional methods and the result would be a higher level of protection.’ . . . .”
As discussed in FTR #1124 [19]–among other programs–it is now possible to create ANY virus from scratch, using “mail-order” or “designer” genes. In FTR #282 [20]–recorded in May of 2001–we noted the terrible significance of the development of such “Designer Gene” technology.
A BBC story from 1999 [21] highlights the fears of experts that the advent of such technology could enable the development of ethno-specific biological weapons: ” . . . . Advances in genetic knowledge could be misused to develop powerful biological weapons that could be tailored to strike at specific ethnic groups, the British Medical Association has warned. A BMA report Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity says that concerted international action is necessary to block the development of new, biological weapons. . . . The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . . Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA Head of Health Policy Research said: ‘The history of humanity is a history of war. Scientific advances quickly lead to developments in weapons technology. . . .‘Biotechnology and genetic knowledge are equally open to this type of malign use. . . .”
We highlight information presented in FTR #1129 [22], for purposes of emphasizing the flimsy nature of the argument presented in a paper from Nature Medicine [23].
Many scientific and medical people dismissing the argument that the Covid-19 coronavirus may have been created in a laboratory may be acting out of the sincere desire to preclude a full-dress Cold War between the U.S. and China. The Trump administration has tirelessly flogged the “China did it and it came from a laboratory” meme. Many liberals who dismissed the obvious fact that President Kennedy was murdered by a cabal of powerful U.S. national security interests did so because of what Peter Dale Scott calls a “level one cover-up”–alleged Soviet and/or Castro Cuban manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald, fabricated by the executioners themselves.
Two telling, thoughtful, substantive critiques of the Nature Medicine [23] article shed light on the flimsy nature of its arguments.
It would not be unfair to characterize the article as “The Warren Report” of the Covid-19 pandemic.
[24]Genetic Engineering
Like the Bible, it is open to serious scientific refutation: ” . . . . To put it simply, the authors are saying that SARS-CoV‑2 was not deliberately engineered because if it were, it would have been designed differently. However, the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou [25] commented that this line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a number of laboratory-based systems that can select for high affinity RBD variants that are able to take into account the complex environment of a living organism. This complex environment may impact the efficiency with which the SARS-CoV spike protein can find the ACE2 receptor and bind to it. An RBD selected via these more realistic real-world experimental systems would be just as ‘ideal’, or even more so, for human ACE2 binding than any RBD that a computer model could predict. And crucially, it would likely be different in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV‑2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the computer program predicted in no way rules out the possibility that it was genetically engineered. . . .”
Dr. Michael Antoniou notes that different genetic engineering processes than the one highlighted in the Nature Medicine paper can be used: ” . . . . There is another method by which an enhanced-infectivity virus can be engineered in the lab. A well-known alternative process that could have been used has the cumbersome name of “directed iterative evolutionary selection process [26]”. In this case, it would involve using genetic engineering to generate a large number of randomly mutated versions of the SARS-CoV spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which would then be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells. . . .”
The notion that the Nature Medicine authors had not heard of the above process is not credible: ” . . . . Such a directed iterative evolutionary selection process is a frequently used method in laboratory research. So there is little or no possibility that the Nature Medicine article authors haven’t heard of it – not least, as it is considered so scientifically important that its inventors were awarded [27] the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018. . . .”
Of more than passing significance is another article [28] that finds serious fault with the Nature Medicine paper. ” . . . . Professor Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, says that a key argument used to deny that it could be a genetically engineered strain that escaped from a laboratory actually points to the exact opposite. In other words, it indicates that SARS-CoV‑2 could well be genetically engineered and that it could have escaped from a lab. . . . As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted [29], Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV‑2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses – the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape’.‘But Professor Newman says [30] that this is totally unconvincing because ‘The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the US and China) for two decades.’ . . .”
Professor Newman goes on to highlight other, serious flaws in the argument: ” . . . In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut [31], amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper [32]). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.’ Moreover, Newman added, “The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper [33] they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity. . . . .”
Worth noting, again, is the British Medical Association’s warning discussed in FTR #1129 [22], as well as above: ” . . . .The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . .”
As the GMWatch authors conclude: ” . . . . Such ‘enhanced infectivity’ research is carried out on viruses all over the world (and not just in China) to investigate their behaviour and to develop vaccines and other therapies, as well as for ‘biodefence’ purposes. . . .”
Reports are now emerging of possible Covid-19 infection among athletes who participated at the Military World Games in Wuhan in October 19.
We have speculated at some length about the possibility that infecting those very healthy, superbly-conditioned individuals might have been an excellent vehicle for spreading the virus around the world.
Further discussion of this can be found in FTR #‘s 1118 [34] and 1122 [35]. We note that China has speculated about the Wuhan Military World Games being a vehicle for the U.S. to spread the infection.
We have noted that language is, past a point, inadequate to analyze and discuss some of the major considerations in the Covid-19 “op.” A bio-weapons would require a very small number of agents in order to be effectively disseminated. In addition, we note that–in the age of mind control [36]–an operative can be dispensed to perform a function without their knowledge.
In addition to French athletes [37], contingents from Sweden, Spain [38] and Italy [39] appear to have become infected [40]. The apparent infection of the French athletes pre-dates the first confirmed case in China by 20 days.
A fish merchant [37] who worked near Charles De Gaulle Airport tested positive for the virus on December 27.
The apparently infected athletes participating in the Military World Games further complicates the puzzling epidemiology of the virus.
Doctors quoted in a New York Times [41] piece underscore the anomalous epidemiology of the virus: ” . . . . In San Jose, tissue sampling from a woman who died on Feb. 6 [42]revealed that she was probably the first known person in the U.S. whose death was linked to the coronavirus — a strong sign that the virus may have been circulating in that part of Northern California in January. But was it part of a large, previously unrecognized outbreak?
“Dr. George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, theorized that perhaps the woman, who worked for a company that had an office in Wuhan, was one of only a small number of people who contracted the virus at that time and that transmissions probably petered out for some reason. Otherwise, he said, the region would have seen a much bigger outbreak. . . .
“. . . . Dr. [Trevor] Bedford said he also believed this was the more likely scenario, noting that up to half of people with coronavirus infections have no symptoms. . . .
“. . . . There could have been a tiny number of isolated coronavirus cases among travelers to the United States in December, Dr. Bedford said. But it is pretty clear that none of them spread.
In part, scientists can tell that by looking at the genomic fingerprints of each case. But another clue is the rapid rate at which the virus spreads, Dr. Rutherford said. . . . Researchers are not seeing any chains that appear to go that far back. . . .”
Leading the Trump administration’s rhetorical and political charge [43] against China is Mike Pompeo. Charging that the virus “escaped” from a lab in Wuhan and equivocating about whether that release was intentional, Koch brothers-protege Pompeo cited alleged duplicity on behalf of China’s communist party in connection with the virus. ” . . . . ‘I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan,’ Pompeo said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ Sunday. ‘Do you think they intentionally released that virus, or it was an accident in the lab?’ Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz pressed. ‘I can’t answer your question about that,’ he said, ‘because the Chinese Communist Party has refused to cooperate with world health experts.’ . . .”
