Connect with us

Government

Fauci’s NIH Funded Wuhan Military Scientist Who Died Mysteriously After Filing COVID Vaccine Patent

Fauci’s NIH Funded Wuhan Military Scientist Who Died Mysteriously After Filing COVID Vaccine Patent

As we move further down the rabbit hole of exactly what in the devil has been going on in China’s ‘bat labs,’ we now turn our attention to…

Published

on

Fauci's NIH Funded Wuhan Military Scientist Who Died Mysteriously After Filing COVID Vaccine Patent

As we move further down the rabbit hole of exactly what in the devil has been going on in China's 'bat labs,' we now turn our attention to one Zhou Yusen - a Chinese military scientist specializing in coronaviruses who collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "Bat Woman," Zhengli Shi - with at least one project to geneticially manipulate coronaviruses having been funded by three grants from the National Institutes of Heath (NIH)  - home to Dr. Anthony Fauci - via US universities, according to documents obtained by The Weekend Australian (ostensibly leaked by Aussie intelligence). The previously undisclosed NIH funding of a PLA military scientist is separate from millions in grants awarded EcoHealth alliance, which also collaborated with the WIV.

The revelation shows American money was funding risky ­research on coronaviruses with People’s Liberation Army scientists – including decorated military scientist Zhou Yusen and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s “Bat Woman”, Shi Zhengli.

Now we learn that Zhou, 54, is dead - three months after filing a patent for a COVID-19 vaccine in Feb. 2020.

Zhou Yusen, Zhengli Shi

According to the report, Zhou's May 2020 death went largely under the radar, despite the fact that he was an award-winning scientist at the PLA's Laboratory of Infection and Immunity at the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology. "There were no reports paying tribute to his life. His death was only mentioned in passing in a Chinese-media report in July and at the end of a December scientific paper. Both had the word ­“deceased” in brackets after his name."

And while Zhou's death may have been suspicious (or he may have simply died of COVID), the revelation that the US government was funding his research with the WIV may provide a clue as to why US officials - Dr. Fauci (backed by the 'scientific community' after his lapdog, EcoHelath Alliance's Peter Daszak, penned a 'natural origin or you're a lunatic' letter in the Lancet) - peddled the CCP's 'natural origin' theory, while any suggestion that it could have been created in and/or leaked from the very lab which received NIH dollars was strictly verboten. 

Emails released under a Freedom of Information request from Buzzfeed this week showed that, in the early days of the pandemic, Dr Fauci was concerned that US funding had gone towards gain-of-function research in China.

In other emails, scientists wrote to Dr Fauci expressing the preliminary view that the SARS-CoV-2 genome appeared “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory” and that it had some features that “potentially look engineered”. -The Weekend Australian

In short, 'conflict of interest' doesn't even begin to explain what Fauci is now going to have to explain the next time Rand Paul has him in the hot seat.

The revelation shows American money was funding risky ­research on coronaviruses with People’s Liberation Army scientists – including decorated military scientist Zhou Yusen and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s “Bat Woman”, Shi Zhengli.

...

National security sources said the ties between Zhou and Dr Shi ­supported claims by US intelligence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was engaged in “secret military activity.” -The Australian

How long was China sitting on the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2?

SARS-CoV-2

If we're considering the timeline and its implications, Zhou died three months after filing a Feb. 24, 2020 patent application for a COVID-19 vaccine. While this could mean that he was working on a COVID-19 vaccine before the virus became public knowledge in December 2019, keep in mind that Moderna was able to design the sequence for their COVID-19 vaccine just two days after Chinese officials released its genetic sequence on Jan. 11, 2020 - filing for their first related patent in March, two months later.

Also note that Zhou had been working on coronavirus vaccines since at least 2006 in response the original SARS-CoV outbreak - authoring a study which found that "the vaccines containing the (receptor-binding domain) of SARS-CoV S protein may induce sufficient neutralising antibodies and long-term ­protective immunity against SARS-CoV challenge in the ­established mouse model."

So, assuming an expert would need approximately two months to go from genomic sequence to patent application, it implies that China withheld the genetic sequence for a month before its Jan. 11 public release. Or, Zhou may have had more of a 'head start' than that. 

"This is something we have never seen achieved before, raising the question of whether this work may have started much ­earlier," said Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University.

