Reply With Quote
Of course you didn’t read it. You didn’t read the study you posted either. Par for the course.TL;DR
But certainly another Qtsa conspiracy.
TL;DR
“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history.
In February 2020 — about a month before a pandemic had been declared — five top virologists huddled to examine aspects of a rapidly emerging coronavirus that seemed primed to infect human cells. In particular, a unique feature called the furin cleavage site caused concern, and even kept one virologist up all night. A few days later, the virologists concluded the virus had not been engineered. In March, their conclusions were published in Nature Medicine.
“We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the article read.
The article assured much of the media, Washington and the broader infectious disease community that there was no need to scrutinize the labs at the pandemic’s epicenter in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Ins ute of Virology is well known for research on SARS-like coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research. Though a “correspondence” and not a formal paper, the article has been cited in the press 2, 127 times.
It took 15 months and Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to reveal that each of the five authors had expressed private concerns about engineering or the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s store of novel coronaviruses and work in relatively low biosafety levels.
Also troubling: A confidential teleconference had framed early drafts of the article. But several scientists on the call had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar organized the teleconference at the request of National Ins ute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.
NIAID had funded the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology — a fact Fauci had been alerted to by late January. Minutes after being alerted by one of the virologists to gain-of-function research underway in Wuhan, Fauci dispatched an aide to determine whether his ins ute had funded this work. Fauci was conferring with the National Security Council and the White House almost daily at that time, his schedule shows.
Also present on the call for “advice and leadership ” but not publicly credited: director of the National Ins utes of Health Francis Collins.
Two authors were later found to have collaborated with the Wuhan lab or its American partner, EcoHealth Alliance.
Christian Drosten, a prominent virologist who participated in the teleconference, was once listed as a participant in a “virus hunting” project co-led by EcoHealth Alliance.
Ron Fouchier, another virologist who shaped the article’s central ideas without credit, is synonymous with controversial viral engineering.
The authors of the “proximal origin” article are Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Tulane School of Medicine virologist Robert Garry, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut and Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin.
Another virologist was notably absent.
To Farrar, Holmes and Andersen, the work of another American virologist appeared to be “a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”
North Carolina University virologist Ralph Baric, a close collaborator of the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, is a leading expert on coronaviruses and engineering techniques. His research had been at the center of the gain-of-function debate in the U.S. a few years earlier, sparking concerns it could generate “SARS 2.0.”
Several of his papers were discussed on the call, according to presentation slides obtained under FOIA.
But because of his ties to the Wuhan lab, he was left out of the discussion, according to Holmes.
“We decided not to invite Ralph Baric just because he was too close to the WIV. … He’s a great virologist. He’s guilty of nothing, I’ll tell you that right now. But we wanted to make it a proper investigation,” Holmes said in a December 2022 interview.
This timeline compiles numerous sources in an effort to covey the backstory of the enormously influential article. The timeline is likely to grow as more information emerges. All times have been approximated to Eastern Time.
Farrar said that “proximal origin” was motivated by the absence of an investigation by the WHO. However, emails show that Farrar simultaneously shepherded along the article and appealed to the WHO.
In reality, Farrar expressed a desire to leaders at the WHO to “get ahead of the science and the narrative of this.” Fauci agreed.
Four days after flagging aspects of the genome that appeared engineered, Andersen coauthored an early draft which stated that such a scenario would be “largely incompatible with the data.” After days of discussing the possibility of the furin cleavage site arising from serial passage in the lab — a method of making a virus more dangerous in the lab without engineering — the possibility was dismissed in the final report.
Farrar described the frenzy and panic preceding the publication of “proximal origin.”
“Just a few of us – Eddie, Kristian, Tony and I – were now privy to sensitive information that, if proved to be true, might set off a whole series of events that would be far bigger than any of us. It felt as if a storm was gathering,” he said.
The aim, Farrar told his colleagues at the time, was to “lay down a respected statement to frame whatever debate goes on – before that debate gets out of hand with potentially hugely damaging ramifications.”
The scientists’ familiarity with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s work on novel coronaviruses calls into question a central premise of the paper — that SARS-CoV-2 could not have been engineered because it appeared to be novel.
Summary
January 27, 2020: Fauci learned he funds the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology.
January 29, 2020: Andersen discovered a paper describing gain-of-function techniques with coronaviruses involving the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Farrar asks to speak with Fauci.
January 31, 2020: Fauci and Andersen spoke privately. Four virologists, including three authors of the article — Andersen, Holmes and Garry — found the virus to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
February 1, 2020: Farrar organized a secret teleconference between the virologists and NIH. Separately, Fauci sought to learn more about which projects NIAID funded at the lab.
February 2, 2020: The virologists exchanged thoughts. Several leaned toward a lab origin. Garry said he cannot understand how SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged naturally after comparing it to RaTG13. The scientists express concerns about work with coronaviruses being done in Wuhan in BSL-2 conditions.”Wild west,” said Farrar. Farrar emphasized the importance of publishing something quickly to counteract “lurid” claims emerging about a lab origin.
