Chinese parliament report in Oct said labs including WIV needed safety
upgrades to prevent leaks
Newsletter published on May 17, 2020
(1) Nerd: if RaTG13 is a natural virus discovered in 2013, why did Shi
Zhengli not report it until Jan 23, 2020?
(2) Original version of Koontz's novel called virus 'Gorki-400'; later
changed to 'Wuhan-400'
(3) Summary of Synthetic / Natural Origin arguments
(4) FBI charge another US Chinese scientist concealing his relationship
to the Thousand Talents Program
(5) French athletes wonder if they caught Covid-19 at World Military
Games in Wuhan in Oct
(6) Chinese parliament report in Oct said labs including WIV needed
safety upgrades to prevent leaks
(7) European Commission 2012 Comic Book predicted Pandemic, with
Globalists as Saviours
(1) Nerd: if RaTG13 is a natural virus discovered in 2013, why did Shi
Zhengli not report it until Jan 23, 2020?
Nerd Has Power
RaTG13 – the undeniable evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made
(This is an updated version of my earlier writing, which has just been
published at GNEWS: https://gnews.org/192144/. Unfortunately, the GNEWS
version has a few editing errors. So, I am posting the draft here as
well. If you have read my earlier writing before, sorry for repeating
some of the things here again. In that case, please skip the first
section "who dares to carry out such a deceitful action". Thank you!)
What is the true origin of the Wuhan coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, 2019nCoV,
the CCP virus)? Many scientific publications seem to tell you that the
virus was born from nature. How reliable are these publications? While,
before I comment on that, I would like to bring out an important fact:
all of such publications rely on a single evidence – the sequence of a
bat coronavirus named RaTG13.
RaTG13 looks like a "close cousin" of the Wuhan coronavirus – the two
are 96% identical throughout the whole sequence of the viral genome. If
RaTG13 is a nature-borne virus, one can comfortably conclude that the
Wuhan coronavirus must very likely also come from nature and must share
a recent common ancestor with RaTG13.
But here is the problem: this RaTG13 virus isn’t real. The evidence of
its existence, its sequence, was fabricated.
Quite a claim, right? What is the claim based on? How can anyone
fabricate a sequence? Who dares to carry out such a deceitful action and
is not fearful of being caught? One is entitled to ask all of these
questions. Now, let’s dig into each of them and see how the answers
provided here may stand.
Who dares to carry out such a deceitful action?
The sequence of RaTG13 was reported by Zhengli Shi, a researcher from
the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the biosafety level 4 (P4) lab for
virology research. Dr. Shi is the top coronavirus expert in China. She
has gained a nickname of "batwoman" because she and her team have a long
history of capturing wild bats in caves all over for the purpose of
detecting and sometimes isolating coronaviruses within them. As publicly
stated, the goal of her research is to identify animal coronaviruses
that have the potential of crossing-over to infect humans and thereby
help the public avoid SARS-like disasters in the future.
Ironically, contrary to this self-portrait, since the very beginning of
the current pandemic, Zhengli Shi has been singled out as THE suspect,
who may have created the Wuhan coronavirus and, in doing so, caused a
world-wide disaster. Interestingly, on Jan 23rd, 2020, just before this
"rumor" started to soar though the roof, Shi published a paper in Nature
(1), where she compared the freshly obtained sequence of the Wuhan
coronavirus with those of other coronaviruses and thus delineated an
evolutionary path of this new virus. In this publication, all of a
sudden and out of nowhere, Shi reported this bat coronavirus, RaTG13,
which pampered the public and seemingly helped shape a consensus in the
field that the Wuhan coronavirus is of a natural origin.
As stated in the paper, RaTG13 was discovered from Yunnan province,
China, in 2013. According to credible sources, Shi has admitted to
several individuals in the field that she does not have a physical copy
of this RaTG13 virus. Her lab allegedly collected some bat feces in 2013
and analyzed these samples for possible presence of coronaviruses based
on genetic evidence. To put it into plainer words, she has no physical
proof for the existence of this RaTG13 virus. She only has its sequence
information, which is nothing but a string of letters alternating
between A, T, G, and C.
Can the sequence of such a virus be fabricated? It cannot be any easier.
It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than
30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier
if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one
you are trying to create. Once the typing is finished, one can upload
the sequence onto the public database. Contrary to general conception,
such database does not really have a way to validate the authenticity or
correctness of the uploaded sequence. It relies completely upon the
scientists themselves – upon their honesty and consciences. Once
uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used
legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.
Now, does this RaTG13 sequence qualify as credible evidence in judging
the matter? Well, remember, a central part of the matter is whether or
not this Wuhan coronavirus was engineered or created by ZHENGLI SHI. It
is Shi, not anybody else, who is the biggest suspect of this possible
crime that is grander than anything else in human history. Given the
circumstances, wouldn’t she have a strong enough motive to be deceitful?
If the evidence she raised to prove herself innocent was nothing but a
bunch of letters recently typed in a word file, should anyone treat it
as valid evidence?
RaTG13, if truly exists, should never be neglected by Shi for a period
of seven years
Let’s now think about this from another direction. The sequence of
RaTG13 is highly alarming – it clearly shows a potential of the virus to
infect humans.
Within the spike protein of a b coronavirus, there is a critical piece
named receptor-binding domain (RBD), which dictates whether or not this
virus can use the ACE2 receptor on the surface of our cells and thereby
infect humans. As a routine, when Shi’s team finishes collecting samples
and confirms the presence of a coronavirus, the first thing they would
do is to look at the sequence of the virus’ RBD. If there is resemblance
between this sequence and that of the SARS virus (rarely so), their
blood would boil because they have found something that may jump over to
humans. It also means that top-journal publications are coming their way.