(And if one wants to explore the implications assuming SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered, Karl Denninger has some thoughts below)

And while we may never know the full extent of Zhou's role in all of this, he and 'bat woman' Zhengli were working on a COVID vaccine right before the pandemic.

Per the Weekend Australian:

Right before the pandemic, Zhou and three other scientists from the PLA-run Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology – Yuehong Chen, Lei He and Shishui Sun – partnered with two Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists – Dr Shi and Jing Chen – and eight Chinese scientists now based in the US at the University of Minnesota and the Lindsley Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Centre. Their paper, titled Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-­Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry, was submitted to the Journal of Virology on November 27, 2019, and was published on February 14, 2020.

The research examined MERS and SARS coronaviruses as avenues for antibody-based ­antiviral drug therapy to treat coronaviruses.

Their paper had some positive results: “Taken together, our ­results show that RBD-specific neutralising MAbs bind to the same region on coronavirus spikes as viral receptors do, trigger conformational changes of the spikes as viral receptors do, and mediate ADE through the same pathways as viral-receptor-dependent viral entry.”

They found this “novel molecular mechanism for antibody-enhanced viral entry” could “guide future vaccination and ­antiviral strategies”.

This study was conducted “in vitro”, meaning in a petri dish or test tube, using humanised kidney and lung cells. Their last paragraph indicated the next step in a future paper would be to conduct “in vivo” experiments with ­humanised mice or primates. A paper published in Nature ­Reviews Immunology 18 months later, in April this year, would find that “neutralising monoclonal antibodies” could help the treatment of Covid-19.

Meanwhile, Zhou's patent application states: "The invention ­relates to the field of biomedicine, and relates to a Covid-19 ­vaccine, preparation methods and applications. The fusion ­protein provided by the invention can be used to develop the Covid-19 protein vaccine and a drug for preventing or treating the Covid-19."

What does this all mean now? Karl Denninger has a few thoughts via market-ticker.org, and is notably very suspicious of the patent timing (edited for brevity):

So what do we now know?

  • China's military was in fact involved at the Wuhan lab.  It was not just a civilian operation.  This, by the way, has been repeatedly denied over the last year and change.
  • The lab's scientists knew not only the sequencing of the virus but in addition had a patentable way to create an alleged vaccine before the pandemic was public.  It takes time to draft patents and figure them out.  Quite a lot of time, in fact -- not a couple weeks or months.
  • It takes time to prove up patent material, including in the case of a vaccine.  To patent something you must be able to demonstrate it; you cannot patent ideas, only embodiments of ideas.  In that case you would have to prove immunogenicity which isn't instantaneous; it takes weeks or even months to get through original science on this with animals and then humans, which means the date of knowledge was not February 24th it was months or even further before that.
     
  • That means they were working on this even before that time because to work on a vaccine you have to know you must or would want to work on it in the first place.  This in turn means they knew damn well there was a virulent virus in the wild prior to that date, or they released it or intended to release it into the wild on purpose.  Nobody comes up with a vaccine for a virus you intend to and have confined entirely within a laboratory in animal or cell culture testing; that's worthless.  Without an isolate to create a vaccine for and a virus outside of a lab environment where vaccination becomes a "thing" that might be required and thus have value why would you do the work to create one?

What's the timeline on all this?  Many, many months or even a couple of years.

That means either the virus was "out" for many months to a couple of years before February of 2020 (not a month or two) or the Chinese intended to release it in the fall of 2019.  In either case the evidence is now overwhelming that this was not a virus that "magically appeared" one fine day in late December having come naturally from bats and perhaps pangolins. That is not just improbable anymore -- it is now, on the manifest weight of the evidence, impossible.

...

Next up is exactly what sort of vaccine patent we're talking about here?

Specifically how is it that the "stiffened" areas in the viral vector and mRNA shots we're using in the US came to be known and proved up?  How did Moderna and Pfizer know they needed to do that?  That sort of study takes months if not years too, not days or weeks, to both come up with it and then prove it actually works as expected.

Remember that Covid-19 has a rather-unique site on the spike called the "furin-cleavage" area which it uses to "fold" and get into the cell; the S1 unit attaches, the cleavage area "folds" and then the second part penetrates the cell wall like a spear.  SARS and MERS both lack this structure so there was no "prior art" to use and in the first couple of months the characterizing of all of this was pretty darn new.

