Speaking of, Drosten was also instrumental in generating the 2009 faux swinie flu scare, still widely regarded as just another W.HO. hoax -
1) Euro Surveill
. 2009 Sep 10;14(36)
Detection of influenza A(H1N1)v virus by real-time RT-PCR
M Panning 1, M Eickmann, O Landt, M Monazahian, S Olschläger, S Baumgarte, U Reischl, J J Wenzel, H H Niller, S Günther, B Hollmann, D Huzly, J F Drexler, A Helmer, S Becker, B Matz, Am Eis-Hübinger, C Drosten
by U Keil · 2011 · Cited by 38 — The A/H1N1 vaccination campaign was stopped abruptly when it was realized that the virus produced only a mild disease, while the vaccine produced a number of ...
And for H1N1 swinie flu panic was the same Neil Ferguson the fear-mongering epidemiologist embedded in all the hoaxes of 'killer virus' -
Pandemic Potential of a Strain of Influenza A (H1N1): Early Findings
Christophe Fraser,1 * Christl A. Donnelly,1
* Simon Cauchemez,1 William P. Hanage,1
Maria D. Van Kerkhove,1 T. Déirdre Hollingsworth,1 Jamie Griffin,1 Rebecca F. Baggaley,1
Helen E. Jenkins,1 Emily J. Lyons,1 Thibaut Jombart,1 Wes R. Hinsley,1 Nicholas C. Grassly,1
Francois Balloux,1 Azra C. Ghani,1 Neil M. Ferguson1†;
Andrew Rambaut,2 Oliver G. Pybus3;Hugo Lopez-Gatell,4 Celia M. Alpuche-Aranda,5 Ietza Bojorquez Chapela,4 Ethel Palacios Zavala4 ;Dulce Ma. Espejo Guevara6
; Francesco Checchi,7 Erika Garcia,7 Stephane Hugonnet,7 Cathy Roth7
Thanks for that! I think your first point is very important. It's entirely possible that SARS-CoV-2 really is/was something - a naturally-occurring or engineered virus or infectious clone - whereas COVID-19 is not, since it does not designate any clinically-distinct syndrome. We would never call, say, polio polio if it was clinically nothing in particular or anything under the sun that may or may not arise from causative agent X.
Believe it or not, Ulf Dittmer, Drosten's German colleague in Wuhan to whom I alluded in my thread, i.e. the German co-director of the German-Chinese virology partnership, said precisely this in an interview in Feb 2020. He said, there is nothing clinically distinct about a C19 or "coronavirus" infection, that there are "no specific symptoms". The interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSagwGMHV8s.
But this does not mean that there was nothing new at all that was added, perhaps only fleetingly, to the "viral swarm". So, I'd say zoonosis versus lab-LEAK is absolutely a false dichotomy, because even on the assumption that there was indeed something new, there is still a third option: namely, deliberate lab release. This is the option that apparently no one wants to talk about, even among Covid "dissidents", or maybe that the algorithm on a certain supposedly social media platform will not allow us to talk about. Of course, there is also the option outside the scope of the aforesaid assumption: namely, Jonathan Engler's, so to say, null hypothesis, i.e. that there was nothing - and they still managed to fool people into testing for it!
I agree: this is absolutely a discussion which is crucial to be having with all the options acknowledged and in play. We need to find some platform on which to have it, maybe preferably viva voce. As much as I detest "X", might be interesting to try a Twitter Space for that. The algorithm cannot suppress live speech!
Thanks too for the proposed matrix. Will need to think more about that. Not sure I understand the two zoonoses, since zoonosis means a leap from animals to humans. Could well occur under laboratory conditions I suppose, which I gather is what you're referring to in the second column, but, in any case, the origin is an animal origin. You might not know, but Drosten actually developed another theory of the original "leap" from animals to humans that didn't involved the wet market. Quite a horrible theory. He said it could have happened when live animals are having their skins pulled off for the fur trade and are spitting out aerosols in the process. See the interview here: https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus. But presumably this sort of thing does not go on in Wuhan. So then why did it "start" in Wuhan?
The Ulf interview is a good find. Is there a translation?
I see more than three options – the matrix above is mix and match and (in some cases) could involve more than one possibility from each “row”.
Re: zoonoses – yes, you’re right about the definition so I need to change it to reflect what I mean. With Non-Human Animal Zoonosis v. Human Zoonosis, I was trying to distinguish “from animals and transferred to humans” versus “in Humans and not from animals”. Do you have suggestions for how I could make that distinction?
