Geert Vanden Bossche covered(s) this on youtube and his site. It's worth reading his scientific reference section: https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/supportive-references-from-literatu We should probably try to avoid a Marek's disease situation at all cost. There are so many ways in which these vaccines are a bad idea: bio-distribution of nanolipids, circulating spike protein in blood plasma, LINE1 reverse transcription, spike protein inhibiting DNA repair, etc, etc, etc The current topic you have landed is near the top of the list of bad.
Is there one of these links that specifically talks about the mutation factory that becomes of an individual with no entryway protection, but a deep sieve?
From what I have read and seen of his, he talks about the higher level point that you're making about serial passage experiments and the road that this leads down. I think you're targeted argument is a specific kind of serial passage experiment where you, whether intentionally or not, inadvertently negatively impact a sub-population, i.e., the younger among us. This is an interesting idea. I have studied artificial immune systems, but this requires a very deep understanding of both the immune system dynamics with age, evolution, and serial passage experiments.
Coming at this from medium knowledge, generally the younger you are the more robust your innate immune response is. The innate immune system is made up of generalists that have been shaped by longer time scales (across generations). I know from the literature that covid does play games with up-regulating/down-regulating innate immunity, CD4, CD8, Inf-(alpha), etc. There is also a phenomena of viral interference where the body's response to a virus can inadvertently affect the response to another virus. Provoking a adaptive immune response with a vaccine can also suppress the innate immune response (Bossche comments on this).
So, next a critical component, and one you likely have heard of, is that delta acquired mutations in the NTD (N-Terminal Domain) that escapes specific anti-NTD antibodies that are evoked with the wild type vaccines*. This negatively impacts neutralization of the virus in vaccinated individuals. Thus, if the immune defense in this environment is still predominantly the innate immune system in healthy individuals, it may be an effective area for the virus to target. My gut feel, given your though experiment, is that the virus could focus it's evolution on the innate immune system. It's a tough battle though, since there is a long evolutionary history to fight against. My feeling would be that in this regime, children would be the last domino, not the first.
I think the larger point, at a level above your query, is that it is dangerous to provide a highly mutating virus a nearly identical immune response with a population wide vaccine roll-out (with a now outdated viral protein). In the next ~6-8 months or so I would imagine the vaccines will be entirely useless.
There is one of his articles that has a diagrammatic representation of what he's talking about in terms of selecting for particular variants. I think it was also on his twitter. I'll try to find it
Okay think I found the slide. It was in his joint interview/discussion with Dr Malone and Malone has it up on his site. Here is the link. You can scroll down to the section on the slides and it's the first of the two slides:
The slide itself demonstrates how the proportion of variant type to wild type/whangarei strain would differ for a vaccinated individual and an unvaccinated individual and how this would affect the relative proportions at a population level where you have 25% of persons vaccinated versus 75% of persons vaccinated
Warning: I'm not an immunologist. I do follow your reasoning. My only comment would be that *hopefully* Mullers Ratchet keeps doing it's thing to drive the evolution towards less lethal strains, so that if your theory is correct the harm caused will be minimised. As Geert Vanden Bosche has said many times, vaccinating into a pandemic is a terrible idea. Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid.
"Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid."
Yes! This is part of what I'm getting at. Immune escape is a scary enough notion. The delta variant may be that. But to create a series of increasingly channeled media to do the job is evil genius, if it's intentional. If it's unintentional, fire the government and now.
Especially when the evidence shows that the elderly, who these vaccines are supposed to protect, are still the ones filling the hospitals and dying even after vaccination.
Patrick is so frustrating - she seems much smarter than most cvax hawks but doesn't put her ideas on paper. In the case of her conclusions on escape pressure I think she is very correct that coronavirus plausibly already lives in "maximum transmission" land by default - the limiting factor is how fast our cells can be made to pump out proteins - and of course totally wrong that the unvaccinated afford the virus more opportunity to replicate - the studies suggesting faster clearance are all from super-early breakthrough infections, not ones after 3/4 months. But maybe boosting restores that theory; we don't know yet..
Brian - when I saw her on Joe Rogan, I came away with the impression that she had been specifically assigned to make certain points. She even had a little note card. Could she have been bought off or otherwise unduly influenced? Or is she just experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance?