The Chinese medical and scientific establishment has worked closely with counterparts globally in an attempt to analyze and treat the virus.
The highly anomalous epidemiology, the lack of symptoms in half of infected patients, the wide variety of symptoms the virus causes and, lastly, the fact that this was a novel virus and resulting infection are all factors to be considered in evaluating the timeliness of the Chinese response.
Pompeo also asserts that the virus was not made in a laboratory.
Next, we highlight a misleading story in Rupert Murdoch’s The Daily Telegraph [44] out of Sydney, Australia. The story alleges that the Five Eyes electronic intelligence network has corroborated the “it came from a Chinese lab” meme.
Of more than passing interest is the disclosure that the project on bat-borne coronaviruses conducted in the Wuhan laboratory was a joint U.S./Chinese project, and that Ralph Baric [45] was a key American partner [19] in the project.
This is the undertaking [46] about which we have reported and discussed [22] extensively in the past! ” . . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with ‘Science Daily’ at the time: ‘This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.’ . . . .”
Baric was the selectee to reconstruct the SARS Cov2 virus from scratch. Note that the article below discusses the U.S. suspension of the “gain of function” experiments and 2017 resumption of same, somehow spinning this into the “China did it” disinformation.
The military has links to the Wuhan lab: ” . . . . Furthermore, DARPA and the Pentagon’s past history with bioweapons and their more recent experiments on genetic alteration and extinction technologies as well as bats and coronaviruses in proximity to China have been largely left out of the narrative, despite the information being publicly available. Also left out of the media narrative have been the direct ties of both the USAMRIID and DARPA-partnered Duke University to the city of Wuhan, including its Institute of Medical Virology. . . .”
A Guardian [47] article sources UK intelligence assets claiming that the 15-page dossier didn’t come from a Five Eyes intelligence assessment. They assert that it was based on open-source materials and put forward by the US as “a tool for building a counter-narrative and applying pressure to China.”
We conclude with analysis of Trump’s deputy national security adviser.
Against the background of the Trump administration’s anti-China campaign rhetoric and attempts to pin the blame for Covid-19 on a “laboratory” leak and/or deliberate release, we note that the offensive is being pushed by The Donald’s deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger.
“. . . . Matthew Pottinger [48], the deputy national security adviser who reported on SARS outbreaks [49] as a journalist in China, pressed intelligence agencies [50] in January to gather information that might support any origin theory linked to a lab. . . .”
Pottinger is the son of former Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger [51].
Pottinger, Senior was [52]: Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Nixon and Ford; reported by Donald Freed and Fred Landis (in “Death in Washington”) to have foiled investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Orlando Letelier; the attorney for the Hashemi brothers in the October Surprise investigation; a close personal friend of George H.W. Bush (for whom CIA headquarters was named) and, last but certainly not least, Gloria Steinem’s lover for nine years.
Despite the fact that Steinem touted her CIA background as good journalistic credentials in both “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post” (both with long-standing CIA links themselves), Pottinger has defended her against charges that she worked for the CIA!!
Worth noting, as well, is the fact that the Letelier assassination was one of the murders conducted under Operation Condor, assisted by the CIA. Letelier was killed by a car bomb in Washington D.C., while J.Stanley Pottinger’s good friend George H.W. Bush was in charge of the CIA when Letelier was hit.
(We have covered Operation Condor in numerous programs, including AFA #19 [53]. One of the operational centers of Condor was the Chilean Nazi enclave Colonia Dignidad. In FTR #839 [54], we set forth author Peter Levenda’s brave, frightening visit to “The Colony.” This should be digested by anyone interested in the history of which Pottinger, Sr., is a part.)
One wonders if Matthew may have followed J. Stanley into the CIA, if in fact Daddio is Agency, as Mr. Emory suspects.
In FTR #s 998 [55], 999 [56], 1000 [57], we set forth what Mr. Emory calls “weaponized feminism.” Refashioning the doctrine of advancing the cause of women into a legal and political weapon for destroying targeted men, dominant manifestations of the #MeToo movement have served the cause of the far right.
Resembling–in its essence–the “libidinal McCarthyism” of Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible,” [58] many high-profile manifestations of #MeToo have been propelled by evidentiary material that ranges from dubious to ludicrous to non-existent.
We find it more than coincidental that Bernie Sanders supporter [59] Tara Reade’s shape-shifting accusations against Joe Biden have surfaced decades after the alleged incident–coinciding with Biden’s challenging of Trump and with Pottinger, Jr. helping to direct the administration’s traffic.
1. The makeup of Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” [8]program to develop a Covid-19 vaccine in record time is alarming. (No vaccine has ever been developed for human use in less than four years.)
“Operation Warp Speed”:
- Is headed by Moncef Slaoui, formerly the chairman of Moderna’s product development committee: ” . . . . Dr. Slaoui served on the board of Moderna, a biotechnology company that has an experimental coronavirus vaccine that just entered Phase 2 of clinical trials to determine if it is effective. As the chairman of the Moderna board’s product development committee, Dr. Slaoui might have been privy to the early indications of tests of whether the company’s approach appeared promising, now that it is being injected into human subjects. . . .”
- Is seen by Slaoui as promising by Slaoui, who may well be referencing tests on Moderna’s mRNA vaccine: “. . . . Dr. Slaoui, now a venture capitalist, said that he had ‘recently seen early data from a clinical trial with a coronavirus vaccine, and these data made me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine’ — enough to inoculate much of the United States — ‘by the end of 2020.’ . . . .”
- Will be assisted by a four-star general: ” . . . . . . . . Mr. Slaoui will serve as the chief adviser on the effort, and Gen. Gustave F. Perna, a four-star general who is in charge the Army Matériel Command, will be the chief operating officer. . . .”
- Perna was recruited by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: ” . . . . General Perna, who runs the Army’s complex supply chain, said that he was asked by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help run the manufacturing logistics related to the vaccine development. . . .”
. . . .The new chief of what Mr. Trump calls Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, a former chairman of vaccines at GlaxoSmithKline, called Mr. Trump’s goal “very credible,” even though the fastest a new vaccine has been developed and distributed is four years and most have taken considerably longer [60].
Dr. Slaoui, now a venture capitalist, said that he had “recently seen early data from a clinical trial with a coronavirus vaccine, and these data made me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine” — enough to inoculate much of the United States — “by the end of 2020.”
He did not identify which vaccine he was referring to, but until Friday, when he resigned to take on the new job with the White House, Dr. Slaoui served on the board of Moderna, a biotechnology company that has an experimental coronavirus vaccine that just entered Phase 2 of clinical trials to determine if it is effective.
As the chairman of the Moderna board’s product development committee, Dr. Slaoui might have been privy to the early indications of tests of whether the company’s approach appeared promising, now that it is being injected into human subjects. . . .
. . . . Mr. Slaoui will serve as the chief adviser on the effort, and Gen. Gustave F. Perna, a four-star general who is in charge the Army Matériel Command, will be the chief operating officer.
Mr. Slaoui said he discussed the job with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who had been searching for a so-called czar for therapeutics and vaccine development, and Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator.
General Perna, who runs the Army’s complex supply chain, said that he was asked by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help run the manufacturing logistics related to the vaccine development. Beyond the vaccine itself, there are also substantial challenges in ensuring adequate capacity of the supplies needed to distribute and administer it [61], starting with the special glass in which vaccine doses are transported.