I’m not speaking for Jonathan, but using the matrix, what I THINK he currently believes is similar what I believe is the strongest possibility: Whatever the thing(s) named SARS-CoV-2 are, it/they are already a part of us and but aren’t significant or necessarily causal of illness and wasn’t new but was identified with a sequence, and then tested-for. No transmission has been demonstrated and what occurred was intentional, not accidental.
I don’t think the Human-Only option would necessarily happen under lab conditions in the manner you’re describing – because I believe there is no transmission, so it wouldn’t go anywhere.
For me, “lab” isn’t necessarily a virus lab where they are tinkering. It could involve an intentional clone dispersal scenario involving flu shots or testing reagents or other very direct mechanisms.
Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but have you speculated about the mechanism for intentional release? I think that’s where you and I disagree pretty significantly, because I don’t think a “virus” or clone transmits with fidelity from person to person, and I don’t see release into the thin outdoor air as being viable either.
I hadn’t seen that scenario from Drosten. It’s not too far off what Gupta believes, right? (...athough she might say otherwise). The difference between Gupta and Drosten is a matter of time and incident.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/sunetra-guptas-view-on-the-origins She accepts on faith that it “happened” to emerge in Wuhan – presenting itself as ILI/pneumonia – but says it could have been anywhere in China. Why the bats or other animals in China are a problem, I have no idea!
Finally, we’re in agreement about the need for a high-visibility/public square platform where these discussions should take place. I’m not as convinced, perhaps, as you are that even “COVID Dissidents” want to have such discussions, as they are perceived as disruptive to the goals of a perceived “movement.”
There's no translation for the Dittmer interview. There is an auto-generated German transcript on YouTube, but that transcript is already not very accurate, unfortunately, so just running it through DeepL is not a good option. I'm just taking for granted that infection in a lab setting is possible, as well as some, probably limited, degree of subsequent transmission, because it has reportedly happened in other cases: the Marburg virus being just one.
According to those who presumably know better than me, there are too many markers of artificial origin in the genome to accept that this was already present. I know Jonathan has addressed these, but his arguments are essentially just those of Ron Fouchier, who is not exactly a disinterested party, of course, but who, apart from that, merely argues (in the famous Farrar-Fauci emails) that it's not impossible for the FCS, for instance, to have developed naturally. "It's not impossible" is very weak tea and, in any case, amounts to a tacit admission that prima facie the FCS suggested an artificial origin. If memory serves, he did not address the HIV inserts at all.
As I've written about, Dittmer and his Chinese colleagues were working on *precisely* the components of HIV in question. And they were working on them in precisely that facility that has the largest repository of coronaviruses in the world. If that's not a smoking gun, I don't know what is. And it ought to be especially of interest - i.e. suspect - given Dittmer's connection to Drosten. There was/is a huge overlap between Drosten's coronavirus network and Dittmer's HIV-HBV-HCV network.
Yes, I guess Drosten's theory would be consistent with Gupta's view, which I gather is that it was a new virus but that naturally emerged somewhat earlier before it was first detected in Wuhan. That Drosten interview, btw, you could run through DeepL and you should get mostly comprehensible output.
Let's try to make that public discussion happen. But for the moment, it seems like we're all alone even here! Let's hope it's just the holidays...
Yes, I'm sure people are taking breaks for the holidays. But you and I are still commenting in public. Visibility is not restricted here and people can still see what we say if they choose to!
Re: “There are too many markers of artificial origin in the genome to accept that this was already present” - Is it your understanding that "in the genome" = in a sequence in a computer? These aren't properties observed with a microscope, right? (Genuinely asking - I'm not clear.)
Jonathan and Fouchier aren't the only ones to make that assertion about the FCS. Sunetra Gupta said it at the Stanford Conference:
"I think the threat [of Gain of Function] is hugely overblown. I think I've already explained why. I think that it's very difficult to make a crazy virus in the lab. I think most of these insertions of furin cleavage sites or polybasic cleavage sites are happening in nature all the time anyway, and what we have to remember is the competition is, what's driving this, an immune selection is the main driver, not whether or not this thing exists at all."
