Politicized disputes over what to name 2019-nCoV raise critical questions about what and how novel the virus really was - and whether something was suddenly spreading at all
"After the first positive test for 2019-nCoV in the U.S. was announced on January 21, Dutch virologist & gain-of-function fan Ron Fouchier urged coronavirus researcher Ralph Baric to come up with a better, more workable name for the virus."
Contrary to popular mythology about Gain of Function as a tool to create potentially uniquely nefarious virus strains it is in fact the process used for ALL virology that cannot culture and grow RNA virus from humans or millions of bat's ass. RNA has high replication errors & low fidelity so they CRISPR cobble together PCR consensus sequences that are grown as DNA in E.coli then that is purified to an RNA synthetic virus in a purity and concentration that could never exist in nature & drop that in cell culture or passage through animals to find the NEXT FLU Shot.
Most fun way to tackle this is by search terms and for relevance here try "SARS-CoV" "vaccines" "pre-pandemic" "decision making" "stockpile" and my favorite "however" where summary admits petrie dish pure clones may not reflect "wild type virus" and human immune systems.
Gain of Function is the methodology for all virology & vaccinology they have no real world basis.
Risk and Benefit Analysis of Gain of Function Research
This work was conducted under NIH Contract# HHSN263201500002C with Gryphon Scientific from March 20, 2015 to December 15, 2015. Revisions were made until April 2016
Yep, agreed that GoF was about universal flu shots and have been saying that on X for awhile.
My basis is different from the documentation you have posted here - and I arrived at it through analying trends and changes on flu surveillance data in various places - but it all points in the same direction.
The idea that GoF research yields anything that hitches a ride on a lab worker, floats into the air and tranmits person to person or via similar fantastical mechanims is the stuff of Hollywood plotlines -- and nothing more.
My Twitter got forever ban in 2020 so that's the last time I've clicked a link to there and double post Elon w restoring my account was denied again.. too much toxic Gates history in my 12 year collection 457,000+ mostly links.. free speech my Aunt Fanny!
Eh, the nonsense drives policy and profits. Can we imagine anything more powerful than an unseen enemy we need Gates-WHO Biotech Mafia to track while spreading fear through captured media to pressure a terrified public into compliance?
Good deep dive on this topic. Very interesting. As a virologist I was not happy with them choosing "SARS-CoV-2" as the name of the virus in early 2020. I said then that it was a poor choice as it would just scare people unnecessarily because the illness was not as deadly as they were making it out to be. I recall when the hantavirus first emerged in the Southwest US in the early 90's they called it "Sangre De Cristo" virus after the mountain range where the illness was first discovered. The local population was very upset about this and the name was soon changed to "Sin Nombre" virus meaning "without a name."
Regarding SARS-CoV-2 being a scary name, as I pointed out, the WHO was scaring people over the virus in February anyway.
There is no IFR divorced from iatrogenic harms and fraud, so I am wary of framing anything in terms of what "it" was or wasn't, or whether it added risk of severe illness (hospitalization) or death to anyone. The WHO SitReps were not reporting the Wuhan/China "COVID deaths" in the context of all deaths. So (for example), saying "1,000 people are dead from this thing in Wuhan!!!" was (and still is) meaningless.
I agree to a point. If my understanding of how viruses are named is correct, once uploaded/selected, "it" was always going to get a name that placed it within the taxonomy, using traditional nomenclature. I also take the view that the pandemic was staged, so (in my mind) 2019-nCoV was never going to remain so-named. That wasn't the idea. The idea was to market the virus as new and in need of a response.
The CSG was charged with naming something urgently in the absence of any real evidence that the thing being named was creating risk or even causing illness. It sounds like that is typical within the field. That might be fine under normal circumstances, but it's not fine when it's being purported that the virus is spreading and is causing a deadly illness and ergo pandemic and lockdown and... (You see my point, I'm sure!) :)
That's a great bit of history re: "Sangre De Cristo".