The Medcram video gives the impression that she is sourcing her own talking points. There are much simpler "templates" out there that she could be reading from instead; the kind that seem to provide the script for whatever nonsense David Gorski is spouting at a given moment. Can't say if she comes off the same way in the Rogan interview since I haven't watched it.
Is she bought off? Time may tell - it's understandable for scientists outside the vaccine field to have little idea how flagrantly un-rigorous and unscientific vaccine research has been from the very beginning. She references stabilizers in another segment of the video - she probably had no idea at the time that the Pfizer trial do decide between stabilizer-ed and non-stabilizer-ed spike found almost no difference in symptoms at high doses; the end decision was essentially arbitrary. Her confidence in the process does not match reality. Maybe more research will lead the scales to drop from her eyes.
Yet somehow even intelligent and script-violating vaccine researchers don't come around to disavowing vaccines entirely - Malone, vanden Bossche - so maybe I should not assume that willingness to eventually do so is a litmus test for whether an intelligent thinker is bought off...
Thank you for some sort of counter argument. I don't know what to say when someone brings up her points. To me it seems that mutations that escape the vac will propagate and result in a more virulent variant. but I have knowledge how all this works.
It's more of an agreement than a counter argument in this case. "The vaccine," as far as the viral genome sees, is just anti-spike pressure. Escape from spike pressure doesn't affect the naive unvaccinated who haven't even generated anti-spike antibodies and is trivial to the post-infection unvaccinated who have T Cell recognition of the entire virus.
Perhaps you are not the only person worrying about this. Could this be one of the reasons behind the US government now feverishly pitching vaccinations for children? One more domino added to the ever-building domino effect of poor choices and unintended consequences..
Well if this idea holds any water the logical conclusion is that either it will eventually be very infectious among newborns or newborns will need to get vaccinated as well...
If the virus is normally bouncing between young and old hosts, then we can imagine a swarm/cloud of phenotypes which reduces to pro-young phenotypes when the old are removed from the infection pool, i.e. genetic bottleneck. Obviously this is short-term as the old reenter the pool once "infection efficacy" drops to near-0 or even worse after 4 months. As it happened in most of the West, the "bottleneck" period set in when the virus was going out of season anyway and the end of the bottleneck coincided with the virus coming back in season.
Note that this sets aside the complicated question of whether there really is such a thing as "age fitness." The question is clearer if put in the perspective of the virus, which only cares about transmission, rather than who is and isn't "immune" - was there a problem with successfully transmitting through children before? (it's possible, if not likely, given that children seem to be half or predominately asymptomatic - but we don't know if that means no transmission) - and were there versions of the virus in the genetic swarm / cloud that were better at this problem? If that's the case, it might account for the rise of the allegedly more "transmissible" and "child compatible" Delta, though this still over-simplifies things since the virus was out of season during the rollout and it's not clear you can apply a bottleneck when the virus is "hiding" in subclinical background transmission.* It's a trippy question but it seems at least possible that we've already seen the worst that can happen: kids can carry the virus a bit more, maybe transmit it more, but they are still robustly "immune" to it. Transmissibility is only scary when combined with incompetent / inflammatory immune responses. For kids, it's just a cold.
*One key piece of evidence against the argument that the (off-season rolled-out) vaccines applied any escape pressure is that "infection efficacy" still seemed to hold for the recently dosed younger adults while it plummeted for the elderly who were past the protection window. If Delta had achieved anti-spike antibody escape, "infection efficacy" should have dropped for all groups at once (barring a reach to a theory that the vaccines "charge up" innate immunity, when in fact the opposite seems to be the case). So if no antibody escape pressure was applied, no "age" escape pressure should have been applied either. Once again, boosters could finally prompt some movement there.
Your question on childhood transmission brings me back to the Spanish chart I can't find. It's transmission rates in schools by age (rates on the y, age on the x) and it's effectively a straight line with a positive slope. IE the older the child, the more transmission. That coupled with the overall lower rates of teachers acquiring Covid-19 in schools before vaccination compared to the community does strongly imply the conclusion that younger kids transmit less.
the leaky vaccines are definitely putting pressure on the virus to escape the narrow spike protein focused immunity confered by them but I think they'd have to optimize for that over anything else. To add to that, most younger people will fight off the virus at the mucus barrier anyway, I hope.