Re: Dittmer and colleagues - why does it matter that they were working on those components, or that doing so in a lab with coronavirus repositories means SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab? Moreover, it doesn't answer the mechanism question. Are you thinking SARS-CoV-2 was dispersed via shot (pre-2020)?
It has never been proven that such a thing as SARS COV-2 exists, though it might for all I know. I’m saying that we probably will never know without reliable whistleblower testimony.
I mentioned the two books because they give a lot of details first hand about what went on in the medical system during Covid. Such testimony has led me to believe it was almost entirely BS (not all the horrible things they did, just the Covid narrative).
Others claim that EMF or synthetic venoms can mimic Covid symptoms. And of course a lot of people I know who got the jab continue to get sick, take the tests, and say they have Covid.
The article you linked to here is excellent. If you don’t mind, who are the two nurses mentioned in the article that are also featured in “What the Nurses Saw”? I didn’t see any reference to the book.
Zowe Smith said something that was new to me, but I should have reasoned out: Due to the curtailing of “unnecessary” medical procedures in early mid 2020, hospitals were in deep financial trouble. Then Lo and Behold, buckets and buckets of Federal money for testing, declaring covid cases, etc. etc. Played, willingly perhaps, by the Hegelian Dialectic.
Speaking of, Drosten was also instrumental in generating the 2009 faux swinie flu scare, still widely regarded as just another W.HO. hoax -
1) Euro Surveill
. 2009 Sep 10;14(36)
Detection of influenza A(H1N1)v virus by real-time RT-PCR
M Panning 1, M Eickmann, O Landt, M Monazahian, S Olschläger, S Baumgarte, U Reischl, J J Wenzel, H H Niller, S Günther, B Hollmann, D Huzly, J F Drexler, A Helmer, S Becker, B Matz, Am Eis-Hübinger, C Drosten
2) The invention of the swine-flu pandemic - PMC
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC7087555
by U Keil · 2011 · Cited by 38 — The A/H1N1 vaccination campaign was stopped abruptly when it was realized that the virus produced only a mild disease, while the vaccine produced a number of ...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7087555/
Drosten was also there in 2003 identifying SARS1
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa030747?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Indeed he was
The man is like a bad penny...
And for H1N1 swinie flu panic was the same Neil Ferguson the fear-mongering epidemiologist embedded in all the hoaxes of 'killer virus' -
Pandemic Potential of a Strain of Influenza A (H1N1): Early Findings
Christophe Fraser,1 * Christl A. Donnelly,1
* Simon Cauchemez,1 William P. Hanage,1
Maria D. Van Kerkhove,1 T. Déirdre Hollingsworth,1 Jamie Griffin,1 Rebecca F. Baggaley,1
Helen E. Jenkins,1 Emily J. Lyons,1 Thibaut Jombart,1 Wes R. Hinsley,1 Nicholas C. Grassly,1
Francois Balloux,1 Azra C. Ghani,1 Neil M. Ferguson1†;
Andrew Rambaut,2 Oliver G. Pybus3;Hugo Lopez-Gatell,4 Celia M. Alpuche-Aranda,5 Ietza Bojorquez Chapela,4 Ethel Palacios Zavala4 ;Dulce Ma. Espejo Guevara6
; Francesco Checchi,7 Erika Garcia,7 Stephane Hugonnet,7 Cathy Roth7
The WHO Rapid Pandemic Assessment Collaboration‡
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1176062
It is not panic IMO, but yes H1N1 was the same racket https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/setting-the-stage-for-flus-disappearing
I remember they sent the kids home a week early from summer camp in 2009 due to 'H1N1' cuz one kid was sick and another had recently been in Mexico.
Lol - just seeing Maria V's name above
Of course
That's called stupid and following whatever state dept health guidelines were issued. :)
They always publishing their signed manifestos LOL.
Just noticing: Francois Balloux?
Thanks for that! I think your first point is very important. It's entirely possible that SARS-CoV-2 really is/was something - a naturally-occurring or engineered virus or infectious clone - whereas COVID-19 is not, since it does not designate any clinically-distinct syndrome. We would never call, say, polio polio if it was clinically nothing in particular or anything under the sun that may or may not arise from causative agent X.
Believe it or not, Ulf Dittmer, Drosten's German colleague in Wuhan to whom I alluded in my thread, i.e. the German co-director of the German-Chinese virology partnership, said precisely this in an interview in Feb 2020. He said, there is nothing clinically distinct about a C19 or "coronavirus" infection, that there are "no specific symptoms". The interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSagwGMHV8s.