"Sin Nombre" is what the WHO wanted for the virus too, it seems! "The virus that causes COVID-19"
P.S. Are you able to translate what Drosten says in his Jan 23, 2020 email? "My concept as a more clinically-rooted virologist is that of a new serotype of SARS-CoV. This idea becomes even more real when considering the likely use of ACE2, suggesting technical serotype discrimination via antibodies interfering with receptor binding. Just like in enteroviruses, influenza, etc."
I agree with Jennifer. The name was for fear in my opinion.
In my line of work we are very familiar with coronavirus. We see it in livestock and basically ignore it. This is why people like myself did nothing they suggested. But, the masses were easily manipulated and fell into the narrative of fear. I'll suggest this- Theres two camps. people who fear and people who don't. Each camp made excuses for their stance. Or rather stood on their stance. Non fear stood on solid ground throughout. Fear stood on constantly shifting sand which caused more fear.
Side note- It is virtually impossible to believe anyone could physically move and handle 20,000 some bodies undetected in NYC spring 2020!
And, if it did happen in the timeframe as presented, it was effectively hidden from public view--which raises a whole other set of deeply disturbing questions
I'd love to be able to say that the naming was at least equal parts science & political science. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have been the case (which Jonathan & you/Jonathan were already able to infer from reading the pre-print & final versions).
I still have a lot of questions about the underlying assumptions that drive virology as a field.
"After the first positive test for 2019-nCoV in the U.S. was announced on January 21, Dutch virologist & gain-of-function fan Ron Fouchier urged coronavirus researcher Ralph Baric to come up with a better, more workable name for the virus."
Contrary to popular mythology about Gain of Function as a tool to create potentially uniquely nefarious virus strains it is in fact the process used for ALL virology that cannot culture and grow RNA virus from humans or millions of bat's ass. RNA has high replication errors & low fidelity so they CRISPR cobble together PCR consensus sequences that are grown as DNA in E.coli then that is purified to an RNA synthetic virus in a purity and concentration that could never exist in nature & drop that in cell culture or passage through animals to find the NEXT FLU Shot.
Most fun way to tackle this is by search terms and for relevance here try "SARS-CoV" "vaccines" "pre-pandemic" "decision making" "stockpile" and my favorite "however" where summary admits petrie dish pure clones may not reflect "wild type virus" and human immune systems.
Gain of Function is the methodology for all virology & vaccinology they have no real world basis.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161206155142/http://www.gryphonscientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Risk-and-Benefit-Analysis-of-Gain-of-Function-Research-Final-Report.pdf
Risk and Benefit Analysis of Gain of Function Research
This work was conducted under NIH Contract# HHSN263201500002C with Gryphon Scientific from March 20, 2015 to December 15, 2015. Revisions were made until April 2016
https://web.archive.org/web/20161206155142/http://www.gryphonscientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Risk-and-Benefit-Analysis-of-Gain-of-Function-Research-Final-Report.pdf
Yep, agreed that GoF was about universal flu shots and have been saying that on X for awhile.
My basis is different from the documentation you have posted here - and I arrived at it through analying trends and changes on flu surveillance data in various places - but it all points in the same direction.
The idea that GoF research yields anything that hitches a ride on a lab worker, floats into the air and tranmits person to person or via similar fantastical mechanims is the stuff of Hollywood plotlines -- and nothing more.
My Twitter got forever ban in 2020 so that's the last time I've clicked a link to there and double post Elon w restoring my account was denied again.. too much toxic Gates history in my 12 year collection 457,000+ mostly links.. free speech my Aunt Fanny!
I agree. GoF is standard practice. So why all this nonsense about mad science?
Eh, the nonsense drives policy and profits. Can we imagine anything more powerful than an unseen enemy we need Gates-WHO Biotech Mafia to track while spreading fear through captured media to pressure a terrified public into compliance?