Mr. Slaoui and General Perna met for the first time on Wednesday, and they have been in frequent contact since then, the general said in a separate interview. They will have offices in the Department of Health and Human Services, where the secretary, Alex M. Azar II, helped develop Operation Warp Speed at the president’s request. . . .
2. Moncef Slaoui holds 10 million dollars worth [10] of Moderna stock, which has tripled in value since the Covid-19 outbreak began:” . . . . The former pharma executive tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the federal government’s hunt for a COVID-19 vaccine has more than $10 million in stock options in one of the companies receiving federal funding. . . . Described across four separate filings, Slaoui has 155,438 options in Moderna. The stake is worth $10,366,000 at Moderna’s current share price, $66.69 at the time of publication. Moderna shares have almost tripled in value during 2020. The $66.69 figure represents an increase of 184% from the $23.46 it was trading for on January 1. . . .”
The former pharma executive tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the federal government’s hunt for a COVID-19 vaccine has more than $10 million in stock options in one of the companies receiving federal funding.
Dr Moncef Slaoui, a Belgian-American, was this week named Chief Scientist for Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” which aims to develop a working vaccine as fast as possible. . . .
. . . . In order to take up the position, Slaoui resigned his role on the board of directors for Moderna Inc. [62], a biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to the Associated Press [63], Slaoui’s White House role is unpaid. . . .
. . . . However, filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission [64] show that Slaoui continues to hold valuable stock options in Moderna.
Described across four separate filings, Slaoui has 155,438 options in Moderna. The stake is worth $10,366,000 at Moderna’s current share price, $66.69 at the time of publication.
Moderna shares have almost tripled in value during 2020. The $66.69 figure represents an increase of 184% from the $23.46 it was trading for on January 1.
Part of this sharp increase was fueled by an injection of more than $400 million from the federal government to assist trials of a coronavirus vaccine. . . .
3. In past posts [11] and programs [12], we have noted the Moderna–one of the companies selected to develop a Covid-19 vaccine, has been substantially underwritten by the Pentagon (DARPA).
Key points of discussion in that regard:
- Moderna is using novel vaccine technology using the injection of genetic material to create antibodies. This technology has never been used on human beings. “. . . . The second pharmaceutical company that was selected by CEPI to develop a vaccine for the new coronavirus is Moderna Inc., which will develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus of concern in collaboration with the U.S. NIH and which will be funded entirely by CEPI. The vaccine in question, as opposed to Inovio’s DNA vaccine, will be a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Though different than a DNA vaccine, mRNA vaccines still use genetic material ‘to direct the body’s cells to produce intracellular, membrane or secreted proteins.’ Moderna’s mRNA treatments, including its mRNA vaccines, were largely developed using a $25 million grant [13] from DARPA and it often touts is strategic alliance with DARPA in press releases [14]. . . .”
- The technology has alarming possible negative side-effects. “. . . . Both DNA and mRNA vaccines involve the introduction of foreign and engineered genetic material into a person’s cells and past studies have found [15] that such vaccines ‘possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards’ and that ‘there is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.’ Nonetheless, the climate of fear surrounding the coronavirus outbreak could be enough for the public and private sector to develop and distribute such controversial treatments due to fear about the epidemic potential of the current outbreak. . . .”
- Looming large in the background of the Moderna vaccine technology is DARPA funding of “gene drive” technology. “. . . . Concerns about Pentagon experiments with biological weapons have garnered renewed media attention, particularly after it was revealed in 2017 that DARPA [16] was the top funder of the controversial ‘gene drive’ technology, which has the power to permanently alter the genetics of entire populations while targeting others for extinction. At least two of DARPA’s studies using this controversial technology were classified and ‘focused on the potential military application of gene drive technology and use of gene drives in agriculture,’ according to media reports [17]. . . . Co-director of the ETC Group Jim Thomas said that [17] this technology may be used as a biological weapon: ‘Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused, The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.’ . . . . However, the therapies being developed by Inovio, Moderna and the University of Queensland are in alignment with DARPA’s objectives regarding gene editing and vaccine technology. For instance, in 2015, DARPA geneticist Col. Daniel Wattendorf described how [18] the agency was investigating a ‘new method of vaccine production [that] would involve giving the body instructions for making certain antibodies. Because the body would be its own bioreactor, the vaccine could be produced much faster than traditional methods and the result would be a higher level of protection.’ . . . .”
. . . . Concerns about Pentagon experiments with biological weapons have garnered renewed media attention, particularly after it was revealed in 2017 that DARPA [16] was the top funder of the controversial ‘gene drive’ technology, which has the power to permanently alter the genetics of entire populations while targeting others for extinction. At least two of DARPA’s studies using this controversial technology were classified and ‘focused on the potential military application of gene drive technology and use of gene drives in agriculture,’ according to media reports [17]. The revelation came after an organization called the ETC Group obtained over 1,000 emails on the military’s interest in the technology as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Co-director of the ETC Group Jim Thomas said that [17] this technology may be used as a biological weapon: ‘Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused, The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.’ . . . .
. . . . The second pharmaceutical company that was selected by CEPI to develop a vaccine for the new coronavirus is Moderna Inc., which will develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus of concern in collaboration with the U.S. NIH and which will be funded entirely by CEPI. The vaccine in question, as opposed to Inovio’s DNA vaccine, will be a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Though different than a DNA vaccine, mRNA vaccines still use genetic material ‘to direct the body’s cells to produce intracellular, membrane or secreted proteins.’ Moderna’s mRNA treatments, including its mRNA vaccines, were largely developed using a $25 million grant [13] from DARPA and it often touts is strategic alliance with DARPA in press releases [14]. . . .
. . . . Both DNA and mRNA vaccines involve the introduction of foreign and engineered genetic material into a person’s cells and past studies have found [15] that such vaccines ‘possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards’ and that ‘there is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.’ Nonetheless, the climate of fear surrounding the coronavirus outbreak could be enough for the public and private sector to develop and distribute such controversial treatments due to fear about the epidemic potential of the current outbreak.
However, the therapies being developed by Inovio, Moderna and the University of Queensland are in alignment with DARPA’s objectives regarding gene editing and vaccine technology. For instance, in 2015, DARPA geneticist Col. Daniel Wattendorf described how [18] the agency was investigating a ‘new method of vaccine production [that] would involve giving the body instructions for making certain antibodies. Because the body would be its own bioreactor, the vaccine could be produced much faster than traditional methods and the result would be a higher level of protection.’
According to media reports [18] on Wattendorf’s statements at the time, the vaccine would be developed as follows:
‘Scientists would harvest viral antibodies from someone who has recovered from a disease such as flu or Ebola. After testing the antibodies’ ability to neutralize viruses in a petri dish, they would isolate the most effective one, determine the genes needed to make that antibody, and then encode many copies of those genes into a circular snippet of genetic material — either DNA or RNA, that the person’s body would then use as a cookbook to assemble the antibody.’
