Prominent scientist Dr. Steven Quay explains six reasons why there is only a one in a billion chance that Coronavirus came from nature, specifically an infected animal. Consider that if Dr. Quay knows this, so do all the liars at CDC and FDA.
- Hospital, antibody, and wastewater data indicate the virus was spreading globally in Wuhan by the Fall of 2019. “The virus was spreading in Wuhan and around the world in the fall of 2019, months before the first case in the Hunan seafood market. This is supported by 14 observations or evidence. …The evidence includes the calculation of the time to the most recent common ancestor. Hospital overloads in Wuhan. Antibodies and patients from Italy, Spain, and the U.S. Wastewater samples from Brazil. Sick athletes at the October Wuhan military games. School closings in Wuhan, and dozens of documented patients. This dismisses out of hand the market as the origin.”
- Examination of human infections, animal samples, and environmental specimens from the market shows no infected animals or wildlife vendors. “With SARS-1, literally 100% of the market animals were infected… None of these data are consistent with an infected animal passing SARS-2 to a human at the market.”
- Events from March 2019, including unusual activities by the Chinese Communist Party and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggest a lab-acquired infection. “This timeline includes unusual attention from the Chinese Communist Party, leading to a PLA physician soldier being put in charge. Large tender request to repair biosafety equipment. A virus database disappearing in the middle of the night. Large tender requests for a lab security force to ‘handle foreign personnel.’ Patents for a device to prevent a lab-acquired infection… These events taken together are a classic example of closing the barn door after the horses left.”
- There is no zoonotic evidence, with 96,000 animals testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 and no evidence of posterior diversity in the virus genome. Historical comparisons with SARS-CoV-1 show multiple spillover events, which are absent in SARS-CoV-2.
- The genome of SARS-CoV-2 has eight synthetic features not found in natural viruses. “The probability that SARS came from nature based on these features is one in a billion. These features are the backbone, the receptor binding domain, the furin cleavage site, the genetics of the furin cleavage site, the number, location, and pattern of cloning sites that use the Baric cloning method, and the [inaudible] gene…”
- “These same features were described in a 2018 DARPA grant by WIV and U.S. scientists. With respect to the grant, SARS-2 had the proposed backbone from the proposed reason in China. The proposed adaption to human killing. The proposed diversity from SARS-1. The proposed noseeum cleavage site number, location, and pattern. The proposed human cleavage site at the proposed S1-S2 junction.”
THEY’RE GOING TO KILL US
“The Wuhan Institute of Virology is testing a NEPA virus in a synthetic clone. This is a U.S. CDC bioterrorism agent that kills three out of four people. A lab leak with an airborne NEPA virus would quickly within weeks disrupt food and energy distribution, fire and police services, and medical care.”
“My analysis of this tipping point event is that it would set back civilization about 250 years. The work of this committee is critical. If we now fail to act with the knowledge we have, history, if it can still be recorded, will judge us poorly.”
CATASTROPHE
The results will be “catastrophic” if we don’t stop the gain of function research. Right now, laboratories are the “Wild West,” and they are handling viruses that will be worse than “nuclear bombs.”
Dr Steven Quay about Covid cover-up pic.twitter.com/VkvSu6ujxk
— Camus (@newstart_2024) March 9, 2023
THE INTENSITY OF RESISTING OVERSIGHT OF GAIN OF FUNCTION COMES FROM THE PRACTITIONERS DESPITE THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT SARS-2 CAME FROM GAIN OF FUNCTION
Richard Ebright identified the intensity source around the COVID-19 origin debate as a culture in virology that resists considering the enormous unintended consequences of gain-of-function research and resists regulation.
There is almost no regulation, and the intensity comes from the [immoral] practitioners.
Richard Ebright identifies the source of the intensity around the COVID origins debate as a culture in virology that resists considering the enormous unintended consequences of gain-of-function research and resists regulation.@R_H_Ebright pic.twitter.com/NeNPYQyasv
— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) June 18, 2024
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