From my limited knowledge of immunology and natural selection, I could believe there is some reasonable hope that selection for variants that bypass the vaccine-based antibodies, may perhaps select for variants that are less "fit" overall in the wider environment.
How that interacts with unvaccinated younger groups... I wouldn't venture to guess, except that they have so far seemed to be relatively resistant.
In fact the weaker immune systems in the older hosts (especially the very old) are primed for this kind of "easy" evasion. Especially soon after the first dose when the weaker immune system with a very immature immunity is exposed to the viral threat.
It certainly selects for viral evasion, but I'm not certain what the specific mechanism for age related viral selection would be. I suppose at some age there comes more innate immune response and that also is a gradient.
So really there are two gradients - first overall immune response which in general fades with age. So as you get more and more adaptive to the immune system, you are able to evade younger and younger immunity. But at some point the innate immune response starts to become a bigger and bigger player in initial infection dynamics - especially in the mucosal membranes where vaccine immunity is not present. Depending on the steepness of this gradient, it is possible that this is a hill the virus will have a very hard time climbing because it is much less specific.
If the gradient is sufficiently shallow however, you could see viral evasion through serial passage in terms of innate immune pressure (which I stipulate as a proxy for age).
I have read some of Vanden Bossche's materials, and I do not yet know how much of the ideas I understood. Is there somewhere that he talks about leaving the entryway to the body unguarded, while selection taking place in a sieve within the body?
Have you read this... About mutant swarms and if you read the comments there's a few comments from the author on where the future may lie... Scary stuff
Basic virology finds that strains get more infectious and less lethal with time and this is true if not for the hole in epidemiology that some viruses are not stopped by the immune system (e.g. betaherpesvirus 5). The theory of Marek's disease holds true in onboarder viruses such herpes viruses (including the alphaherpes viruses in chickens from which Marek's disease is observed). Coronaviruses lack the immune system evading traits of onboarding viruses. This is obviously observed by the fact that vaccinated can spread covid more so than unvaccinated (especially after 6 months). For Marek's effect to hold true, SARS Cov-2 needs genes for cellular immune suppression (and arguments of this is Long Covid hold no water because "Long Covid" is mostly mental rather physical). I could be wrong but it is some "hopium" that the problem doesn't worsen. I do think the virus will get better at invading hosts over time, but the best virus at invading hosts (the rhinovirus aka common cold), is mostly harmless (that won't stop the overcounting of deaths, increasing tyranny, and gas lighting of purebloods as case rates goes up but deaths from covid reduce).
Here is a simple fact: had we left this alone, it would be done. Every time we change nature by trying conquer it, we make things exponentially worse. The same arrogance that engineered this virus, is strengthening it and making it more dangerous.
I've been following you for quite awhile for sober analysis of data. I listen to Alex Jones as a kind of 'worst case scenario' preparation. Watching the two of you converge is frightening.
"my greatest hope is that somebody will now give me a set of very good reasons why my theory doesn't hold."
This sums up my feelings for the past year. I think it's going to be a dark winter, and I pray it turns out I'm as crazy as my family thinks I am.
Check out Peter Breggin’s book. He provides plenty of documented research that the “Wuhan spike protein” [p. 178] was engineered by combining WIV1-CoV like spike proteins such as those donated by Dr. Zhengli-Shi to the NIAID funded “2016 follow up paper describes in detail how Chinese and American scientists were working together to create what was clearly a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 ” [p. 28].
Geert Vanden Bossche covered(s) this on youtube and his site. It's worth reading his scientific reference section: https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/supportive-references-from-literatu We should probably try to avoid a Marek's disease situation at all cost. There are so many ways in which these vaccines are a bad idea: bio-distribution of nanolipids, circulating spike protein in blood plasma, LINE1 reverse transcription, spike protein inhibiting DNA repair, etc, etc, etc The current topic you have landed is near the top of the list of bad.
For a dyslexic like me, that's a lot of reading.
Is there one of these links that specifically talks about the mutation factory that becomes of an individual with no entryway protection, but a deep sieve?