In 2013, Shi made her fame in the coronavirus field by publishing in
Nature two bat coronaviruses (Rs3367 and SHC014), which share
considerable sequence similarity with SARS in the RBD region (2). This
work, for the first time, proved a bat origin of SARS. In the following
years, her team continued to publish articles, featuring additional bat
coronaviruses that share these important sequence motifs (3, 4).
What does an RBD sequence look like? Figure 1 is the sequence comparison
between SARS RBD and the RBDs of the bat coronaviruses that Zhengli Shi
published in high-profile journals (2-4). Comparing to SARS (top), many
bat coronaviruses (most of the ones in the bottom half) had substantial
deletions in their RBDs and are thus likely defective in targeting
humans. In contrast, some bat coronaviruses (upper half) not only
resemble SARS in the completeness of the RBD sequences but also contain
amino acids similar to their SARS counterparts at some of the five
locations known to be critical for binding human ACE2 receptor. This
group of viruses, with these dazzling features, were perceived by the
field as breakthroughs.
Figure 1. Sequence alignment comparing the RBDs of SARS (top) and RaTG13
(red arrow) to RBDs of bat coronaviruses that Zhengli Shi published in
high-profile journals from 2013-2017 (2-4). Amino acid residues
highlighted by Shi as critical for binding human ACE2 receptor (2) are
labeled in red text on top. Alignment was done using the MultAlin
webserver (http://multalin.toulouse.inra.fr/multalin/).
?How does RaTG13, which was discovered in 2013, compare to these most
cherished collections of Shi’s?
By appearance, RaTG13 clearly belongs to the "good-looking" group. It
rivals with the best ones in its completeness of the RBD sequence as
well as in the conservation of critical amino acids. While a single
amino acid insertion is observed, it occurs in a variable region and can
be easily tolerated without affecting the protein function. Importantly,
RaTG13 preserves the binding motifs as much as, if not better than, any
other bat coronavirus in Shi’s list. At position 442, RaTG13 has a "L",
which beats most, if not all, bat viruses in resembling the "Y" in SARS
RBD ("L" and "Y" both mediate hydrophobic interactions). At position
472, RaTG13 is the only bat coronavirus that has the residue "L", which
is identical to SARS. Although the amino acids at the other three
positions are not identical to their counterparts in SARS, they are all
conservative mutations, which may not negatively impact the protein’s
function. (In fact, a very recent publication confirmed that the RBD
from RaTG13, like SARS RBD, can indeed bind the human ACE2 receptor (5).
Note: the RaTG13 RBD gene used in this work was synthesized).
As an expert as Shi is, she only needed to take one peek at the sequence
of RaTG13’s RBD and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles
SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humans. If Shi’s
public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat
coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humans, how could she
possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13? If this
RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish
this astonishing finding earlier and yet let the "less-attractive"
viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence
only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning
the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?
None of these makes sense. These facts only add to the suspicion –
Zhengli Shi either was directly involved in the creation of this
virus/bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both.
Of course, these facts also add to the claim that RaTG13 is a fake virus
– it exists on Nature (the journal) but not in nature.
A closer look at the gene sequence of RaTG13’s spike reveals clear
evidence of human manipulation
To assist our analysis here, we have to first understand one basic
feature of natural evolution.
When a gene (composed of nucleotides) is being translated into a protein
(composed of amino acids), every three consecutive nucleotides
constitute a codon and each codon encodes a particular amino acid
(Figure 2). On the other hand, an amino acid typically corresponds to
four codons, although some amino acids have one or two more and some one
or two less (you can learn more about this here:
https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/3ccee8500ac8/6). What does it mean?
It means that, when a nucleotide has changed (or in other words a single
nucleotide substitution has occurred), the codon is certainly altered
but the corresponding amino acid may or may not change. This is because
the new codon may encode the same amino acid as the old codon does. A
single nucleotide substitution that results in NO change of the amino
acid is referred to as a synonymous mutation. A single nucleotide
substitution that leads to a change in amino acid is called a
non-synonymous mutation. When evolution takes place through random
mutations, on average, every six nucleotide changes result in the change
of one amino acid. In other words, on average and under normal
conditions, the ratio between the number of synonymous mutations and
that of non-synonymous mutations should be around 5:1. Picture Figure 2.
Codon table. Picture taken from:
Now let’s further illustrate such a relationship using an example. In
Figure 3A, synonymous and non-synonymous mutations are counted when the
gene sequences of the spike proteins from two closely related bat
coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21 (6) are compared. The green curve depicts
how the number of the synonymous mutation grows (Y axis) when the codons
are analyzed sequentially (X axis). The red curve represents the trend
of non-synonymous mutations. As expected, there are more synonymous
mutations than non-synonymous mutations. Importantly, a correlation
between the two curves is clearly present: they climb up and go through
plateaus in a roughly synchronized manner. Throughout the whole length
of the gene, at any point, the ratio between the accumulated synonymous
and non-synonymous mutations is maintained at around 5:1. As we have
described in the preceding paragraph, these features are consistent with
what is the expected when two lineages closely relate to each other
evolutionarily and the differences in their sequences are results of
random mutations.
Figure 3. Comparing the nucleotide sequences of different spike proteins
on the synonymous mutations (green curve) and non-synonymous mutations
(red curve) reveals evidence of human manipulation. A. comparison
between two related bat coronaviruses ZC45 (MG772933) and ZXC21
(MG772934), which are nature-borne. B. comparison between the Wuhan
coronavirus (NC_045512) and RaTG13 (MN996532) shows a pattern
inconsistent with natural evolution. Sequence alignment was done using
EMBOSS Needle. Synonymous Non-synonymous Analysis was performed using
SNAP at www.hiv.lanl.gov (7).
Does this hold true for RaTG13 and the Wuhan coronavirus? Not really.