February 4, 2020: A draft was circulated. Holmes, “60-40 lab,” said the draft “does not mention other anomalies as that will make us look like loons.” Andersen derided the idea of an engineered virus as “crackpot” and promoted the phrase “consistent with natural evolution” to scientists outside of the confab.
March 6, 2020: Andersen thanked Farrar, Collins and Fauci for their “advice and leadership.”
April 17, 2020: Fauci told reporters COVID-19 is “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human,” citing the paper.
August 19, 2020: Collins and Fauci discussed the termination of an EcoHealth Alliance grant and the lab leak theory. Eight days later, a new grant is extended from NIAID to EcoHealth and Andersen’s lab.
June 20, 2021: Collins, Fauci, Andersen and Garry encouraged a researcher to rethink a preprint about early SARS-CoV-2 sequences that NIH improperly ed from its database. Andersen proposed deleting it from a preprint server.
July 31, 2022: New entries to an NIH database indicated a relationship between Holmes and the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, including work on RaTG13.
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/t...of-sars-cov-2/
But certainly another Qtsa conspiracy.
Of course you didn’t read it. You didn’t read the study you posted either. Par for the course.TL;DR
But certainly another Qtsa conspiracy.
Tells, in your own words, what is the definitive evidence in this new conspiracy?
Or will you go back and hide in Korea, where there is no internet?
I’ve never once claimed the lab leak theory has been proven.
You on the other hand said Covid was not engineered and then provided that study that immediately shredded and mocked by scientists around the world
Why do you keep coming back for me to on you even more? You’ve made an absolute fool of yourself for a week straight.
What are the numbers for and against lab leak and neutral?
You just can't post tweets and say that's the consensus. I'm sure I can find as many quotes for one side as you can find for the other.
Right, you only post conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories that you don't believe or defend!I’ve never once claimed the lab leak theory has been proven.
You on the other hand said Covid was not engineered and then provided that study that immediately shredded and mocked by scientists around the world
Why do you keep coming back for me to on you even more? You’ve made an absolute fool of yourself for a week straight.
You bend the knee so easily but then deny you bent it. And citing fringe sources is your MO. That is why no one ever takes you seriously!
Keep lashing out and go sulk some more, idiot!
Back for more?Right, you only post conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories that you don't believe or defend!
You bend the knee so easily but then deny you bent it. And citing fringe sources is your MO. That is why no one ever takes you seriously!
Keep lashing out and go sulk some more, idiot!
The sources of your study were booted out of the database for unethical behavior.
You claimed that study said Covid was not engineered and it said nothing of the sort.
The study researchers admitted they couldn’t even prove a raccoon dog was infected with Covid.
I’ve on you so much you’ve become my personal toilet.
The volume of issued from your general direction is prodigious for sure.
Remember when Qtsa was posting tweets like mad defending Manafort, had his pushed in, lashed out like a little claiming he was right, and stopped posting on ST because there was no internet in S. Korea?
From wiki: "The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign.""
Poor fella.
Good times.
So much for the permanent Orwellian biosecurity state.
Bringing up 6 year old news about Paul Manafort in the Covid thread...definitely not melting down.
You were the first to post the study from the unethical researchers. I didn't on you like I did Ef-man because you didn't claim it said Covid was not engineered, but do you have no comment on the study you posted?
What, me melting down over "6 year old news", really? You posted the crap in 2019, check the post date, idiot!Bringing up 6 year old news about Paul Manafort in the Covid thread...definitely not melting down.
No sir, I am mocking you, an idiot, for having a takes; I am enjoying you, an idiot, lash out denying it.
So off and go sulk some more.
Sorry...bringing up 4 year old posts about Paul Manafort in the Covid thread...definitely not melting down.What, me melting down over "6 year old news", really? You posted the crap in 2019, check the post date, idiot!
No sir, I am mocking you, an idiot, for having a takes; I am enjoying you, an idiot, lash out denying it.
So off and go sulk some more.
Do you even realize how much you are projecting right now during this epic meltdown? You had a take and posted a study and I called you out and mocked you mercilessly. Instead of just admitting it was a study and take you chose to melt down in multiple threads. It is what it is...continue melting down.
Editing my quotes...we've reached a new stage of melting down
nothing to say about your own post?
which parts did you find interesting?
poor fella
The meltdown continues
Sure, bags are packed for S. Korea.
Your deflections are truly amazing.
Am leaving any moment now, any moment.
My deflections?!?! You seriously can't stop projecting.Sure, bags are packed for S. Korea.
Your deflections are truly amazing.
Am leaving any moment now, any moment.
The meltdown continues
The hits just keep coming
Wow, did they pick up their and is there definitive proof that they go to S. Korea in shame?The hits just keep coming
There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 20 guests)
Posting Permissions