From what I have read and seen of his, he talks about the higher level point that you're making about serial passage experiments and the road that this leads down. I think you're targeted argument is a specific kind of serial passage experiment where you, whether intentionally or not, inadvertently negatively impact a sub-population, i.e., the younger among us. This is an interesting idea. I have studied artificial immune systems, but this requires a very deep understanding of both the immune system dynamics with age, evolution, and serial passage experiments.
Coming at this from medium knowledge, generally the younger you are the more robust your innate immune response is. The innate immune system is made up of generalists that have been shaped by longer time scales (across generations). I know from the literature that covid does play games with up-regulating/down-regulating innate immunity, CD4, CD8, Inf-(alpha), etc. There is also a phenomena of viral interference where the body's response to a virus can inadvertently affect the response to another virus. Provoking a adaptive immune response with a vaccine can also suppress the innate immune response (Bossche comments on this).
So, next a critical component, and one you likely have heard of, is that delta acquired mutations in the NTD (N-Terminal Domain) that escapes specific anti-NTD antibodies that are evoked with the wild type vaccines*. This negatively impacts neutralization of the virus in vaccinated individuals. Thus, if the immune defense in this environment is still predominantly the innate immune system in healthy individuals, it may be an effective area for the virus to target. My gut feel, given your though experiment, is that the virus could focus it's evolution on the innate immune system. It's a tough battle though, since there is a long evolutionary history to fight against. My feeling would be that in this regime, children would be the last domino, not the first.
I think the larger point, at a level above your query, is that it is dangerous to provide a highly mutating virus a nearly identical immune response with a population wide vaccine roll-out (with a now outdated viral protein). In the next ~6-8 months or so I would imagine the vaccines will be entirely useless.
*Here is a good paper that talks about this: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1
find his videos on odysee, they are quite detailed
If I don't have time to read it and find what I need, I certainly won't have time to find it on videos.
There is one of his articles that has a diagrammatic representation of what he's talking about in terms of selecting for particular variants. I think it was also on his twitter. I'll try to find it
Okay think I found the slide. It was in his joint interview/discussion with Dr Malone and Malone has it up on his site. Here is the link. You can scroll down to the section on the slides and it's the first of the two slides:
https://evidencenotfear.com/meeting-of-the-covid-19-giants-with-geert-vanden-bossche-and-robert-malone-md/
The slide itself demonstrates how the proportion of variant type to wild type/whangarei strain would differ for a vaccinated individual and an unvaccinated individual and how this would affect the relative proportions at a population level where you have 25% of persons vaccinated versus 75% of persons vaccinated
Warning: I'm not an immunologist. I do follow your reasoning. My only comment would be that *hopefully* Mullers Ratchet keeps doing it's thing to drive the evolution towards less lethal strains, so that if your theory is correct the harm caused will be minimised. As Geert Vanden Bosche has said many times, vaccinating into a pandemic is a terrible idea. Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid.
"Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid."
Yes! This is part of what I'm getting at. Immune escape is a scary enough notion. The delta variant may be that. But to create a series of increasingly channeled media to do the job is evil genius, if it's intentional. If it's unintentional, fire the government and now.
If you're still genuinely wondering whether this is intentional, take a moment to watch David Martin. https://rumble.com/vov60h-dr.-david-martin-follow-the-patents-then-you-will-understand-covid.html
Here's a fairly comprehensive blog summary, for those who prefer reading:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/11/14/dr-david-martin-exposes-the-the-great-reset-and-covid19-vaccines-agenda/
Especially when the evidence shows that the elderly, who these vaccines are supposed to protect, are still the ones filling the hospitals and dying even after vaccination.
At about 1:58 they talk about it. I don't think they understand the point.
https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/medcram-covid-19-vaccines
Patrick is so frustrating - she seems much smarter than most cvax hawks but doesn't put her ideas on paper. In the case of her conclusions on escape pressure I think she is very correct that coronavirus plausibly already lives in "maximum transmission" land by default - the limiting factor is how fast our cells can be made to pump out proteins - and of course totally wrong that the unvaccinated afford the virus more opportunity to replicate - the studies suggesting faster clearance are all from super-early breakthrough infections, not ones after 3/4 months. But maybe boosting restores that theory; we don't know yet..
Brian - when I saw her on Joe Rogan, I came away with the impression that she had been specifically assigned to make certain points. She even had a little note card. Could she have been bought off or otherwise unduly influenced? Or is she just experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance?