But this does not mean that there was nothing new at all that was added, perhaps only fleetingly, to the "viral swarm". So, I'd say zoonosis versus lab-LEAK is absolutely a false dichotomy, because even on the assumption that there was indeed something new, there is still a third option: namely, deliberate lab release. This is the option that apparently no one wants to talk about, even among Covid "dissidents", or maybe that the algorithm on a certain supposedly social media platform will not allow us to talk about. Of course, there is also the option outside the scope of the aforesaid assumption: namely, Jonathan Engler's, so to say, null hypothesis, i.e. that there was nothing - and they still managed to fool people into testing for it!
I agree: this is absolutely a discussion which is crucial to be having with all the options acknowledged and in play. We need to find some platform on which to have it, maybe preferably viva voce. As much as I detest "X", might be interesting to try a Twitter Space for that. The algorithm cannot suppress live speech!
Thanks too for the proposed matrix. Will need to think more about that. Not sure I understand the two zoonoses, since zoonosis means a leap from animals to humans. Could well occur under laboratory conditions I suppose, which I gather is what you're referring to in the second column, but, in any case, the origin is an animal origin. You might not know, but Drosten actually developed another theory of the original "leap" from animals to humans that didn't involved the wet market. Quite a horrible theory. He said it could have happened when live animals are having their skins pulled off for the fur trade and are spitting out aerosols in the process. See the interview here: https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus. But presumably this sort of thing does not go on in Wuhan. So then why did it "start" in Wuhan?
Thanks for chiming in.
The Ulf interview is a good find. Is there a translation?
I see more than three options – the matrix above is mix and match and (in some cases) could involve more than one possibility from each “row”.
Re: zoonoses – yes, you’re right about the definition so I need to change it to reflect what I mean. With Non-Human Animal Zoonosis v. Human Zoonosis, I was trying to distinguish “from animals and transferred to humans” versus “in Humans and not from animals”. Do you have suggestions for how I could make that distinction?
I’m not speaking for Jonathan, but using the matrix, what I THINK he currently believes is similar what I believe is the strongest possibility: Whatever the thing(s) named SARS-CoV-2 are, it/they are already a part of us and but aren’t significant or necessarily causal of illness and wasn’t new but was identified with a sequence, and then tested-for. No transmission has been demonstrated and what occurred was intentional, not accidental.
I don’t think the Human-Only option would necessarily happen under lab conditions in the manner you’re describing – because I believe there is no transmission, so it wouldn’t go anywhere.
For me, “lab” isn’t necessarily a virus lab where they are tinkering. It could involve an intentional clone dispersal scenario involving flu shots or testing reagents or other very direct mechanisms.
Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but have you speculated about the mechanism for intentional release? I think that’s where you and I disagree pretty significantly, because I don’t think a “virus” or clone transmits with fidelity from person to person, and I don’t see release into the thin outdoor air as being viable either.
I hadn’t seen that scenario from Drosten. It’s not too far off what Gupta believes, right? (...athough she might say otherwise). The difference between Gupta and Drosten is a matter of time and incident.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/sunetra-guptas-view-on-the-origins She accepts on faith that it “happened” to emerge in Wuhan – presenting itself as ILI/pneumonia – but says it could have been anywhere in China. Why the bats or other animals in China are a problem, I have no idea!
Finally, we’re in agreement about the need for a high-visibility/public square platform where these discussions should take place. I’m not as convinced, perhaps, as you are that even “COVID Dissidents” want to have such discussions, as they are perceived as disruptive to the goals of a perceived “movement.”
There's no translation for the Dittmer interview. There is an auto-generated German transcript on YouTube, but that transcript is already not very accurate, unfortunately, so just running it through DeepL is not a good option. I'm just taking for granted that infection in a lab setting is possible, as well as some, probably limited, degree of subsequent transmission, because it has reportedly happened in other cases: the Marburg virus being just one.
According to those who presumably know better than me, there are too many markers of artificial origin in the genome to accept that this was already present. I know Jonathan has addressed these, but his arguments are essentially just those of Ron Fouchier, who is not exactly a disinterested party, of course, but who, apart from that, merely argues (in the famous Farrar-Fauci emails) that it's not impossible for the FCS, for instance, to have developed naturally. "It's not impossible" is very weak tea and, in any case, amounts to a tacit admission that prima facie the FCS suggested an artificial origin. If memory serves, he did not address the HIV inserts at all.