Figure 3B is the same comparative analysis done between RaTG13 and the
Wuhan coronavirus. One thing you can immediately appreciate is that, in
the second half of the sequence, while the green curve continues to grow
steadily, the red curve stays flat. For a region as wide as over 700
amino acids (corresponding to 2100 nucleotides), which is statistically
substantial, the synchronization between the two curves is non-existent.
Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, at the end, the final counts
of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations yield a ratio of just over
five, consistent with what’s expected out of natural evolution.
Let’s bring out some numbers to help us better comprehend the difference
here. Let’s focus on the S2 protein, the second half of the spike
ranging from 684 to 1273 (numbering according to the Wuhan coronavirus).
Detailed analysis of this region reveals that, between ZC45 and ZXC21, a
total of 32 nucleotides have changed and 5 of them lead to amino acid
mutations (27 synonymous mutations vs. 5 non-synonymous mutations). It
is, again, consistent with the scenario of natural evolution: every six
nucleotide changes result in the change of one amino acid;
synonymous/non-synonymous ratio is about 5:1. In contrast, for the same
S2 region, between the Wuhan coronavirus and RaTG13, there are a total
of 90 nucleotide changes and only two amino acid mutations. Here, every
45 nucleotide changes correspond to one amino acid change. The
synonymous/non-synonymous ratio is 44:1.
It is noteworthy that ZC45 and ZXC21 share ~97% sequence identity, just
like that between the Wuhan coronavirus and RaTG13. So, the above
comparison is very proper and reliable.
If a person is studying the sequence differences between the Wuhan
coronavirus and RaTG13 and yet pays attention only to the overall
synonymous/non-synonymous ratio for the spike sequence, nothing would
look strange. However, if one digs out as much details as shown in
Figure 3, any person with a reasonable mind would say that something is
clearly wrong.
What is the best way to interpret this? A safe conclusion is that,
between the Wuhan coronavirus and RaTG13, at least one is non-natural.
If one is natural, then the other one must be not. Of course, the other
possibility also exists – neither of them came from nature.
If the Wuhan coronavirus is non-natural, then we have reached the end of
our investigation.
In fact, the Wuhan coronavirus may "look" natural even if it is a
bioweapon because it is most likely made by using a natural coronavirus
as a template. This would lead to a conclusion that the RaTG13 is
non-natural, which is consistent with the facts we have brought up
earlier: no physical copies of the virus exist and the sequence is
highly likely fabricated.
How could Zhengli Shi fail so badly in fabricating the RaTG13 sequence?
While, when I said it was easy to type out a fake sequence that is 96%
identical to a template, I did not say that it is easy to maintain a
reasonable synonymous/non-synonymous ratio throughout the whole genome.
Unfortunately for Shi, when she had to come up a good sequence for S1
and the RBD within it (she knows that this part will be scrutinized the
most), she had somehow exhausted the number of non-synonymous mutations
she could use here. To maintain a reasonable synonymous/non-synonymous
ratio for the whole Spike-encoding gene (we can actually give her some
credit here as she did remember to get it close to 5:1), she had to
strictly limit the number of non-synonymous mutations in the S2 half of
spike, which ended up flattening the red curve. It is hard to be a
cheater after all.
A deeper reason that Shi and the CCP needs the cover of RaTG13
Hopefully you are now as convinced as I am in that the RaTG13 sequence
is indeed a fabrication. The first thing we should do then is to
discredit any scientific publication, which based its analysis on the
RaTG13 sequence and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that the
Wuhan coronavirus is of natural origin. When you do a clean-up like
that, you will see that there is practically nothing left.
Next, we can look back to see what other coronaviruses are close to the
Wuhan coronavirus in terms of sequence similarity. It turns out the two
bat viruses featured in Figure 3A, ZC45 and ZXC21, are the next hits,
each sharing 95% amino acid sequence identity (~89% nucleotide identity)
with the Wuhan coronavirus. What is striking is the manner that the
Wuhan coronavirus resembles these two bat coronaviruses – while every
other protein remains highly identical, the S1 part of Spike, which
dictates host selection, is only 69% identical. I have posted an article
earlier, where I thoroughly analyzed this pattern and discussed how it
is interlocked with the Wuhan coronavirus being a bioweapon made with
ZC45 or ZXC21 as a template (www.nerdhaspower.weebly.com).
One thing we haven’t mentioned so far is that ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat
coronaviruses discovered, collected, and published by a military
research lab of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (6). They are owned
only by the CCP. Now you may be able to appreciate the full benefits
that the CCP creates by reporting a fake RaTG13 virus with a fabricated
sequence – it would just be too obvious otherwise.
Finally, I would like to add an additional piece of evidence, which was
brought up in a comment of my earlier article by someone who is clearly
an expert. It, in my opinion, hugely strengthens the claim that the
Wuhan coronavirus is of non-natural origin.
The E protein of b coronaviruses is a structural protein that is
tolerant of mutations as evidenced both in SARS and in bat
coronaviruses. However, on the amino acid level, E protein of the Wuhan
coronavirus identified at the beginning of the outbreak is 100%
identical to those of the suspected templates, ZC45 and ZXC21 (Figure
4). What is striking is that, after a short two-months spread of the
virus in humans, the E protein is already mutating. Sequence data
obtained within the month of April indicate that mutations have occurred
to four different locations (Figure 4). Note that the E protein makes
very limited interactions with host proteins and thus is not under
evolutionary pressure to adapt to a new host. Not only the E protein can
tolerate mutations but also its mutational rate is held constant across
different coronavirus species. The fact that the E protein of the Wuhan
coronaviruses is already mutating in the short period of human-to-human
transmission is consistent with its evolutionary feature. In stark
contrast, while ZC45/ZXC21 and the Wuhan coronavirus are more distant
evolutionarily, the E proteins within them are 100% identical. In no way
this could be a result of natural evolution.
