Posted on 02/01/2021 8:45:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
China, the World Health Organization and the U.S. National Institutes of Health have dimissed the theory that the virus causing the global pandemic that has killed more than 2 million people and devastated economies worldwide escaped from the Wuhan, China, lab funded by the United States.
Article by Art Moore originally published at WND.
But there’s no disputing the fact, as Newsweek reported in April 2020, that NIH executive Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted a highly controversial type of research involving the manipulation of viruses to explore their potential for infecting humans. And it’s known that more than 200 scientists pressured the Obama administration in 2014 to temporarily halt U.S. funding for that research because of the risk of a manipulated virus accidentally escaping a lab and igniting a pandemic. Nevertheless, under Fauci’s direction, the dangerous virus engineering resumed in 2017 and continued until April 2020.
Now, documentary evidence makes it a “near certainty” that the coronavirus pandemic originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, where so-called “gain-of-function” research was funded by Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, according to Steve Hilton, who is leading a special investigation for his Fox News show “The Next Revolution.”
Significantly, his investigation found a direct link between a bat coronavirus discovered a decade ago in a mine in Yunnan province and one that had been engineered in the Wuhan lab, 1,000 miles away.
Hilton noted on his show Sunday night that scientists at the Wuhan lab published a paper in February 2020 stating they had recently discovered a virus in Yunnan province that “showed high sequence identity” to COVID-19.
However, Hilton discovered after running the virus’s genome sequence through the NIH’s GenBank database that only one virus was an exact match to COVID-19. It wasn’t the virus discovered recently. It was the once discovered a decade ago in Yunnan province that killed miners who had stirred up bat feces.
Hilton found it curious that the Wuhan researchers not only didn’t reveal that fact, they changed the name of the Yunnan virus, as indicated by GenBank.
As evidence that the Yunnan virus was manipulated in the Wuhan lab, Hilton pointed out that the two viruses are the same, except for two key elements: The COVID-19 virus is more infectious and can enter human cells in the respiratory system.
“Those are the exact places in the viral sequence where gain-of-function techniques would be applied, if … you were funded by the NAID to research bat coronaviruses to explore emergences or spillover potential,” he said.
“Spillover potential” refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans.
That exact gain-of-function research, he pointed out, was touted in a Nov. 30, 2017, progress report tied to an NAID grant. The crucial question is, Hilton said, was the virus at the center of that U.S.-funded work the one that was discovered in the mine a decade ago?
“The match between that virus and the work commissioned by NAID is so perfect, it’s impossible to believe they weren’t,” he said.
He noted that workers in the Wuhan lab were the first identified cases of COVID-19 in the fall of 2019.
The WHO and others are leaning on a “natural” explanation for the pandemic, Hilton noted. But if the COVID-19 pandemic originated naturally in the Yunnan mine – as the genome sequence indicates – but had nothing to do with research at the Wuhan lab, you would “have to believe in a laughably implausible set of coincidences.”
The bats in Yunnan province would have had to infect each other and another unknown animal or a human and then travel 1,000 miles – without infecting anyone else – until they got to Wuhan.
Before any mutations, he argued, the virus was 10 to 20 times more infectious than any previously observed virus occuring in nature.
“And most incredibly of all,” he continued, “the infected animal or human would have somehow chosen to make that 1,000-mile trek to the only place in all of China that had been working for years on the virus it was already infected with,” the Wuhan lab.
Significantly, the Chinese regime has blocked access to the Wuhan lab. Last week, NBC News reported a Wuhan Institute of Virology database with 20,000 entries was removed last spring due to “security reasons.”
But Hilton said the U.S. government also has not been forthcoming. After two weeks, the NIH finally responded last Friday to his request for comment on the coronavirus gain-of-function research project that began after the Obama administration’s halt in funding.
The NIH replied that the project did not involve gain-of-function research. But Hilton noted that the project to which NIH referred was not the project he was asking about, which clearly was gain-of-function research.
Calling the response “deceptive,” he wanted to know whether or not the director of NIH, the famed scientist France Collins, was aware of the statement.
The Chinese regime can certainly be blamed for a cover-up allowing the outbreak to become a global pandemic, Hilton said. But the reason the virus exists and is so contagious, he asserted, can be traced back to the decision of Collins and Fauci to go ahead with the gain-of-function research as a “risk worth taking” after the Obama administration stopped the funding.
“Of course Dr. Collins or Dr. Fauci didn’t create the pandemic on purpose. That is obviously ludicrous. They’ve dedicated their careers to fighting disease,” Hilton said.
“But there’s little doubt that one of their weapons of choice in that fight did lead to this pandemic.”
And they were warned that it could happen.
A Newsweek report in April 2020 confirmed that NAID funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. In 2011, Fauci played an important role in promoting the work, arguing the research was worth the risk, because it could enable scientists to prepare treatments and vaccines in advance if a pandemic occurred, Newsweek said.
Fauci and two co-authors defended the work in the Washington Post in December 2011, arguing that “determining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected.”