Though Wattendorf asserted that the effects of those vaccines wouldn’t be permanent, DARPA has since been promoting permanent gene modifications as a means of protecting U.S. troops from biological weapons and infectious disease. ‘Why is DARPA doing this? [To] protect a soldier on the battlefield from chemical weapons and biological weapons by controlling their genome — having the genome produce proteins that would automatically protect the soldier from the inside out,’ then-DARPA director Steve Walker (now with Lockheed Martin) said this past September [66] of the project, known as ‘Safe Genes [67].’ . . .
. . . . Now, as fear regarding the current coronavirus outbreak begins to peak, companies with direct ties to DARPA have been tasked with developing its vaccine, the long-term human and environmental impacts of which are unknown and will remain unknown by the time the vaccine is expected to go to market . . . .
Furthermore, DARPA and the Pentagon’s past history with bioweapons and their more recent experiments on genetic alteration and extinction technologies as well as bats and coronaviruses in proximity to China have been largely left out of the narrative, despite the information being publicly available. Also left out of the media narrative have been the direct ties of both the USAMRIID and DARPA-partnered Duke University to the city of Wuhan, including its Institute of Medical Virology. . . .
4. As discussed in FTR #1124 [19]–among other programs–it is now possible to create ANY virus from scratch, using “mail-order” or “designer” genes. Sadly predictable journalistic bromides that the Covid-19 coronavirus could not have been/was not made in a laboratory fly in the face of bio-technology that has existed for 20 years.
In FTR #282 [20]–recorded in May of 2001–we noted the terrible significance of the development of such “Designer Gene” technology.
A BBC story from 1999 [21] highlights the fears of experts that the advent of such technology could enable the development of ethno-specific biological weapons.
. . . . Advances in genetic knowledge could be misused to develop powerful biological weapons that could be tailored to strike at specific ethnic groups, the British Medical Association has warned. A BMA report Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity says that concerted international action is necessary to block the development of new, biological weapons. It warns the window of opportunity to do so is very narrow as technology is developing rapidly and becoming ever more accessible. ‘Recipes’ for developing biological agents are freely available on the Internet, the report warns. . . . The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . . Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA Head of Health Policy Research said: ‘The history of humanity is a history of war. Scientific advances quickly lead to developments in weapons technology. . . .‘Biotechnology and genetic knowledge are equally open to this type of malign use. Doctors and other scientists have an important role in prevention. They have a duty to persuade politicians and international agencies such as the UN to take this threat seriously and to take action to prevent the production of such weapons.’ . . .
5a. We highlight information presented in FTR #1129 [22], for purposes of emphasizing the flimsy nature of the argument presented in a paper from Nature Medicine [23].
Many scientific and medical people dismissing the argument that the Covid-19 coronavirus may have been created in a laboratory may be acting out of the sincere desire to preclude a full-dress Cold War between the U.S. and China. The Trump administration has tirelessly flogged the “China did it and it came from a laboratory” meme. Many liberals who dismissed the obvious fact that President Kennedy was murdered by a cabal of powerful U.S. national security interests did so because of what Peter Dale Scott calls a “level one cover-up”–alleged Soviet and/or Castro Cuban manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald, fabricated by the executioners themselves.
That notwithstanding, there is abundant evidence of a man-made origin of the virus. (We do NOT believe that the event was authored–deliberately or accidentally–by China. The Covid-19 outbreak [11] occurred in the middle of a “Full-Court-Press” covert and overt regime-change operation against China by the U.S. and its allies, and we feel that those interests are the executive elements behind the pandemic.)
Two telling, thoughtful, substantive critiques of the Nature Medicine [23] article shed light on the flimsy nature of its arguments.
It would not be unfair to characterize the article as “The Warren Report” of the Covid-19 pandemic.
[24]Genetic Engineering
Like the Bible, it is open to serious scientific refutation [68]: ” . . . . To put it simply, the authors are saying that SARS-CoV‑2 was not deliberately engineered because if it were, it would have been designed differently. However, the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou [25] commented that this line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a number of laboratory-based systems that can select for high affinity RBD variants that are able to take into account the complex environment of a living organism. This complex environment may impact the efficiency with which the SARS-CoV spike protein can find the ACE2 receptor and bind to it. An RBD selected via these more realistic real-world experimental systems would be just as ‘ideal’, or even more so, for human ACE2 binding than any RBD that a computer model could predict. And crucially, it would likely be different in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV‑2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the computer program predicted in no way rules out the possibility that it was genetically engineered. . . .”
Dr. Michael Antoniou notes that different genetic engineering processes than the one highlighted in the Nature Medicine paper can be used: ” . . . . There is another method by which an enhanced-infectivity virus can be engineered in the lab. A well-known alternative process that could have been used has the cumbersome name of “directed iterative evolutionary selection process [26]”. In this case, it would involve using genetic engineering to generate a large number of randomly mutated versions of the SARS-CoV spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which would then be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells. . . .”
The notion that the Nature Medicine authors had not heard of the above process is not credible: ” . . . . Such a directed iterative evolutionary selection process is a frequently used method in laboratory research. So there is little or no possibility that the Nature Medicine article authors haven’t heard of it – not least, as it is considered so scientifically important that its inventors were awarded [27] the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018. . . .”
“Was the COVID-19 virus genetically engineered?” by Claire Robinson; GMWatch; 04/22/2020 [68].
Since the COVID-19 pandemic took off, speculation has been rife about its origins. The truth is that nobody knows for certain how the virus first took hold. But despite that uncertainty, suggestions that the virus may have been genetically engineered, or otherwise lab-generated, have been rejected as “conspiracy theories” incompatible with the evidence.
Yet the main evidence that is cited as ending all speculation about the role of genetic engineering and as proving the virus could only have been the product of natural evolution turns out to be surprisingly weak. Let’s take a look at it.
The authors of a recently published paper [23] in the journal Nature Medicine argue that the SARS-CoV‑2 virus driving the pandemic arose through natural mutation and selection in animal (notably bats and pangolins) or human hosts, and not through laboratory manipulation and accidental release. And they say they have identified two key characteristics of the virus that prove this: the absence of a previously used virus backbone and the way in which the virus binds to human cells.
Not the “ideal” design for infectivity?
As you would expect of a virus that can cause a global pandemic, SARS-CoV‑2 is good at infecting human cells. It does this by binding with high affinity (that is, it binds strongly) to the cell surface membrane protein known as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which enables it to enter human cells. But, basing their argument on a computer modelling system, the authors of the Nature Medicine paper argue that the interaction between the virus and the ACE2 receptor is “not ideal”.
They say that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) amino acid sequence of the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein – the part of the spike protein that allows the virus to bind to the ACE2 protein on human cell surfaces – is different from those shown in the SARS-CoV family of viruses to be optimal for receptor binding.
They appear to argue, based on their and others [69]‘ computer modelling data, that they have identified the “ideal” CoV spike protein RBD amino acid sequence for ACE2 receptor binding. They then seem to imply that if you were to genetically engineer SARS-CoV for optimal human ACE2 binding and infectivity, you would use the RBD amino acid sequence predicted by their computer modelling. But they point out that SARS-CoV‑2 does not have exactly the same computer program-predicted RBD amino acid sequence. Thus they conclude that it could not have been genetically engineered, stating: “This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV‑2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”
To put it simply, the authors are saying that SARS-CoV‑2 was not deliberately engineered because if it were, it would have been designed differently.
However, the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou [25] commented that this line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a number of laboratory-based systems that can select for high affinity RBD variants that are able to take into account the complex environment of a living organism. This complex environment may impact the efficiency with which the SARS-CoV spike protein can find the ACE2 receptor and bind to it. An RBD selected via these more realistic real-world experimental systems would be just as “ideal”, or even more so, for human ACE2 binding than any RBD that a computer model could predict. And crucially, it would likely be different in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV‑2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the computer program predicted in no way rules out the possibility that it was genetically engineered.
Limits to computer modelling
Dr Antoniou said that the authors’ reasoning is not conclusive because it is based largely on computer modelling, which, he says, is “not definitive but only predictive. It cannot tell us whether any given virus would be optimized for infectivity in a real world scenario, such as in the human body. That’s because the environment of the human body will influence how the virus interacts with the receptor. You can’t model that accurately with computer modelling as there are simply too many variables to factor into the equation.”
Dr Antoniou added, “People can put too much faith in computer programs, but they are only a beginning. You then have to prove whether the computer program’s prediction is correct or not by direct experimentation in a living organism. This has not been done in the case of this hypothesis, so it remains unproven.”
It is even possible that SARS-CoV‑2 was optimized using a living organism model, resulting in a virus that is better at infecting humans than any computer model could predict.
More than one way to engineer a virus
The authors of the Nature Medicine article seem to assume that the only way to genetically engineer a virus is to take an already known virus and then engineer it to have the new properties you want. On this premise, they looked for evidence of an already known virus that could have been used in the engineering of SARS-CoV‑2.
And they failed to find that evidence. They stated [23], “Genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV‑2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”
But Dr Antoniou told us that while the authors did indeed show that SARS-CoV‑2 was unlikely to have been built by deliberate genetic engineering from a previously used virus backbone, that’s not the only way of constructing a virus. There is another method by which an enhanced-infectivity virus can be engineered in the lab.
A well-known alternative
A well-known alternative process that could have been used has the cumbersome name of “directed iterative evolutionary selection process [26]”. In this case, it would involve using genetic engineering to generate a large number of randomly mutated versions of the SARS-CoV spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which would then be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells.
This selection can be done either with purified proteins or, better still, with a mixture of whole coronavirus (CoV) preparations and human cells in tissue culture. Alternatively, the SARS-CoV spike protein variants can be genetically engineered within what is known as a “phage display library”. A phage is a virus that infects bacteria and can be genetically engineered to express on its exterior coat the CoV spike protein with a large number of variants of the RBD. This preparation of phage, displaying on its surface a “library” of CoV spike protein variants, is then added to human cells under laboratory culture conditions in order to select for those that bind to the ACE2 receptor.
This process is repeated under more and more stringent binding conditions until CoV spike protein variants with a high binding affinity are isolated.
Once any of the above selection procedures for high affinity interaction of SARS-CoV spike protein with ACE2 has been completed, then whole infectious CoV with these properties can be manufactured.
Such a directed iterative evolutionary selection process is a frequently used method in laboratory research. So there is little or no possibility that the Nature Medicine article authors haven’t heard of it – not least, as it is considered so scientifically important that its inventors were awarded [27] the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018.
Yet the possibility that this is the way that SARS-CoV‑2 arose is not addressed by the Nature Medicine article authors and so its use has not been disproven.
No proof SARS-CoV‑2 was not genetically engineered
In sum, the Nature Medicine article authors offer no evidence that the SARS-CoV‑2 virus could not have been genetically engineered. That’s not to say that it was, of course. We can’t know one way or the other on the basis of currently available information.
Dr Antoniou wrote a short letter to Nature Medicine to point out these omissions in the authors’ case. Nature Medicine has no method of submitting a simple letter to the editor, so Dr Antoniou had to submit it as a Matters Arising [70] commentary, which the journal defines as presenting “challenges or clarifications” to an original published work.
Dr Antoniou’s comments were titled, “SARS-CoV‑2 could have been created through laboratory manipulation”. However, Nature Medicine refused to publish them on the grounds that “we do not feel that they advance or clarify understanding” of the original article. The journal offered no scientific argument to rebut his points.
In our view, those points do offer clarification to the original article, and what’s more, there is a strong public interest case for making them public. That’s why we reproduce Dr Antoniou’s letter below this article, with his permission.
Not genetic engineering – but human intervention
There is, incidentally, another possible way that SARS-CoV‑2 could have been developed in a laboratory, but in this case without using genetic engineering. This was pointed out [29] by Nikolai Petrovsky, a researcher at the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in South Australia. Petrovsky says that coronaviruses can be cultured in lab dishes with cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus will gain adaptations that let it efficiently bind to those receptors. Along the way, that virus would pick up random genetic mutations that pop up but don’t do anything noticeable.
“The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus,” Petrovsky said. “Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection, there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention.”
Dr Antoniou agrees that this method is possible – but he points out that waiting for nature to produce the desired mutations is a lot slower than using genetic engineering to generate a large number of random mutations that you can then select for the desired outcome by a directed iterative evolutionary procedure.
Because genetic engineering greatly speeds up the process, it is by far the most efficient way to generate novel pathogenic viruses in the lab. . . .
Conclusion
It is clear that there is no conclusive evidence either way at this point as to whether SARS-CoV‑2 arose by natural mutation and selection in animal and/or human hosts or was genetically engineered in a laboratory. And in this light, the question of where this virus came from should continue to be explored with an open mind.
*****
SARS-CoV‑2 could have been created through laboratory manipulation
Dr Michael Antoniou
Kristian Andersen and colleagues (“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV‑2”, Nature Medicine, 26: 450–452, 2020) argue that their amino acid sequence comparisons and computational modelling definitively proves that SARS-CoV‑2 has arisen through natural mutation and selection in animal or human hosts, and not through laboratory manipulation and accidental release. However, although the authors may indeed be correct in how they perceive SARS-CoV‑2 to have arisen, the data they present does not exclude the possibility that this new coronavirus variant could have been created through an in vitro, directed iterative evolutionary selection process (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution [26]). Using this method, a very large library of randomly mutagenized coronavirus spike proteins could be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells. The power of such directed evolution to select for optimal enzymatic and protein-protein interactions was acknowledged by the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018 (see https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/summary/ [27]).
5b. Of more than passing significance is another article that finds serious fault with the Nature Medicine paper. ” . . . . Professor Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, says that a key argument used to deny that it could be a genetically engineered strain that escaped from a laboratory actually points to the exact opposite. In other words, it indicates that SARS-CoV‑2 could well be genetically engineered and that it could have escaped from a lab. . . . As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted [29], Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV‑2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses – the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape’.‘But Professor Newman says [30] that this is totally unconvincing because ‘The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the US and China) for two decades.’ . . .”
Professor Newman goes on to highlight other, serious flaws in the argument: ” . . . In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut [31], amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper [32]). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.’ Moreover, Newman added, “The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper [33] they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity. . . . .”
Worth noting, again, is the British Medical Association’s warning discussed in FTR #1129, [22]as well as above: ” . . . .The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . .”