The most plausible explanation: the Wuhan coronavirus is a bioweapon
made using ZC45/ZXC21 as a template.
Figure 4. Alignment of E proteins of bat and human coronaviruses
shatters the notion that the Wuhan coronavirus came from nature. While
the early copies of Wuhan coronavirus share 100% identity of the E
protein with ZC45, ZXC21, and RaTG13, sequence data of most recent Wuhan
coronaviruses indicates that mutation has been observed in four
different locations. Accession numbers of viruses (not including the
ones listed in Figure 3): Feb_11: MN997409, April_9: MT300186, Apr_13:
MT326139, Apr_15_A: MT263389, Apr_15_B: MT293206, Apr_17: MT350246.
Added on May 10th, 2020:
Following the suggestion given by Viennah K. Erchus, additional
information is added here to illustrate how E proteins are tolerant of
mutations. As shown in Figure 5, mutations and insertion/deletions in E
proteins have been observed at multiple locations both in SARS
coronaviruses and in bat coronaviruses. This clearly indicates E
protein’s tendency and permissiveness toward mutations across b
coronavirus species. What is inconsistent with this trait is the fact
that ZC45/ZXC21 and the Wuhan coronavirus, while significantly distant
from each other in evolution, share 100% identity in E proteins. Again,
in no way this could be a result of natural evolution. This further
supports the claim that the Wuhan coronavirus is made in a lab by
following ZC45/ZXC21 as a template.
Figure 5. Sequence alignment of E proteins from Wuhan coronavirus
(Wuhan-Hu-1), SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GD01, SARS_ExoN1, SARS_TW_GD1,
SARS_Sino1_11), and bat coronaviruses (Bat_AP040581.1, RsSHC014, SC2018,
Bat_NP_828854.1, BtRs-BetaCoV/HuB2013, BM48-31/BGR/2008). The
ready-for-analysis sequences were kindly prepared by Viennah K. Erchus.
Author’s note and acknowledgement:
The current writing is a reproduction of part of my earlier article
(www.nerdhaspower.weebly.com), with two significant additions. The first
addition is the analysis of synonymous/non-synonymous mutations of
Spike-encoding gene of RaTG13. This was first identified and analyzed by
Elannor D. Allens, who described this finding in a comment under my
earlier article. Using the synonymous/nonsynonymous ratio between ZC45
and ZXC21 as an example of natural evolution was suggested by ?????. The
second addition is the analysis of recently observed mutations in the
viral E proteins. This was first observed and analyzed by John F.
Signus, who also posted his findings in a series of comments. The
writing here owes greatly to their brilliance and insights. ?????
particularly encouraged me in pursuing this writing. Although these
names may only be their identities online, I nonetheless feel that it is
appropriate to give the credits using these names. I believe dearly that
the persons behind these names are the most decent and brilliant kind.
* Just realized that I used the wrong format for this page. If you want
to leave a comment, please go to the main page "BLOG". Sorry for the
inconvenience.
References:
1. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A
pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat
origin. Nature. 2020.
2. Ge XY, Li JL, Yang XL, Chmura AA, Zhu G, Epstein JH, et al.
Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses
the ACE2 receptor. Nature. 2013;503(7477):535-8.
3. Zeng LP, Gao YT, Ge XY, Zhang Q, Peng C, Yang XL, et al. Bat
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra
Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune
Response. J Virol. 2016;90(14):6573-82.
4. Hu B, Zeng LP, Yang XL, Ge XY, Zhang W, Li B, et al.
Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides
new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS Pathog.
2017;13(11):e1006698.
5. Shang J, Ye G, Shi K, Wan Y, Luo C, Aihara H, et al.
Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 2020.
6. Hu D, Zhu C, Ai L, He T, Wang Y, Ye F, et al. Genomic
characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in
Chinese bats. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018;7(1):154.
7. Korber B. HIV Signature and Sequence Variation Analysis.
Computational Analysis of HIV Molecular Sequences. 2000; Chapter 4:55-72.
(2) Original version of Koontz's novel called virus 'Gorki-400'; later
changed to 'Wuhan-400'
From: cg <acmealethia@gmail.com>
Subject: In the Koontz novel, as you may have heard already, the virus was
originally called Gorki
While the page from Koontz's novel displayed above (calling the virus
Wuhan 400) is genuine, other iterations of this book used a different
name for the fictional biological weapon. In fact, when we searched a
1981 edition of this book available via
Google Books we found no references to "Wuhan." In that edition, this
biological weapon is called "Gorki-400" after the Russian city where it
was created.
In some later edition the name was changed from Gorki-400 to Wuhan-400.
The investigators are not entirely sure when or why this change
occurred. From what they can tell, the biological weapon was originally
called "Gorki-400" when this book was published in 1981. But by 2008,
the name had been changed to "Wuhan-400." ==
No, Dean Koontz did not predict the coronavirus in a 1981 novel
By Harmeet Kaur, CNN
Updated 2046 GMT (0446 HKT) March 13, 2020
Author Dean Koontz wrote a novel called 'The Eyes of Darkness'
originally published in 1981, describing a killer virus that some
claimed echoes the current coronavirus outbreak. Author Dean Koontz
wrote a novel called "The Eyes of Darkness," originally published in
1981, describing a killer virus that some claimed echoes the current
coronavirus outbreak.
(CNN) The coronavirus is officially a global pandemic, so naturally,
people are feeding their anxieties by voraciously consuming movies and
books about other outbreaks.
Some of them bear eerie similarities to what's happening right now,
prompting some people on the internet to claim that certain storytellers
"predicted" the spread of coronavirus.
One particularly striking example comes from a thriller novel by Dean
Koontz called "The Eyes of Darkness.
In a tweet that has since been widely shared, someone said that Koontz
had predicted the coronavirus outbreak based on a screenshot of a page
in the book. But to say that Koontz saw all this coming is a bit of a
stretch. A novel is a work of fiction, after all.
Nick Hinton @NickHintonn
A Dean Koontz novel written in 1981 predicted the outbreak of the
coronavirus!
In the book, the virus is a man-made weapon
In the screenshot page from the novel, a character named Dombey narrates
a story about a Chinese scientist who brought a biological weapon called
"Wuhan-400" to the United States:
"To understand that," Dombey said, "you have to go back twenty months.
It was around then that a Chinese scientist named Li Chen defected to
the United States, carrying a diskette record of China's most important
and dangerous new biological weapon in a decade. They call the stuff
'Wuhan-400' because it was developed at their RDNA labs outside the city
of Wuhan, and it was the four-hundredth viable strain of man-made
microorganisms created at that research center."
First, it's worth pointing out that in the original 1981 edition of "The
Eyes of Darkness," this biological weapon was called "Gorki-400," in
reference to a Russian locality. The name of the weapon was changed to
"Wuhan-400" when the book was released again in 1989, according to the
South China Morning Post.
It's true that the current coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan, China.
But the idea that the virus was created in a lab is actually a
conspiracy theory that originated from unverified social media accounts
and has since been widely dismissed by scientists from both China and
the West.
Experts are still trying to figure out the exact source of the virus,
but research indicates that it likely originated in bats and was
transmitted to an intermediate host before jumping to people -- just
like its cousin that caused the 2003 SARS epidemic. In the book, the
virus has a 100% mortality rate
In a later paragraph, the character Dombey goes on to say that no one
infected with virus survives:
"And Wuhan-400 has other, equally important advantages over most
biological agents. For one thing, you can become an infectious carrier
only four hours after coming into contact with the virus. That's an
incredibly short gestation period. Once infected, no one lives more than
twenty-four hours. Most die in twelve. Wuhan-400's kill rate is one
hundred percent."
That's not the case with the coronavirus.
First off, people infected by the coronavirus tend to develop symptoms
about five days after exposure, and almost always within two weeks,
according to a recent study.
Secondly, the mortality rate for coronavirus is not even close to 100%.
While the virus can be fatal, it's mostly the elderly and those with a
weakened immune system or other health conditions who face more serious
risks.
Officials estimate the death rate for the virus to be around 3% to 4%
globally, based on the information they have, though they expect that
number to fall.
So while Koontz may be a captivating writer, he's no psychic. ==
China wasn't original villain in book ‘predicting' coronavirus outbreak
– it was Russia
Dean Koontz's The Eyes of Darkness originally contained details of a
man-made virus called Gorki-400 from the Russian city of Gorki
The change to Wuhan came when the book was released in hardback under
Koontz's own name in 1989 – at the end of the Cold War
Kate Whitehead
Published: 9:00pm, 20 Feb, 2020
Much has been made of Dean Koontz's 1981 book The Eyes of Darkness which
appeared to have predicted the recent coronavirus outbreak – but the
original villain was Russia, not China. Photo: Shutterstock The 1981
book by US thriller writer Dean Koontz that appeared to predict the
coronavirus outbreak in China initially had the virus originating in Russia.
The book appears to have been rewritten after the collapse of the Soviet
Union meant the country was no longer seen as a communist bogeyman.
Koontz's The Eyes of Darkness made headlines in the past week after
readers noted the story concerned a man-made virus called Wuhan-400
developed in a biological weapons lab in Wuhan – ground zero of the
current coronavirus outbreak – and described as the "perfect weapon".
"They call the stuff ‘Wuhan-400' because it was developed at their RDNA
labs outside the city of Wuhan, and it was the four-hundredth viable
strain of man-made organisms created at that research centre," Koontz
writes in the book.
However, Wuhan wasn't even originally mentioned in The Eyes of Darkness.
The first edition of the book, written under Koontz's pseudonym Leigh
Nichols, concerns a virus called Gorki-400 that was created by the
Russians and emerged from "the city of Gorki".
The change to Wuhan came when the book was released in hardback under
Koontz's own name in 1989. The year of the book's re-release is
significant – 1989 marked the end of the Cold War. And with the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the country was no longer communist.
"Starting in 1986, relations between the US and the Soviet Union began
improving," says Jenny Smith, co-founder of indie bookshop Bleak House
Books in Hong Kong and a student of Russian history. "Mikhail Gorbachev
came in in 1985 and was very interested in making the Soviet Union a
more open society and improving relations. By 1988, it is our friend and
not our enemy."
An American author pointing the fictional finger of blame at Russia
would not have gone down well in that climate, so The Eyes of Darkness
needed a new villain. There were only so many places with bio-weapons
facilities – think France, Britain and Japan – and most, as far as the
US was concerned, were the good guys.
"China is the only place that comes to my mind that would have had an
active programme and it's likely there was a deep suspicion [in the US]
of China covering a lot of things in this period," says Smith, who wrote
her PhD on Soviet technology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in the United States.
This was in the immediate aftermath of the 1989 student demonstrations
and the bloody Tiananmen crackdown that followed. It was a period when
there were rumours swirling about leaks and cover-ups at biological
weapons facilities, says Smith, and the US would have been aware of the
repression of these rumours.
The switch from Gorki-400 to Wuhan-400 in the book was a literal
cut-and-paste and appears to reflect the shift in mentality after the
Cold War.
"Everyone was thinking in terms of two great powers – America and the
Soviet Union, the good guys and the bad guys. It's easy to see how you
might substitute one bad guy for another, Gorki for Wuhan," says Smith.