The work was halted by the Obama administration in 2014 under pressure from scientists but resumed in December 2017 when the NIH lifted the moratorium. Going forward, scientists had to get approval from a panel of experts who would determine whether or not the risks were justified.
The research was conducted in secret until, in early 2019, a reporter for Science magazine discovered the NIH had approved two gain-of-function projects, drawing rebuke from scientists in an editorial in the Washington Post.
“We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all,” wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. “[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process.”
See Hilton’s segment:
In April 2020, a U.S. government report concluded the Wuhan lab was the “most likely” source of COVID-19, finding other explanations “highly unlikely.”
The report noted the activities of Shi Zhengli, a leader in bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab. A 2015 academic report in Nature Medicine by Shi and 14 other scientists said that while researching the potential for bat coronaviruses to infect humans, “we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic (animal-origin) spike protein … that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats.”
The U.S. government analysis, reported by the Washington Times, found virus-carrying animals had been “sold as pets, dead laboratory animals were not properly disposed of, and lab workers were known to boil and eat laboratory-used eggs.”
The report noted that China was clamping down on efforts to investigate whether the virus came from a lab, issuing a “gag order” and putting a military microbiologist in charge of the Wuhan lab.
“It really is not that easy to fool scientists. No one gets accepted into graduate school or has a career in research unless they are extremely intelligent.”
No, you’re wrong about that. In your general claim that scientists are not easy to fool. (First, look at how many scientists believe the global warming propaganda, and how many believe the current mask propaganda.)
Any specialized knowledge always comes with some kind of propagandistic teaching.
The way it works is context. The context is made of adherence to tradition and allegiance to experts in the particular field. These two things are highly trusted by those being educated and trained.
The first rule of propaganda is to establish a trusted source.
Second point you should think carefully about: although it’s true as you say that scientists look very carefully at their work, THEY ARE JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MORAL CORRUPTION AS ANY HUMAN BEING.
All it takes for scientists to either look the other way or to perpetrate malevolent acts is an envelope of cash, the electronic funding of an account, blackmail or other coercion.
And here’s a challenge to your assertion about the intelligence of scientists: how many of them believe in communism? Or globalism? Belief in the viability or preeminence of either of these political fallacies is an intellectual deficit.
Do you have an insider's knowledge of how many actually believe that climate change is not natural, versus how many include some mention of anthropogenic climate change in their publications and proposals as a way to increase chances of getting their work funded? I have seen many many mentions of "climate change" thrown into completely unrelated work. I admit it's been a while since I looked, but I have seen very little actual definitive evidence published in the scientific literature that humans have some sort of control over the climate.
On the other hand, many researchers have conducted mask efficacy studies. They have studied the ability of masks to block/slow small particles in a laboratory setting, and have looked at real world evidence of inhibition of Covid-19 transmission among real people wearing masks. Yes, masks do reduce transmission of Covid-19.
Any specialized knowledge always comes with some kind of propagandistic teaching.
The way it works is context. The context is made of adherence to tradition and allegiance to experts in the particular field. These two things are highly trusted by those being educated and trained.
Are you talking about advanced education in soft subjects such as humanities or social sciences, which are heavily reliant on opinion and conjecture? In the hard sciences, we are taught to judge based on evidence. We study historical ground-breaking experiments to understand how the processes of logical reasoning and rigorous collection of data (i.e. evidence) lead to scientific advancement. And we spend our careers designing experiments to reveal facts about the natural world. The fact that hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide combine in a 1:1 ratio to form water and salt is not alterable by my opinions on salt.
And in the context of coronavirus, if there were evidence that it was constructed in a lab, it would be as obvious as evidence that a picture has been photoshopped. You don't need anyone's opinion to find whether there is a multiple cloning site, or whether there are sequences from an unrelated virus contained within the SARS-CoV-2 genome, etc. Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.
I never said they aren't. There are plenty of examples of scientists manipulating data, fabricating data, plagiarizing, etc., to advance their own careers.
But that is rather outside of the current discussion, which is whether the Wuhan virology laboratory could invent a human pathogen (highly unlikely with current technology) and furthermore, to disseminate it without anyone noticing that it was artificially created. No, the signs of artificial manipulation of a pathogen would be as obvious to an expert as the signs of Photoshop manipulation of a photo.
I didn’t say scientific facts themselves are in question.
My point was that scientists are very easy to fool. Just look at science textbooks. I don’t care if it’s high school or college level. Global warming is standard content. Bias favoring theory of evolution is universal. In classrooms, journals and textbooks you won’t find much in the way of careful or balanced discussion of how money from the political left influences mainstream scientists.
Scientists have tremendous power as an influence group. But they’ve mostly fallen for the lies, and the rest have completely sold themselves out. If they had any intellectual ability to use their collective credibility they would put a stop to garbage like the Paris Climate nonsense and so much more.
“Among the thousands of scientists looking at the SARS-CoV-2 genome, someone would have noticed the signs of genetic tampering if that had been done.”