As the GMWatch authors conclude: ” . . . . Such ‘enhanced infectivity’ research is carried out on viruses all over the world (and not just in China) to investigate their behaviour and to develop vaccines and other therapies, as well as for ‘biodefence’ purposes. . . .”
Another expert on biotechnology has attacked the evidence being used to quash suggestions that SARS-CoV‑2, the virus strain that causes COVID-19, might have been genetically engineered. Professor Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, says that a key argument used to deny that it could be a genetically engineered strain that escaped from a laboratory actually points to the exact opposite. In other words, it indicates that SARS-CoV‑2 could well be genetically engineered and that it could have escaped from a lab.
The evidence that is being cited as proving that SARS-CoV‑2 is “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus” is a paper [23] published by the immunologist Kristian Andersen and colleagues in Nature Medicine. As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted [29], Andersen’s paper argues that, “the SARS-CoV‑2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses – the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape’.”
But Professor Newman says [30] that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the US and China) for two decades.”
So not only does Newman think that the virus could have escaped from a lab, he also thinks that it could have originated in a virus stock that had undergone genetic engineering at some point.
In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut [31], amplified this speculation by noting, “The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper [32]). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.”
Moreover, Newman added, “The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper [33] they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.”
Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV‑2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.
Newman is not the only scientist that has spoken out about the possibility of a genetically engineered element to the virus. We recently published an article [68] in which the molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou also cast doubt on assertions that the virus was not genetically engineered. Dr Antoniou set out a method by which the virus could have been genetically manipulated and selected for increased infectivity in the laboratory.
Neither Dr Antoniou, nor Prof Newman, nor we ourselves make any suggestion that, in the event that genetic engineering was involved, the intention was to create a bioweapon. Such “enhanced infectivity” research is carried out on viruses all over the world (and not just in China) to investigate their behaviour and to develop vaccines and other therapies, as well as for “biodefence” purposes. . . .
7a. Reports are now emerging of possible Covid-19 infection among athletes who participated at the Military World Games in Wuhan in October 19.
We have speculated at some length about the possibility that infecting those very healthy, superbly-conditioned individuals might have been an excellent vehicle for spreading the virus around the world.
Further discussion of this can be found in FTR #‘s 1118 [34] and 1122 [35]. We note that China has speculated about the Wuhan Military World Games being a vehicle for the U.S. to spread the infection.
We have noted that language is, past a point, inadequate to analyze and discuss some of the major considerations in the Covid-19 “op.” A bio-weapons would require a very small number of agents in order to be effectively disseminated. In addition, we note that–in the age of mind control [36]–an operative can be dispensed to perform a function without their knowledge.
French athletes believe they caught coronavirus [71] at the World Military Games in Wuhan in October, 20 days before the first recorded case in China [72].
It comes after it was revealed that Frenchman Amirouche Hammar, 43, had been infected with COVID-19 outside Paris as early as December.
The hospital where Hammar was treated for chest pains has since re-tested samples and found the fishmonger was positive for the virus on December 27. It is not known where he caught the virus, although his wife works close to Charles de Gaulle airport.
A number of French athletes who were at the World Military Games from October 18 to 27 have since described coming down with severe flu-like symptoms while at the event.
Elodie Clouvel, a world champion modern pentathlete, was asked on March 25 whether she was anxious about spending the summer in Japan for the Olympics. She told Loire 7: ‘No because I think that with Velentin (Belaud, her partner, also a pentathlete) we have already had the coronavirus, well the COVID-19.’
The 31-year-old went on: ‘We were in Wuhan for the World Military Games at the end of October. And afterwards, we all fell ill. Valentin missed three days of training. Me, I was sick too. [...] I had things I had never had before. We weren’t particularly worried because no one was talking about it yet.’
She added: ‘A lot of athletes at the World Military Games were very ill. We were recently in touch with a military doctor who told us: “I think you had it because a lot of people from this delegation were ill.“ ‘ . . . .
. . . . French media report that sick athletes were also noted in some other delegations, including the Swedish delegation, with people returning to Sweden with strong fevers.
Around 100 people from the Swedish Armed Forces attended the World Military Games in Wuhan and stayed in the city for two weeks.
Several competitors fell ill and were screened for the virus, although none were reported to have tested positive. . . .
7b. The incubation period when infected people are asymptomatic is anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks. So it would be very interesting to know when exactly those athletes displayed symptoms during the games. Was it at the very beginning near October 17 or near the end at October 28? And when did those athletes arrive in Wuhan?
Also keep in mind that there have been multiple studies now suggesting that more infectious strains may have emerged in Wuhan. In addition to the Cambridge team’s finding of a “B Type” strain that emerged in Wuhan in December that appeared to be better adapted at spreading among Asian populations, there was the earlier study by a Chinese team that found the earlier ‘S‑type’ strain getting rapidly overtaken by a new ‘L‑type’ strain that popped up in Wuhan in December [73].
If more infectious strains emerged in Wuhan in December and dominated the spread of the virus around the world, while less infectious strains started the pandemic it becomes more plausible that the initial outbreak didn’t start in Wuhan. Other early cases in other countries (see below) as well as infected athletes at the Military World Games suggest that it could have started damn near anywhere.
SPANISH athletes returned from the World Military Games in Wuhan in October having displayed coronavirus symptoms.
According to the Ministry of Defence none of the suspected victims had been tested.
The Spanish team was made up of about 170 people.
According to Ministry sources who spoke to El Mundo, two athletes displayed flu-like symptoms during the Games between October 17–28 and two others displayed them upon their return to Spain.
One of these athletes told El Mundo: “The authorities just took it as a sore throat or flu infection and they treated us as if we were already cured, it was very bad.” . . .
7c. Italian athletes also appear to have been sickened, and in considerable numbers. The literal translations provided make it appear that the athletes were already infected when they got to Wuhan. That may well be a problem in translation.
Note that fender Matteo Taliariol opined that “many other delegations” got ill as well.
“Athletes: ‘Sick in Wuhan Back in October’” by Football Italia Staff; Football Italia; 5/7/2020. [39]
Some athletes who were at the Military World Games in Wuhan back in October 2019 claim ‘everyone was sick’ with symptoms reminiscent of COVID-19, two months before the first confirmed case.
The novel coronavirus was first reported in December 2019 in the Chinese city of Wuhan, with an investigation from early January.
It then spread to Europe with the first confirmed cases in Italy on February 20.
However, there are some suggestions from athletes who took part in the Military World Games that the virus was present as early as October 2019.
That tournament took place in Wuhan from October 17–27, 2019.
“We all got sick, six out of six in our apartment, and we also heard from many other delegations who got ill too,” Olympic gold medallist fencer Matteo Tagliariol told La Repubblica.
“The medics there had almost run out of supplies, Valerio Aspromonte stayed in bed almost the whole time. I had a fever and cough for three weeks and antibiotics did nothing. Then it spread to my son and my girlfriend.
“I am not a doctor, but the symptoms looked like those of COVID-19. I was struggling to breathe and fortunately it went after three weeks.” . . . .
7d. More about the Italian delegation:
Some athletes who were at the Military World Games in Wuhan back in October 2019 claim ‘everyone was sick’ with symptoms reminiscent of COVID-19, two months before the first confirmed case.