It is not known whether Koontz himself requested this change or his
publisher made it. Emails to Koontz, his literary agent and publisher
have gone unanswered.
Leigh Nichols wasn't the only pen name Dean Koontz wrote under in his
early career. He also used David Axton, Deanna Dwyer and K.R. Dwyer.
"It's not unusual to use a pen name when you are starting off in your
career. To play it safe, you don't want to be as exposed," says Albert
Wan, Smith's husband and the co-founder of Bleak House Books. "When his
books started to take off in popularity, he may well have decided to use
real identity."
As for the Gorki referenced in the book, it could be one of a number of
Russian towns with that name. The largest, just south of Moscow, is home
to 3,500 people today. Compare that with Wuhan, with its population
today of more than 11 million – even in 1989, Wuhan's population topped
3.3 million.
The revised edition of The Eyes of Darkness brought the book closer to
possibility, but it's still some way off what's happening with Covid-19.
Significantly, contracting the fictional Wuhan-400 is a certain death
sentence, while only 2 per cent of Covid-19 cases are fatal.
"It might run as science fiction, but it's not impossible as it has
happened in the past and people would be aware of it," Smith says.
"Think of the cover-up over anthrax – a lot of these stories are
stranger than real life."
Meanwhile, readers are also pointing to a passage in a book by the late
Sylvia Browne, an American author who claimed to be psychic, that
predicted an international outbreak of a virus this year.
"Around 2020, a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the
globe, attacking the lungs and the bronchial tubes and resisting all
known treatments," Browne wrote in the book End of Days. "Almost more
baffling than the illness itself will be the fact that it will suddenly
vanish as quickly as it arrived, attack 10 years later, and then
disappear completely."
(3) Summary of Synthetic / Natural Origin arguments
From: javier.ortiza@ehu.eus
Follwing with the pandemic origin.
The nerdhaspower blog
contains really a very interesting information.
Also, there is another one:
Both of them are focusing on the analysis of the protein sequences
regarding which theory, lab engineered or natural generation, fits better.
In these two videos " Coronavirus: Are Our Scientists Lying To Us?",
Evidence Covid-19 May *NOT* Be Natural",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJzGqVyAtlg published by Chris
Martenson's-Peak Prosperity are direct references to information
extracted of these mentioned two blogs.
In this Article (12-05-2020)
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19396 "Evidence that the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is genetically engineered" a comprehensive summary of
the thesis and arguments suggested in nerdhaspower blog is made.
Curiously, most of the arguments for the lab man made origin theory are
being generated from some "incongruencies" found in genomic data.
By comparing CoV19 gene regions sequences of the CoV19 and correspondent
closest related (RaTG13, ZC45, Pangolin MP789) protein sequences.
Specially with gene sequences of recently published RaTG13 and MPT89
Pangolin. Just a couple of days ago,a new one RmYN02 virus appears in
the scene. (see below).
These recents viruses have been reported as proof of evidence for
natural recombination origin theory. In some way this suddenly inrush of
new viruses seems more an attemp to debunk the lab engineered theory.
Specially, looking at the time circunstances of samples finding and
paper publish dates.
Precisely, in the last video (13-05-2020) released by by Chris
Martenson's-Peak Prosperity: "Covid-19 A Result of Lab Manipulation?
Suspicions Grow...", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD3ztjqYGbg
Here is remarked that, while some staments made by scientist supporting
the natural origine theory are lacking of argument strength, the lab
theory is shown as more reliable theory, based on known and proved
earlier happened "factual" scientific findings. It is quoted also the
news concerning car traffic and cellular-phone traffic odd absence
during middle October in the vicinity of WIV. As ever the style of the
Chris Martenson along with the explanations and reasonings help
understand the technical matters.
A new important article "novel bat coronavirus closely related to
SARS-CoV-2 contains natural insertions at the S1/S2 cleavage site of the
spike protein",
(Received Date: 16 April 2020, revised 1 May, accepted 6 May) (previous
version
was posted 6 March) leaded by Professor Weifeng Shi in Shanghai, (who
already presented another article in Lancet: "Genomic characterisation
and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus
origins and receptor binding")
In this new article it is claimed an important push towards natural
origin theory:
" Here, we report a novel bat-derived coronavirus, denoted RmYN02,
identified from a metagenomics analysis of samples from 227 bats
collected from Yunnan Province in China between May and October, 2019".
"RmYN02 contains an insertion at the S1/S2 cleavage site in the spike
protein in a similar manner to SARS-CoV-2. This suggests that such
insertion events can occur naturally in animal betacoronaviruses"
It is true that mass media has echoed rapidly this article and some of
them shows as " another clear proof of evidence" of natural origin. It
will be surely now in deep reviewed to corroborate the reliability of
findings and conclusions.
Basically, the proponents of the "original" theory expect that
somehow/somewhere the wild animal which hosted CoV19 before jumping to
humans will be discovered . Hence, the logical interest in the
appearance of news CoV19 alike virus strains that can corroborate his
theory (apart, of course, from the benefit to science). Meanwhile, lab
origin proponents, examine thoroughly these news viruses to see if any
abnormality or odd singularity that goes against "natural" laws are
found. As far as these "abnormalities" are correctly reasoned, its
theory gains strength and the counterpart should give a reasonable
explanation to justify it.
In my opinion, some of these exposed arguments in the comments of the
above mentioned blogs go beyond, posing questions that up to now have
been not answered.
(4) FBI charge another US Chinese scientist concealing his relationship
to the Thousand Talents Program
Feds charge NASA researcher for alleged undisclosed ties to China Simon
Saw-Teong Ang allegedly failed to disclose Chinese ties.
By Luke Barr
14 May 2020, 03:15
The government on Monday unsealed a wire fraud charge against a
University of Arkansas professor and NASA researcher with ties to the
Chinese government.