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse. If you’re known as a global warming denier, or one who questions evolution, you’ll never have a seat at the table. Working for research labs and accessing grants is better suited for the weak-minded.
Are textbooks written for PhD level scientists who are the authorities in their fields, or are they written for students who have not yet learned critical thought? The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.
The "evidence" for global warming consists of statements of the sort, "We observed X, which we think is happening because of A and B and anthropogenic global warming." In other words, the "evidence" of anthropogenic global warming is contained within throw-away phrases inserted into otherwise sound scientific papers.
As for "bias" about the theory of evolution... it appears that you are biased against science and the scientific method. The multiple layers of evidence of evolution, which span the paleontological record, the geological record, genetics, and astronomy are pretty consistent on evolutionary processes. In fact, trying to talk about biology becomes almost impossible if one tries to ignore the fundamental principles of it.
You talk as though scientific research is like a buffet dinner where all honest participants are allowed to casually stroll by to inspect the entire thing up close. Scientific research doesn’t work that way. Big science has established various kinds of protections and safeguards against free and open discourse.
The reason I talk as if the data is available to anyone is because the data is actually available to everyone. There has been a push towards more openness and accessibility of science going on for a long time. Published journal articles describing studies are available to everyone; many of these articles are free access, so no one has to pay for them. (The researchers actually pay for them to be free access.) Things like genetic sequence data are uploaded into databases, where they are accessible by anyone who knows about the databases. There are computer programs to analyze the data, which are provided online by governments and universities and are free to use. *Anyone* can access the scientific data. Really. They only need to know the website addresses. Search engines know those addresses if you type in a suitable search phrase (e.g. "Covid-19 sequence data"). Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial. It's as obvious to someone who knows what they are looking at as an image altered by Photoshop.
“The audience for textbooks are NOT scientists, regardless of what garbage might be in them.”
The intellectually flawed textbooks are written by PhD level scientists who are considered experts in their field, and who are elevated by the bulk of mainstream scientists, overtly or through passive acquiescence, as thought leaders.
“Since the sequence data is readily available and there are thousands of scientists and DIY biology buffs out there who all have a strong interest in SARS-CoV-2, *someone* would have noticed by now if the sequence looked artificial.”
Scientists have indeed noticed the sequence looks artificial. See Francis Boyle and Judy Mikovitz, for starters. (Use your intelligence to filter out the communists’ attempts to mischaracterize honest scientists.)
Here’s a very concise rule to remember in reference to the evolution debate.
The concept is censorship.
Mainstream science—populated by “intelligent” scientists—reveals its own doubt about evolution in its censorship of the most powerful alternative, on academic grounds, to censorship.
This alternative is the explanation that God created different kinds of animals SEPARATELY but with the same basic parts proteins, and the same DNA sequences.
Remember. It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.
I made an error. Should read “the most powerful alternative, on academic grounds, to evolution.”
Let me see: as far as I can tell, Francis Boyle is a law professor specializing in human rights who has a PhD in political science. FYI, an expert in political science is not a scientist. Nothing in his background suggests that he has any experience in analyzing genetic sequences or in looking for the tell-tale signs of laboratory manipulation. The fact that he was featured by Alex Jones only decreases his credibility on this subject.
And Judy Mikovitz actually did earn a PhD in a relevant science, but began making dubious claims and engaging in scientific misconduct; she no longer works in any scientific field. These days, she goes around preaching various conspiracy theories. Given her shady past, no one in the scientific community considers her an expert on anything. Personally, I think that she has succumbed to a mental illness.
So, as I said, if there were evidence of human manipulation of a virus genome, more than a few of the thousands of qualified scientists who are scrutinizing the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would have noticed.
1) There is no alternative to the theory of evolution that can be validated in a rigorous scientific manner.
2) I am not going to waste time with this. I already know that people who are anti-science are impervious to evidence and facts, and that is something I cannot change.
I regard DNA as intelligent design.
DNA behaves according to physical law. I personally would not go so far as to see intelligent design in the physical behavior of molecules.
However, if you want to see intelligent design in the underlying physical laws that govern behavior of molecules and make the functions of DNA possible, then I have no argument.
Evolution occurs because DNA exists.
Utter nonsense. Boyle is an expert in Bioweapons who wrote major bio weapons policy for the federal government.
If Boyle can’t comment on bioeeapons, then you can’t voice an opinion on your neighborhood bake sale, and you can’t use English because you’re not a linguist.
I now think it’s possible you work for the communists, because you’re promoting their communist tactics in making personal attacks against Dr. Mikovitz.
YouTube and Gloogle have taken down all relevant information about both Boyle and Mikovitz.
You mean evolutionists who believe scientific impossibilities like speciation, and who are unable to understand that a randomly disrupted digital code causes breakdown of the entire system?
That’s a highly intelligent way to regard DNA.
Evolution is a low IQ idea. I don’t think any idea could possibly be lower IQ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.