The Medcram video gives the impression that she is sourcing her own talking points. There are much simpler "templates" out there that she could be reading from instead; the kind that seem to provide the script for whatever nonsense David Gorski is spouting at a given moment. Can't say if she comes off the same way in the Rogan interview since I haven't watched it.
Is she bought off? Time may tell - it's understandable for scientists outside the vaccine field to have little idea how flagrantly un-rigorous and unscientific vaccine research has been from the very beginning. She references stabilizers in another segment of the video - she probably had no idea at the time that the Pfizer trial do decide between stabilizer-ed and non-stabilizer-ed spike found almost no difference in symptoms at high doses; the end decision was essentially arbitrary. Her confidence in the process does not match reality. Maybe more research will lead the scales to drop from her eyes.
Yet somehow even intelligent and script-violating vaccine researchers don't come around to disavowing vaccines entirely - Malone, vanden Bossche - so maybe I should not assume that willingness to eventually do so is a litmus test for whether an intelligent thinker is bought off...
Thank you for some sort of counter argument. I don't know what to say when someone brings up her points. To me it seems that mutations that escape the vac will propagate and result in a more virulent variant. but I have knowledge how all this works.
It's more of an agreement than a counter argument in this case. "The vaccine," as far as the viral genome sees, is just anti-spike pressure. Escape from spike pressure doesn't affect the naive unvaccinated who haven't even generated anti-spike antibodies and is trivial to the post-infection unvaccinated who have T Cell recognition of the entire virus.
Perhaps you are not the only person worrying about this. Could this be one of the reasons behind the US government now feverishly pitching vaccinations for children? One more domino added to the ever-building domino effect of poor choices and unintended consequences..
There are a lot of chilling thoughts.
Well if this idea holds any water the logical conclusion is that either it will eventually be very infectious among newborns or newborns will need to get vaccinated as well...
If the virus is normally bouncing between young and old hosts, then we can imagine a swarm/cloud of phenotypes which reduces to pro-young phenotypes when the old are removed from the infection pool, i.e. genetic bottleneck. Obviously this is short-term as the old reenter the pool once "infection efficacy" drops to near-0 or even worse after 4 months. As it happened in most of the West, the "bottleneck" period set in when the virus was going out of season anyway and the end of the bottleneck coincided with the virus coming back in season.
Note that this sets aside the complicated question of whether there really is such a thing as "age fitness." The question is clearer if put in the perspective of the virus, which only cares about transmission, rather than who is and isn't "immune" - was there a problem with successfully transmitting through children before? (it's possible, if not likely, given that children seem to be half or predominately asymptomatic - but we don't know if that means no transmission) - and were there versions of the virus in the genetic swarm / cloud that were better at this problem? If that's the case, it might account for the rise of the allegedly more "transmissible" and "child compatible" Delta, though this still over-simplifies things since the virus was out of season during the rollout and it's not clear you can apply a bottleneck when the virus is "hiding" in subclinical background transmission.* It's a trippy question but it seems at least possible that we've already seen the worst that can happen: kids can carry the virus a bit more, maybe transmit it more, but they are still robustly "immune" to it. Transmissibility is only scary when combined with incompetent / inflammatory immune responses. For kids, it's just a cold.
*One key piece of evidence against the argument that the (off-season rolled-out) vaccines applied any escape pressure is that "infection efficacy" still seemed to hold for the recently dosed younger adults while it plummeted for the elderly who were past the protection window. If Delta had achieved anti-spike antibody escape, "infection efficacy" should have dropped for all groups at once (barring a reach to a theory that the vaccines "charge up" innate immunity, when in fact the opposite seems to be the case). So if no antibody escape pressure was applied, no "age" escape pressure should have been applied either. Once again, boosters could finally prompt some movement there.
Your question on childhood transmission brings me back to the Spanish chart I can't find. It's transmission rates in schools by age (rates on the y, age on the x) and it's effectively a straight line with a positive slope. IE the older the child, the more transmission. That coupled with the overall lower rates of teachers acquiring Covid-19 in schools before vaccination compared to the community does strongly imply the conclusion that younger kids transmit less.
the leaky vaccines are definitely putting pressure on the virus to escape the narrow spike protein focused immunity confered by them but I think they'd have to optimize for that over anything else. To add to that, most younger people will fight off the virus at the mucus barrier anyway, I hope.