Simon Saw-Teong Ang allegedly failed to disclose ties with the Chinese
government and Chinese companies while also being employed as a
professor at the University of Arkansas and accepting NASA research
grant money.
A lawyer for Ang has not responded to an ABC News request for comment.
According to court documents, "Ang had close ties with the Chinese
government and Chinese companies, and failed to disclose those ties when
required to do so in order to receive grant money from NASA."
Emails in the court documents show that Ang had conversations with a
researcher in China about concealing his relationship to the Thousand
Talents Program, a Chinese run initiative aimed at increasing Chinese
presence around the world.
"Not many people here know I am [a Thousand talents program scholar] but
if this leaks out, my job here will be in deep troubles," Ang wrote. "I
have to be very careful or else I may be out of my job from this
university." "Please keep this to yourself as I trust you," he wrote.
The FBI was alerted to Ang’s activity after he was mentioned in a
Chinese news article highlighting some of the accomplishments of
Thousand Talent Program scholars.
Court documents say that Ang held positions in China while also being
employed by the University of Arkansas.
This is just the latest in a string of Department of Justice charges
related to ties to China. The Justice Department recently convicted and
sentenced a former Emory University professor on similar charges.
The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security also released
guidance that China is targeting COVID-19 related cyber research through
the cyber intrusions.
(5) French athletes wonder if they caught Covid-19 at World Military
Games in Wuhan in Oct
Coronavirus: France fears virus may have spread in October after
military games in Wuhan
French athletes have recalled falling ill after returning from military
games in Wuhan as early as October, raising questions about when the
virus started circulating.
The Sun
MAY 7, 202010:26PM
France fears the killer coronavirus may have hit Europe from October as
several athletes recall becoming "very sick" while competing in Wuhan
back then.
It's now thought that the bug was unleashed in Europe months before the
Chinese city in Hubei Province became infamous as the world's original
COVID-19 epicentre, according to The Sun.
International athletes who gathered at the World Military Games in Wuhan
last October may have brought the killer bug back home with them, French
media say.
Le Parisian writes that several athletes complained of symptoms upon
their return, and that in hindsight, "they may have contracted COVID-19".
Elodie Clouvel, a world champion modern pentathlete, was asked on local
TV station Television Loire 7 on March 25 if she was worried about the
prospect of potentially having to spend the summer in Japan for the
Olympics.
She replied: "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 added: "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 [back then]."
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.'"
This new revelation comes after it was discovered that a Frenchman,
Amirouche Hammar, 43, had been infected with the coronavirus in the
Paris region as early as December 27.
The French delegation took part in the 7th edition of the World Military
Games in Wuhan from October 18-27 last year – just 20 days before the
first Chinese person officially became ill with coronavirus – with 402
athletes present, along with 10,000 other athletes from across the globe.
According to French news channel BFMTV, a number of athletes returned to
France with unusual symptoms, including fevers and body aches.
However, none of the returning athletes were tested.
The French Army who were responsible for organising their athletes at
the military games reportedly confirmed that they had not wanted to test
any athletes either.
Doctors have speculated that the virus might have been spreading in
France before December – in November or even as far back as October –
and the latest French media revelations seem to underscore that.
BFMTV quoted one anonymous athlete saying that he originally thought he
had simply caught a cold.
But, when news began to emerge of an epidemic in Wuhan, many athletes on
a WhatsApp group reportedly began to openly wonder if it was possible
that they had previously contracted the disease too.
Now that it has been revealed that Amirouche Hammar in France had the
coronavirus back in December, closer attention is being paid to what
those athletes have said.
Local media report that since Elodie Clouvel spoke up on March 25, many
athletes have been told not to answer journalists' questions and to
refer media inquiries to the head of communication of the French armies.
According to the French media, athletes who were in Wuhan reportedly
received telephone calls from the army a few weeks ago to reassure them.
One of these athletes, who also preferred to remain anonymous, said: "We
were told there is no risk, you left on 28th October and the virus
arrived on 1st November".
But, given the confusion over when exactly the new coronavirus was
unleashed, and revelations from an Associated Press investigation that
China didn't warn the public of the likely pandemic for six key days,
there are mounting fears that it may have spread beyond its boundaries
far earlier than first reported. ==
Daily Mail report:
(6) Chinese parliament report in Oct said labs including WIV needed
safety upgrades to prevent leaks
China knew of lab safety concerns from last year
Beijing had been preparing biosecurity law, but not fast enough
KATSUJI NAKAZAWA, Nikkei senior staff writer
April 30, 2020 04:07 JST
TOKYO -- "We're doing very serious investigations," U.S. President
Donald Trump said during a briefing earlier this week when asked about
China's responsibility in spreading the new coronavirus.
"We are not happy with that whole situation," Trump went on, "because we
believe it could have been stopped at the source, it could have been
stopped quickly, and it wouldn't have spread all over the world."
The investigations Trump referred to are to determine whether the deadly
virus leaked from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, Hubei Province.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has echoed the president. "It's
incredibly important," he told the Christian Broadcasting Network on
Friday, "that we get to the bottom of what transpired and that the
Chinese Communist Party come clean about how this all began."
His words suggest that the party has not come clean so far.
The prevailing view among academics, including those in the U.S., is
that the virus was born naturally and not produced by man in a lab.
Trump himself does not seem to be pushing the "man-made virus" theory
but rather questioning the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab
in the process of research and storage.
What has drawn attention inside and outside China in the wake of Trump's
remarks is that Chinese President Xi Jinping was talking about
"biosafety" a little more than two months ago.
During an executive meeting of the party's Central Committee on Feb. 14,
Xi urged top leaders to enhance the country's governance capacity for
biosafety and to enact "a biosecurity law" at the earliest possible date.