The novel coronavirus was first reported in December 2019 in the Chinese city of Wuhan, with an investigation from early January.
It then spread to Europe with the first confirmed cases in Italy on February 20.
However, there are some suggestions from athletes who took part in the Military World Games that the virus was present as early as October 2019.
That tournament took place in Wuhan from October 17–27, 2019.
“We all got sick, six out of six in our apartment, and we also heard from many other delegations who got ill too,” Olympic gold medallist fencer Matteo Tagliariol told La Repubblica.
“The medics there had almost run out of supplies, Valerio Aspromonte stayed in bed almost the whole time. I had a fever and cough for three weeks and antibiotics did nothing. Then it spread to my son and my girlfriend.
“I am not a doctor, but the symptoms looked like those of COVID-19. I was struggling to breathe and fortunately it went after three weeks.” . . . .
Fencing Olympic champion Matteo Tagliariol already suspects the military world games held in Wuhan, China last October, as a hotspot of the corona pandemic. “When we arrived in Wuhan, we were all sick. All six people in my apartment were sick, including many athletes from other delegations,” the 37-year-old Italian told the Corriere della Sera newspaper.
The Military World Games were held in Wuhan from October 18–27, 2019. The first case of infection was officially reported in China in December. However, there is speculation that the coronavirus has already spread.
“I had a severe cough, many other athletes had a fever,” said Tagliariol, who won gold in epee fencing in Beijing in 2008. The worst awaited him when he returned to Italy.
“I had a very high fever and could not breathe. Antibiotics did not help either. I was sick and very weak for three weeks. Then my two-year-old son Leo fell ill. He coughed for three weeks. My partner also got sick, but in When I started talking about the virus, I thought: I was infected. I recognized the symptoms of COVID 19. I am an athlete, I was very bad for my standards, “said Tagliariol.
Almost 10,000 athletes from more than 140 countries had participated in the Military World Games in Wuhan, from Germany there were 243 athletes. More than 230,000 volunteers were involved in the competitions. . . .
8a. Doctors quoted in a New York Times [41] piece underscore the anomalous epidemiology of the virus:
. . . . In San Jose, tissue sampling from a woman who died on Feb. 6 [42]revealed that she was probably the first known person in the U.S. whose death was linked to the coronavirus — a strong sign that the virus may have been circulating in that part of Northern California in January.
But was it part of a large, previously unrecognized outbreak?
Dr. George Rutherford, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, theorized that perhaps the woman, who worked for a company that had an office in Wuhan, was one of only a small number of people who contracted the virus at that time and that transmissions probably petered out for some reason. Otherwise, he said, the region would have seen a much bigger outbreak. . . .
. . . . Dr. [Trevor] Bedford said he also believed this was the more likely scenario, noting that up to half of people with coronavirus infections have no symptoms.
There could have been a tiny number of isolated coronavirus cases among travelers to the United States in December, Dr. Bedford said. But it is pretty clear that none of them spread.
In part, scientists can tell that by looking at the genomic fingerprints of each case. But another clue is the rapid rate at which the virus spreads, Dr. Rutherford said.
It appears that early in the outbreak, one infection was spreading to about four other people, on average, with an incubation period for new infections of about four days. So a case seeded in December would rapidly quadruple through new generations, most likely growing exponentially to millions of cases from a single unbroken chain of transmission by the end of February. Researchers are not seeing any chains that appear to go that far back.
Modelers looking back at the growth of outbreaks elsewhere have reached similar conclusions. One estimated that New York’s outbreak could have begun with perhaps 10 infected people who contracted the virus sometime between the end of January to the middle of February, when the first cases of community transmission were identified and hospitals began seeing more cases. . . .
8b. The anomalous epidemiology of the virus becomes all the more significant in that we are told that New York was the epicenter of infection in the United States.
“American Outbreak Caught Fire in New York” by Benedict Carey and James Glanz; The New York Times; 5/08/2020; pp. A1-A9 [Western Edition].
8c. Leading the Trump administration’s rhetorical and political charge against China is Mike Pompeo. Charging that the virus “escaped” from a lab in Wuhan and equivocating about whether that release was intentional, Koch brothers-protege Pompeo cited alleged duplicity on behalf of China’s communist party in connection with the virus. ” . . . . ‘I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan,’ Pompeo said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ Sunday. ‘Do you think they intentionally released that virus, or it was an accident in the lab?’ Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz pressed. ‘I can’t answer your question about that,’ he said, ‘because the Chinese Communist Party has refused to cooperate with world health experts.’ . . .”
The Chinese medical and scientific establishment has worked closely with counterparts globally in an attempt to analyze and treat the virus.
The highly anomalous epidemiology, the lack of symptoms in half of infected patients, the wide variety of symptoms the virus causes and, lastly, the fact that this was a novel virus and resulting infection are all factors to be considered in evaluating the timeliness of the Chinese response.
Pompeo also assert that the virus was not made in a laboratory.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there are “enormous” signs that the novel coronavirus outbreak originated a biomedical laboratory in Wuhan, China — the city where cases first exploded [74].
“I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan,” Pompeo said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday.
“Do you think they intentionally released that virus, or it was an accident in the lab?” Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz pressed.
“I can’t answer your question about that,” he said, “because the Chinese Communist Party has refused to cooperate with world health experts.”
NEW: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells @MarthaRaddatz [75] China “did all that it could to make sure the world didn’t learn in a timely fashion” about COVID-19.“It was a classic communist disinformation effort,” he adds and they will be held “accountable.” https://t.co/EKV20Fhx2H [76] pic.twitter.com/YrQRGkeYNk [77]— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) May 3, 2020 [78]
The White House last week ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to look into [79] whether China concealed information early on about the novel coronavirus, two administration officials told ABC News last week.
Pompeo on Sunday agreed the virus was not manmade.
A recent press release from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that said, “The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” . . . .
. . . . Several public health and epidemiological experts have told ABC News it is “vastly more likely” that the first infection — what’s called “zoonotic spillover” — occurred in the wild, given the “huge barriers between people and viruses in the laboratory setting,” according to Dr. Christine Johnson, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Predict project and a professor at UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. . . .
8d. A misleading story in Rupert Murdoch’s The Daily Telegraph [44] out of Sydney, Australia, alleged that the Five Eyes electronic intelligence network has corroborated the “it came from a Chinese lab” meme.
Of more than passing interest is the disclosure that the project on bat-borne coronaviruses conducted in the Wuhan laboratory was a joint U.S./Chinese project, and that Ralph Baric [45] was a key American partner [19] in the project.
This is the undertaking [46] about which we have reported and discussed [22] extensively in the past! ” . . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with ‘Science Daily’ at the time: ‘This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.’ . . . .”
Baric was the selectee to reconstruct the SARS Cov2 virus from scratch. Note that the article below discusses the U.S. suspension of the “gain of function” experiments and 2017 resumption of same, somehow spinning this into the “China did it” disinformation.
China deliberately suppressed or destroyed evidence of the coronavirus outbreak in an “assault on international transparency’’ that cost tens of thousands of lives, according to a dossier prepared by concerned Western governments on the COVID-19 contagion.
The 15-page research document, obtained by The Saturday Telegraph, lays the foundation for the case of negligence being mounted against China.