Good deep dive on this topic. Very interesting. As a virologist I was not happy with them choosing "SARS-CoV-2" as the name of the virus in early 2020. I said then that it was a poor choice as it would just scare people unnecessarily because the illness was not as deadly as they were making it out to be. I recall when the hantavirus first emerged in the Southwest US in the early 90's they called it "Sangre De Cristo" virus after the mountain range where the illness was first discovered. The local population was very upset about this and the name was soon changed to "Sin Nombre" virus meaning "without a name."
Thanks, Jennifer!
Regarding SARS-CoV-2 being a scary name, as I pointed out, the WHO was scaring people over the virus in February anyway.
There is no IFR divorced from iatrogenic harms and fraud, so I am wary of framing anything in terms of what "it" was or wasn't, or whether it added risk of severe illness (hospitalization) or death to anyone. The WHO SitReps were not reporting the Wuhan/China "COVID deaths" in the context of all deaths. So (for example), saying "1,000 people are dead from this thing in Wuhan!!!" was (and still is) meaningless.
In their GoF article, Martin & Jonathan said, "If the name had remained 2019-nCoV it would probably have been considered just another cold virus and nothing to worry about." https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/virus-origins-and-gain-claim-of-function
I agree to a point. If my understanding of how viruses are named is correct, once uploaded/selected, "it" was always going to get a name that placed it within the taxonomy, using traditional nomenclature. I also take the view that the pandemic was staged, so (in my mind) 2019-nCoV was never going to remain so-named. That wasn't the idea. The idea was to market the virus as new and in need of a response.
The CSG was charged with naming something urgently in the absence of any real evidence that the thing being named was creating risk or even causing illness. It sounds like that is typical within the field. That might be fine under normal circumstances, but it's not fine when it's being purported that the virus is spreading and is causing a deadly illness and ergo pandemic and lockdown and... (You see my point, I'm sure!) :)
That's a great bit of history re: "Sangre De Cristo".
"Sin Nombre" is what the WHO wanted for the virus too, it seems! "The virus that causes COVID-19"
P.S. Are you able to translate what Drosten says in his Jan 23, 2020 email? "My concept as a more clinically-rooted virologist is that of a new serotype of SARS-CoV. This idea becomes even more real when considering the likely use of ACE2, suggesting technical serotype discrimination via antibodies interfering with receptor binding. Just like in enteroviruses, influenza, etc."
I agree with Jennifer. The name was for fear in my opinion.
In my line of work we are very familiar with coronavirus. We see it in livestock and basically ignore it. This is why people like myself did nothing they suggested. But, the masses were easily manipulated and fell into the narrative of fear. I'll suggest this- Theres two camps. people who fear and people who don't. Each camp made excuses for their stance. Or rather stood on their stance. Non fear stood on solid ground throughout. Fear stood on constantly shifting sand which caused more fear.
Side note- It is virtually impossible to believe anyone could physically move and handle 20,000 some bodies undetected in NYC spring 2020!
27,000+ in addition to normal.
There is simply no way - as you've said very plainly in terms everyone can understand. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/illinois-farmer-on-the-nyc-mass-casualty
And, if it did happen in the timeframe as presented, it was effectively hidden from public view--which raises a whole other set of deeply disturbing questions
The fear was enough to suppress the truth.
Still is!
Jessica, this is a fantastic article. Forensic, even handed and insightful.
It reminds me of the quote often attributed to Bismark - "Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.”
Thank you.
I'd love to be able to say that the naming was at least equal parts science & political science. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have been the case (which Jonathan & you/Jonathan were already able to infer from reading the pre-print & final versions).
I still have a lot of questions about the underlying assumptions that drive virology as a field.
Bismarck lives on in the musical Hamilton:
"No one really knows how the game is played.
The art of the trade,
How the sausage gets made.
We just assume that it happens.
But no one else is in
The room where it happens."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkwgEUXyTU