13 thoughts on “The Origin Of Covid”

  1. To be certain of what was going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIoV for short) it would be informative to know if repeat viral infection of either bats or another mammal species was taking place there. If multi-generational studies of a corona virus similar to SARS was being examined. Or if a new form of SARS unique to horseshoe bats was being regenerated via cross-species or intra-species infection looking for genetic variants. This would be a good clue that gain-of-function research was taking place. There seems to be evidence that funding for such research was being funneled into WIoV via Peter Daszak. I won’t repeat the links I previously posted from the Newsweek article from last year. It’s in this archive if you want to search for it. Also I refer you to Steve Hilton’s website. Unfortunately, you won’t get answers from WIoV. Since last year a two-star Red Army general was put in charge of the place and I’m sure any remaining evidence has been cleaned up and the scientists who work there ordered not to speak out about their research there. The only forensics possible may be old publications still circulating in the literature or in the Wayback machine.

    As for Mr. Anderson’s denials, from what I’ve personally researched about CRISPR, there aren’t tell-tale genetic signs left at cut-sites. Now oddly-unique RNA strands that don’t show up in other forms of bat corona-viri would be a potential tell-tale. However if accelerated natural gain-of-function work was being done by repeated generation of infection on live animal hosts, that would be indistinguishable from natural variation, because it is. The only difference is its being done in a lab not in a forest or a bat cave. As we have seen with this epidemic, the longer the virus stays in circulation the more likely new and better infectious strains appear. What happens in Brazil, South Africa, the UK or now perhaps India, wouldn’t be any different than what could be done in the lab with enough generations. Gain-of-function research needs to be closely looked at for risk/benefit.

    1. The other case against zoonotic transmission is the lack of epidemiology outside Wuhan at the beginning. Esp. for cases of SARS2. There *had* been small outbreaks in the villages in China in the areas where there are large horseshoe bat habitats of SARS-like disease (Note: Wuhan is not one of these areas), but these are somewhat genetically different from SARS2 if memory serves. But the reportage has been that these viri were at the high 90% range of genetic similarity. But if a zoonotic outbreak had been the cause, there should have been more dispersed regional outbreaks of SARS2. Outbreaks that follow the carrier animals. We don’t see that. What we see is a radial outbreak centered on Wuhan not simultaneous spot outbreaks across disparate regions in China connected by one particular host animal.

  2. That was pretty much the assumption going in. The lab is only a few blocks from the wet market where it supposedly came from. Given the looseness of controls, it isn’t hard to believe that some low level personnel might have sold some bats used in experiments to folks in the wet market. I don’t understand why TPTB think such a scenario is so far fetched.

  3. What an outstanding report, Nicholas Wade is a national treasure. So much there I’ll probably need at least a few days to let it sink in… before reading it again.

    In the case of SARS1, researchers have documented the successive changes in its spike protein as the virus evolved step by step into a dangerous pathogen. After it had gotten from bats into civets, there were six further changes in its spike protein before it became a mild pathogen in people. After a further 14 changes, the virus was much better adapted to humans, and with a further 4 the epidemic took off.

    But when you look for the fingerprints of a similar transition in SARS2, a strange surprise awaits. The virus has changed hardly at all, at least until recently. From its very first appearance, it was well adapted to human cells.


    The one comment I can make at this time is that the only complex work Peter Daszak should be involved in right now is reviewing his latest unemployment application rejection letter.

  4. “It cannot yet be stated that Dr. Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed”

    her records have been … what?!

  5. Fauci doubles down on denial of funding gain-of-function research at WIV in heated exchange with Sen. Ron Paul. See:


    Alex Berenson pushed back on Tucker Carlson last night, that holding Fauci responsible for the work taking place at WIV was a “mistake” and the Fauci’s relatively small amount of funding as a percentage of the overall NIAID budget meant he probably wasn’t paying close attention to what was happening there. Tucker wasn’t buying it because of the end-around on the Obama Admin’s attempted moratorium. And again I’m reminded of James Clapper’s testimony to Congress denying intentional NSA spying on American citizens in answer to a direct question from Sen. Ron Wyden.

    So once again what is it? Incompetence or perjury?

    BTW MSM is now portraying Nicholas Wade as a right wing conspiracy theorist. Never mind his stints at Nature and The New York Times. Sorry MSM that dog won’t hunt with me but maybe the main stream morons you propagandize will buy it….

Comments are closed.