As I've written about, Dittmer and his Chinese colleagues were working on *precisely* the components of HIV in question. And they were working on them in precisely that facility that has the largest repository of coronaviruses in the world. If that's not a smoking gun, I don't know what is. And it ought to be especially of interest - i.e. suspect - given Dittmer's connection to Drosten. There was/is a huge overlap between Drosten's coronavirus network and Dittmer's HIV-HBV-HCV network.
Yes, I guess Drosten's theory would be consistent with Gupta's view, which I gather is that it was a new virus but that naturally emerged somewhat earlier before it was first detected in Wuhan. That Drosten interview, btw, you could run through DeepL and you should get mostly comprehensible output.
Let's try to make that public discussion happen. But for the moment, it seems like we're all alone even here! Let's hope it's just the holidays...
Yes, I'm sure people are taking breaks for the holidays. But you and I are still commenting in public. Visibility is not restricted here and people can still see what we say if they choose to!
Re: “There are too many markers of artificial origin in the genome to accept that this was already present” - Is it your understanding that "in the genome" = in a sequence in a computer? These aren't properties observed with a microscope, right? (Genuinely asking - I'm not clear.)
Jonathan and Fouchier aren't the only ones to make that assertion about the FCS. Sunetra Gupta said it at the Stanford Conference:
"I think the threat [of Gain of Function] is hugely overblown. I think I've already explained why. I think that it's very difficult to make a crazy virus in the lab. I think most of these insertions of furin cleavage sites or polybasic cleavage sites are happening in nature all the time anyway, and what we have to remember is the competition is, what's driving this, an immune selection is the main driver, not whether or not this thing exists at all."
Re: Dittmer and colleagues - why does it matter that they were working on those components, or that doing so in a lab with coronavirus repositories means SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab? Moreover, it doesn't answer the mechanism question. Are you thinking SARS-CoV-2 was dispersed via shot (pre-2020)?
Your matrix looks pretty good. "Covid origin" is a very important part of the
puzzle, one that might be the hardest to crack for certain. My vote is
preplanned gargantuan psyop with little or nothing behind it besides the
intentional harms they inflicted once it unfolded. Nonetheless I think there is
evidence they harmed some people ("covid") with something and that is the
$64,000 question: did they, what did they use, and how extensive was it?
In any event due to your research and others it is clear that it was not a
deadly infectious virus and its overall effect was not that significant.
I am reading medical coder Zowe Smith's book "The Covid code: My life in the
thrill kill medical cult". It is excellent and she has some unique (at least in
terms of people willing to expose what went on) experience, from her days as
a medical coder, earlier as a lab researcher, and her personal pre-covid
struggles to get proper medical treatment. It fills in some blanks that the
book "What the nurses saw" didn't cover.
This post is about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 :)
I thought I was addressing that subject.
It has never been proven that such a thing as SARS COV-2 exists, though it might for all I know. I’m saying that we probably will never know without reliable whistleblower testimony.
I mentioned the two books because they give a lot of details first hand about what went on in the medical system during Covid. Such testimony has led me to believe it was almost entirely BS (not all the horrible things they did, just the Covid narrative).
Others claim that EMF or synthetic venoms can mimic Covid symptoms. And of course a lot of people I know who got the jab continue to get sick, take the tests, and say they have Covid.
There is a non-trivial distinction between the "disease" named COVID-19 and the agent called SARS-CoV-2.
Two of the nurses in "What the Nurses Saw" are (in my opinion) staged whistleblowers. I wrote about it in my latest NYC article ICYMI. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/new-york-city-spring-2020-an-unsubstantiated
The book also accepts COVID-19 was a new disease/new cause of death, which I reject.
The article you linked to here is excellent. If you don’t mind, who are the two nurses mentioned in the article that are also featured in “What the Nurses Saw”? I didn’t see any reference to the book.
Zowe Smith said something that was new to me, but I should have reasoned out: Due to the curtailing of “unnecessary” medical procedures in early mid 2020, hospitals were in deep financial trouble. Then Lo and Behold, buckets and buckets of Federal money for testing, declaring covid cases, etc. etc. Played, willingly perhaps, by the Hegelian Dialectic.
Nicole Sirotek and Nurse Erin. My X thread is linked in the article. See also footnote 17
Thanks.