From my limited knowledge of immunology and natural selection, I could believe there is some reasonable hope that selection for variants that bypass the vaccine-based antibodies, may perhaps select for variants that are less "fit" overall in the wider environment.
How that interacts with unvaccinated younger groups... I wouldn't venture to guess, except that they have so far seemed to be relatively resistant.
In fact the weaker immune systems in the older hosts (especially the very old) are primed for this kind of "easy" evasion. Especially soon after the first dose when the weaker immune system with a very immature immunity is exposed to the viral threat.
It certainly selects for viral evasion, but I'm not certain what the specific mechanism for age related viral selection would be. I suppose at some age there comes more innate immune response and that also is a gradient.
So really there are two gradients - first overall immune response which in general fades with age. So as you get more and more adaptive to the immune system, you are able to evade younger and younger immunity. But at some point the innate immune response starts to become a bigger and bigger player in initial infection dynamics - especially in the mucosal membranes where vaccine immunity is not present. Depending on the steepness of this gradient, it is possible that this is a hill the virus will have a very hard time climbing because it is much less specific.
If the gradient is sufficiently shallow however, you could see viral evasion through serial passage in terms of innate immune pressure (which I stipulate as a proxy for age).
Yes, research Geert Vanden Bossche if you have not. I believe he and you are correct in this.
I have read some of Vanden Bossche's materials, and I do not yet know how much of the ideas I understood. Is there somewhere that he talks about leaving the entryway to the body unguarded, while selection taking place in a sieve within the body?
Have you read this... About mutant swarms and if you read the comments there's a few comments from the author on where the future may lie... Scary stuff
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/understanding-covid-19-and-seasonal
Thought provoking as usual. If I may be permitted to nitpick, I believe you have a hypothesis but not a theory. Not yet, anyway.
Basic virology finds that strains get more infectious and less lethal with time and this is true if not for the hole in epidemiology that some viruses are not stopped by the immune system (e.g. betaherpesvirus 5). The theory of Marek's disease holds true in onboarder viruses such herpes viruses (including the alphaherpes viruses in chickens from which Marek's disease is observed). Coronaviruses lack the immune system evading traits of onboarding viruses. This is obviously observed by the fact that vaccinated can spread covid more so than unvaccinated (especially after 6 months). For Marek's effect to hold true, SARS Cov-2 needs genes for cellular immune suppression (and arguments of this is Long Covid hold no water because "Long Covid" is mostly mental rather physical). I could be wrong but it is some "hopium" that the problem doesn't worsen. I do think the virus will get better at invading hosts over time, but the best virus at invading hosts (the rhinovirus aka common cold), is mostly harmless (that won't stop the overcounting of deaths, increasing tyranny, and gas lighting of purebloods as case rates goes up but deaths from covid reduce).
This is a clear explanation of what Geert VandenBoosch has been trying to warn about for months!
https://37b32f5a-6ed9-4d6d-b3e1-5ec648ad9ed9.filesusr.com/ugd/28d8fe_266039aeb27a4465988c37adec9cd1dc.pdf
Here is a simple fact: had we left this alone, it would be done. Every time we change nature by trying conquer it, we make things exponentially worse. The same arrogance that engineered this virus, is strengthening it and making it more dangerous.
I've been following you for quite awhile for sober analysis of data. I listen to Alex Jones as a kind of 'worst case scenario' preparation. Watching the two of you converge is frightening.
"my greatest hope is that somebody will now give me a set of very good reasons why my theory doesn't hold."
This sums up my feelings for the past year. I think it's going to be a dark winter, and I pray it turns out I'm as crazy as my family thinks I am.
Check out Peter Breggin’s book. He provides plenty of documented research that the “Wuhan spike protein” [p. 178] was engineered by combining WIV1-CoV like spike proteins such as those donated by Dr. Zhengli-Shi to the NIAID funded “2016 follow up paper describes in detail how Chinese and American scientists were working together to create what was clearly a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 ” [p. 28].
https://www.wearetheprey.com/
Presumably you keep up with https://anandamide.substack.com/p/directed-evolution