This was shortly after China locked down Wuhan on Jan. 23 and the nation
was in turmoil. Suspicions that the virus escaped from a research
facility sparked a firestorm of controversy among Chinese internet users.
The controversy partly arose because authorities initially covered up
information about the outbreak. This was exemplified by the tragic case
of Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist and coronavirus whistleblower in
Wuhan who was muzzled before he himself succumbed to the virus.
The controversy also gained traction because bats native to the
provinces of Yunnan and Zhejiang -- and that do not live in Wuhan --
were suspected to be the virus's carrier. Perhaps the source of the
virus was not the wet market in Wuhan, as was widely explained, but
samples kept at the lab, people began to rumor.
Amid the chaos, it was understandable that people made a mental
connection between Xi's strong biosafety order and the virus leak
theory. Their hunch, however, was off the mark.
"At first glance, Xi's February order to enact a biosecurity law seems
to have come up abruptly," a Chinese political source explained. "That's
a big misunderstanding. China has been preparing for it carefully for
quite a long time, conscious of how the country was perceived overseas."
There are two virus research-related facilities in Wuhan. One is the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is affiliated with the Chinese
Academy of Sciences, and the other is the Wuhan Center for Disease
Prevention and Control.
The Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control is close to the
Huanan seafood market, which initially drew attention as the suspected
source of the outbreak.
But it is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is located a certain
distance from the market, that has now come under the spotlight, partly
due to Trump's remarks. It is a biosafety level 4, or BSL-4, lab,
meaning it incorporates the highest level of security, and went online
there in 2018.
The facility's pathogen preservation center is said to be Asia's
largest. The center is said to be storing about 1,500 strains, including
the coronavirus that caused the severe acute respiratory syndrome
epidemic almost 20 years ago.
The BSL-4 lab's construction came out of long-standing cooperative ties
between China and France. But France was also part of the international
community that pointed out a flaw in the framework for ensuring the
safety of virus research in China.
China wanted to catch up with advanced countries in biotech research as
soon as possible. To that end, it needed to establish related laws on
par with those in countries like France, the U.S. and Germany.
On Oct. 21 last year, well before the first infection acknowledged by
the Chinese government, the Standing Committee of the National People's
Congress, China's parliament, received its first report detailing the
draft biosecurity law.
Former Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng was in charge of the report. He
cited eight points as priority areas, and they are worth looking at
because they give the impression that China had all but predicted the
viral outbreak. The points are:
1) The prevention and control of major emerging infectious diseases,
animal and plant epidemics.
2) Research, development and application of biotechnology.
3) Ensuring biosecurity in laboratories.
4) Ensuring the security of China's biological resources and human
genetic resources.
5) Preventing the invasion of alien species and protect biodiversity.
6) Dealing with microbial drug resistance.
7) Preventing bioterrorism attacks.
8) Defending against the threat of biological weapons.
The carefully curated draft law is watertight, but the measures were not
introduced in time for China to prevent the Wuhan outbreak. Instead,
information was initially covered up and China's first steps were delayed.
Among Gao's eight points, ensuring biosecurity in laboratories is
particularly eye-catching in light of Trump's remarks.
In one episode that illustrates the importance China has attached to the
establishment of these related laws, an exam held at Chinese high
schools at the end of 2019 included a question about biotechnology.
The question introduced problems, including the lack of penalties for
accidents involving biotechnology, and asked students what the correct
sequence should be in establishing necessary laws. ...
(7) European Commission 2012 Comic Book predicted Pandemic, with
Globalists as Saviours
EU-Funded Comic Book Predicted Pandemic, With Globalists As Saviours
Sat, 05/16/2020 - 08:10
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,
A strange comic book that was commissioned for publication by the
European Union in 2012 eerily predicted almost exactly what has unfolded
with the Covid-19 global pandemic. However, in this propaganda laced
presentation of the outbreak, unelected globalist bureaucrats save the
planet.
The comic book, titled ‘Infected’, was a production of the European
Commission’s international cooperation and development arm. It was not
intended for widespread public consumption, but instead to be
distributed inside EU institutions. Only a few hundred of the comic
books were made.
The EU’s description of the strange publication states that "While the
story may be fictional, it is nevertheless intertwined with some factual
information."
The graphic novel depicts scientists inside a lab in China experimenting
with deadly pathogens:
A wannabe hero time travels from the future, alerting authorities to the
coming pandemic, and presents an antidote, before quickly becoming the
target of opportunists who want to steal the cure and sell it to drug
companies:
The story features the transmission of a novel virus from animals to
humans in a crowded wet market:
"Indeed, imagine if you were infected in this market by a new contagious
agent." says the UN’s chief advisor on contagious diseases, adding "You
probably wouldn’t even realise it until the end of the incubation period."
The publication suggests that air travel would exacerbate the spread of
the disease, with the character adding that "You’d have headed back to
Europe, the US, Latin America, or Australia as planned via an
international airport."
The cartoon depicts the failure of a global health organisation to act
quickly enough to stop a pandemic:
It also predicts draconian safety measures, including social distancing,
which make everyday life "totally unbearable":
The piece concludes with an EU Parliament hearing, in which Brussels
pushes for more integrated European cooperation on global health
matters, mirroring a real life initiative known as ‘One health’.
The globalists are lauded for helping develop and distribute a vaccine
to the world:
Was this predictive programming or just a bizarre coincidence?
In 2020, in reality, the EU has pandered to China, and bowed to
censorship regarding the virus outbreak.
The EU has also been heavily criticised by member states and insiders
for monumental failings owing to internal bureaucracy. The EU’s science
chief even resigned due to the inept coronavirus response from the
institution.
In the Eurocrats’ own fiction, globalism saves the planet. In reality,
it ends in mass death and global tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.