Skip to main content

A laboratory escape is the most likely source of COVID

Many virologists are involved in research to make viral infections more dangerous.  The argument for doing this "gain of function" research is that it allows virologists to be prepared for the next pandemic.

Gain of Function research relies on the biosafety of laboratories.  It would be very dangerous to produce a virulent, pandemic virus and then accidentally allow it to escape.

A study of high safety US virological laboratories by Lipsitch and Galvani (2014).  produced a figure of there being a 20% risk of a laboratory worker getting infected every 10 years by a lab escape and 5-60% of such escapes causing a pandemic. In other words, as a result of laboratory experiments in the USA alone, the world is running a similar risk of a pandemic from laboratory escapes in any 10 year period as getting two sixes in two throws of a dice.   There has been a high growth in risk as virology research is extended: 

Source Science Magazine

There are virological laboratories all over the world doing these experiments.  We should also be aware that 13 of the 22 highest biosafety laboratories in the USA are run by the Department of Defense - notice that most workers in this field are not "academic".

The risk posed by laboratories is so high that Furmanski (2014)  wrote a review called "Laboratory Escapes and 'Self-fulfilling prophecy' Epidemics" in which he identified numerous lab escapes.  The section on SARS is particularly interesting.  In 2004 the Chinese National Institute of Virology (NIV) in Beijing, which is part of China’s Center for Disease Control (CDC), had four lab escapes of SARS.  In 2003 Singapore and Taiwan had one escape each.

The WHO was moved to report that: 

“The possibility that a SARS outbreak could occur following a laboratory accident is a risk of considerable importance, given the relatively large number of laboratories currently conducting research using the SARS-CoV or retaining specimens from SARS patients. These laboratories currently represent the greatest threat for renewed SARS-CoV transmission through accidental exposure associated with breaches in laboratory biosafety." WHO 2003

So the WHO, in 2003, warned that laboratory escapes were a high risk when dealing with coronaviruses but in 2021 dismisses even the possibility that such escapes could happen (See Independent article). 

We know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was performing gain of function experiments on coronaviruses using genetic engineering.  It was their main business.  How safe was the Wuhan Institute of Virology? 

A group of dignitaries and scientists who visited the lab in 2018 were so alarmed that they sent cables to the US State Department which reported that: 

"the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."

"During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory"  (Washington Post).

So in 2018 scientists actually warned that biosafety was so bad in Wuhan that it "..represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."

A brief survey of the two labs in the WIV by Xiao and Xiao (2020) which was undertaken at the start of the epidemic in Wuhan noted that "The tissue samples and contaminated trashes were [the] source  of  pathogens."
 
The intensive virological inspection of the Huanan Market by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control in spring 2020 concluded that the market was definitely not the source of the infection.(China Global Times 26th May 2020). The Western media have ignored this finding entirely.

It is strange that the WHO team in Wuhan in 2021 simply dismisses a laboratory escape as the source of COVID 19.  Haven't they read the WHO's own warnings about biosecurity in Chinese labs during the SARS epidemic in 2003?

The case could not be clearer:
  • There is no animal source for COVID-19 
  • Chinese labs have a poor record for lab escapes
  • The WHO had warned about lab escapes in 2003
  • The WIV was performing "gain of function" experiments on coronaviruses
  • The biosafety at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was so bad in 2018 it had prompted officials to send cables to the US State Department warning of a potential disaster from poor safety whilst performing coronavirus experiments.
  • A site survey of the labs after the start of the outbreak showed shocking biosafety 
  • A People's Liberation Army scientist filed for a patent on a COVID vaccine in February 2020.

The big question is why aren't the mainstream media mentioning some of the points above when reviewing the WHO reports?  

They might at least mention that one of the leading "Western" scientists in the WHO team is Peter Daszak*, who is president of EcoHealth Alliance, which has funded a lot of work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and is therefore an interested party. The WHO inquiry could not possibly have been independent.  The mainstream media might also mention that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a dual military-civilian establishment.

Is Daszak terrified that his "EcoHealth Alliance" has provided  Multinational Pharmaceutical companies with cheap Chinese research locations that have very poor biosafety?

Did we really just witness the WHO simply dismissing the possibility of a lab escape as "unlikely" without any supporting argument and the mainstream media headlining it as "COVID not a lab escape"?  Did we really just lose a year of our lives without journalists even asking why?

Expect another pandemic in the next 20 years because no-one will have learnt from this one.

What happened: France built a lab that was suitable for bioweapons development in Wuhan.  Western coorporations, including the NIH & Dr Faucci, poured funds through EcoHealth Alliance into the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect and create the most dangerous viruses possible.  WIV was a civilian/military operation (now wholly military) so the scientists would hand over any viruses with weapons potential for military development.  Ultimately the naivety and negligence of Western governments towards Corporations and China is to blame, we have created a two headed monster.

*Daszak, along with most of the WIV virology staff, has his name on a paper (Lei-Ping et al 2016) describing the genetic engineering of viruses.  Daszak is the key figure in the collection of bat viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (also see Nature article).


Recommended reading on COVID19:

Fact checkers rely on one source for origins of COVID19

Coronavirus: Strong evidence that it is a lab escape and probably man-made: BBC silent.

Further Proof that COVID19 was a Laboratory Escape in China


 
COVID 19 was possibly created using reverse genetics.

References

Martin Furmanski MD. (2014) Laboratory Escapes and “Self-fulfilling prophecy” Epidemics. Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons. Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.  https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped-Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf

Lei-Ping Zeng, Yu-Tao Gao, Xing-Yi Ge, Qian Zhang, Cheng Peng, Xing-Lou Yang, Bing Tan, Jing Chen, Aleksei A. Chmura, Peter Daszak, Zheng-Li Shi. (2016) Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response.  Journal of Virology Jun 2016, 90 (14) 6573-6582; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.03079-15

Almost all the authors come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Notice that "bat woman" Zheng-Li Shi was involved.  https://jvi.asm.org/content/90/14/6573

Lipsitch, M and Galvani, A.P. (2014). Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens PLoS Med. 2014 May; 11(5): e1001646.  Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001646

WHO. WHO post-outbreak biosafety guidelines for handling of SARS-CoV specimens
and cultures. 18 Dec 2003. Accessible at: http://www.who.int/csr/sars/biosafety2003_12_18/en/

Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao.  The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b...
35 comments
Read more

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H...
2 comments
Read more

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone po...
15 comments
Read more