It states that to the “endangerment of other countries” the Chinese government covered-up news of the virus by silencing or “disappearing” doctors who spoke out, destroying evidence of it in laboratories and refusing to provide live samples to international scientists who were working on a vaccine.
It can also be revealed the Australian government trained and funded a team of Chinese scientists who belong to a laboratory which went on to genetically modify deadly coronaviruses that could be transmitted from bats to humans and had no cure, and is now the subject of a probe into the origins of COVID-19.
As intelligence agencies investigate whether the virus inadvertently leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the team and its research led by scientist Shi Zhengli feature in the dossier prepared by Western governments that points to several studies they conducted as areas of concern.
It cites their work discovering samples of coronavirus from a cave in the Yunnan province with striking genetic similarity to COVID-19, along with their research synthesising a bat-derived coronavirus that could not be treated. . . .
. . . . It notes a 2013 study conducted by a team of researchers, including Dr Shi, who collected a sample of horseshoe bat faeces from a cave in Yunnan province, China, which was later found to contain a virus 96.2 per cent identical to SARS-CoV‑2, the virus that caused COVID-19.
The research dossier also references work done by the team to synthesise SARS-like coronaviruses, to analyse whether they could be transmissible from bats to mammals. This means they were altering parts of the virus to test whether it was transmissible to different species.
Their November 2015 study, done in conjunction with the University of North Carolina, concluded that the SARS-like virus could jump directly from bats to humans and there was no treatment that could help.
The study acknowledges the incredible danger of the work they were conducting.
“The potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens,” they wrote. . . .
. . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with Science Daily at the time: “This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.” . . . .
. . . . Dr Shi’s protégé, Peng Zhou — now the head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — spent three years at the bio-containment facility Australian Animal Health Laboratory between 2011 and 2014. He was sent by China to complete his doctorate at the CSIRO from 2009–2010. . . .
. . . . The US withdrew funding from controversial experiments that make pathogens more potent or likely to spread dangerous viruses in October 2014, concerned it could lead to a global pandemic.
The pause on funding for 21 “gain of function” studies was then lifted in December 2017. . . .
8e. A Guardian [47] article sources UK intelligence assets claiming that the 15-page dossier didn’t come from a Five Eyes intelligence assessment. They assert that it was based on open-source materials and put forward by the US as “a tool for building a counter-narrative and applying pressure to China.”
There is no current evidence to suggest that coronavirus leaked from a Chinese research laboratory, intelligence sources have told the Guardian, contradicting recent White House claims that there is growing proof this is how the pandemic began.
The sources also insisted that a “15-page dossier” highlighted by the Australian Daily Telegraph which accused China of a deadly cover up was not culled from intelligence from the Five Eyes network [80], an alliance between the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. . . .
. . . . American scientists who have worked with the Wuhan Institute add its safety standards are comparable to Western equivalents [81] – and the prevailing theory is that the virus was passed onto humans via one of the country’s live animal markets [82].
Australia’s Daily Telegraph – a Sydney tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch – has been focusing on the Wuhan lab for several days, culminating in a weekend report which cited a 15-page dossier compiled, it said, by “concerned Western governments” amid an investigation by British and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence agencies.
Intelligence sources in Australia were quick to say they believed it was based on open source, public domain material. One told the Guardian they believed the information that appeared in the News Corp title was most likely to have originally come from the US: “My instinct is that it was a tool for building a counter-narrative and applying pressure to China. So it’s the intent behind it that’s most important. So possibly open source leads with a classification slapped on it.”
9. In Miscellaneous [83] Archive [84] Show M4 [85], we examined Gloria Steinem’s CIA background and people and institutions in her milieu suggestive of the possibility that her Agency links are not solely in the past. (A transcript of the broadcast is available [52] on this website as well.)
Against the background of the Trump administration’s anti-China campaign rhetoric and attempts to pin the blame for Covid-19 on a “laboratory” leak and/or deliberate release, we note that the offensive is being pushed by The Donald’s deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger.
“. . . . Matthew Pottinger [48], the deputy national security adviser who reported on SARS outbreaks [49] as a journalist in China, pressed intelligence agencies [50] in January to gather information that might support any origin theory linked to a lab. . . .”
Pottinger is the son of former Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger [51].
Pottinger, Senior was: Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Nixon and Ford; reported by Donald Freed and Fred Landis (in “Death in Washington”) to have foiled investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Orlando Letelier; the attorney for the Hashemi brothers in the October Surprise investigation; a close personal friend of George H.W. Bush (for whom CIA headquarters was named) and, last but certainly not least, Gloria Steinem’s lover for nine years.
Despite the fact that Steinem touted her CIA background as good journalistic credentials in both “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post” (both with long-standing CIA links themselves), Pottinger has defended her against charges that she worked for the CIA!!
Worth noting, as well, is the fact that the Letelier assassination was one of the murders conducted under Operation Condor, assisted by the CIA. Letelier was killed by a car bomb in Washington D.C., while J.Stanley Pottinger’s good friend George H.W. Bush was in charge of the CIA when Letelier was hit.
(We have covered Operation Condor in numerous programs, including AFA #19 [53]. One of the operational centers of Condor was the Chilean Nazi enclave Colonia Dignidad. In FTR #839 [54], we set forth author Peter Levenda’s brave, frightening visit to “The Colony.” This should be digested by anyone interested in the history of which Pottinger, Sr., is a part.)
One wonders if Matthew may have followed J. Stanley into the CIA, if in fact Daddio is Agency, as Mr. Emory suspects.
In FTR #s 998 [55], 999 [56], 1000 [57], we set forth what Mr. Emory calls “weaponized feminism.” Refashioning the doctrine of advancing the cause of women into a legal and political weapon for destroying targeted men, dominant manifestations of the #MeToo movement have served the cause of the far right.
Resembling–in its essence–the “libidinal McCarthyism” of Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible,” [58] many high-profile manifestations of #MeToo have been propelled by evidentiary material that ranges from dubious to ludicrous to non-existent.
We find it more than coincidental that Bernie Sanders supporter [59] Tara Reade’s shape-shifting accusations against Joe Biden have surfaced decades after the alleged incident–coinciding with Biden’s challenging of Trump and with Pottinger, Jr. helping to direct the administration’s traffic.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former C.I.A. director and the administration’s most vocal hard-liner on China, has taken the lead in pushing American intelligence agencies for more information, according to current and former officials.
Matthew Pottinger [48], the deputy national security adviser who reported on SARS outbreaks [49] as a journalist in China, pressed intelligence agencies [50] in January to gather information that might support any origin theory linked to a lab. . . .
. . . . Any American intelligence report blaming a Chinese institution and officials for the outbreak could significantly harm relations with China [87] for years to come. And Trump administration officials could use it to try to prod other nations to publicly hold China accountable for coronavirus deaths even when the pandemic’s exact origins cannot be determined.
Mr. Trump made clear on Thursday evening of his interest in intelligence supporting the theory the virus emerged accidentally from a Wuhan lab. In response to a question from a reporter, the president said he had seen intelligence that supported the idea but quickly backtracked, adding that he “was not allowed” to share the intelligence and that his administration was examining multiple theories about the origin of the virus. . . .