Yet the "official story" is that these folks had a proposed candidate configuration, including the replacement of encodings to "stiffen" that area within days of the publication of the viral RNA sequence for Covid-19.

Is the completed work in that area what the Chinese "gave" us complete with that part of the work already done?  That would explain how it happened that quickly, wouldn't it?  I'd sure like to understand how someone -- anyone -- does that sort of work complete with the lab verification in cell cultures and animals, reachig those conclusions in days.

What are the connections there?  I'd like a full explanation of that please.

*  *  *

As would we.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/06/2021 - 11:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

COVID-19 may never go away, but practical herd immunity is within reach

It is unlikely that we will reach full herd immunity for COVID-19. However, we are likely to reach a practical kind of herd immunity through vaccination.

The level of immunity needed — either through vaccination or infection — for practical herd immunity is uncertain, but may be quite high. (Shutterstock)

When people say that we won’t reach “herd immunity” to COVID-19, they are usually referring to an ideal of “full” population immunity: when so many people are immune that, most of the time, there is no community transmission.

With full herd immunity, most people will never be exposed to the virus. Even those who are not vaccinated are protected, because an introduction is so unlikely to reach them: it will sputter out, because so many others are immune — as is the case now with diseases like polio and mumps.

The fraction of the population that needs to be immune in order for the population to have “full” herd immunity depends on the transmissibility of the virus in the population, and on the control measures in place.

It is unlikely we’ll reach full herd immunity for COVID-19.

For one thing, it appears that immunity to COVID-19 acquired either by vaccination or infection wanes over time. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 will continue to evolve. Over time, variants that can infect people with immunity (even if this only results in mild disease) will have a selective advantage, just as until now selection has mainly favoured variants with higher transmission potential.

Electron micrograph of a yellow virus particle with green spikes, against a blue background.
The B.1.1.7 variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Over time, variants of concern will likely continue to emerge. NIAID, CC BY

Also, our population is a composition of different communities, workplaces and environments. In some of these, transmission risk might be high enough and/or immunity low enough to allow larger outbreaks to occur, even if overall in the population we have high vaccination and low transmission.

Finally, SARS-CoV-2 can infect other animals. This means that other animal populations may act as a “reservoir,” allowing the virus to be reintroduced to the human population.

Practical herd immunity

Nonetheless, we are likely to reach a practical kind of herd immunity through vaccination. In practical herd immunity, we can reopen to near-normal levels of activity without needing widespread distancing or lockdowns. This would be a profound change from the situation we have been in for the past 18 months.

Practical herd immunity does not mean that we never see any COVID-19. It will likely be with us, just at low enough levels that we will not need to have widespread distancing measures in place to protect the health-care system.


Read more: COVID-19 variants FAQ: How did the U.K., South Africa and Brazil variants emerge? Are they more contagious? How does a virus mutate? Could there be a super-variant that evades vaccines?


What level of immunity (either through vaccination or infection) we need for practical herd immunity is uncertain, but it may be quite high. The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 was highly transmissible and transmission is thought to be higher still for some variants of concern.

Empty vials of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine
To achieve two-thirds immunity, 90 per cent of the eligible population would need to be vaccinated or infected naturally. (AP Photo/John Locher)

The amount of immunity we need will also depend on what level of controls we are willing to maintain indefinitely. Continued masking, contact tracing, symptomatic and asymptomatic testing and outbreak control measures will mean we will require less immunity than we would without these in place.

Some estimates suggest that we may need two thirds of the population to be protected either by successful vaccination or natural infection. If 90 per cent of the population is eligible for vaccination, and vaccines are 85 per cent effective against infection, we can obtain this two thirds with about 90 per cent of the eligible population being vaccinated or infected naturally.

The United Kingdom has already exceeded these rates in some age groups. Higher rates are even better, because there is still uncertainty about the level of transmissibility and vaccine efficacy against infection (although research shows they are very good against severe disease). We don’t want to discover that we do not have enough immunity through vaccination and have another serious wave of infection.

Emerging variants

A sticker reading 'I'm COVID-19 vaccinated' from Vancouver Coastal Health
Booster vaccinations will hopefully allow us to maintain long-term practical herd immunity against future variants of COVID-19. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

Higher vaccine uptake will mean there are fewer infections before we reach practical herd immunity. The remaining unvaccinated individuals will be safer, protected indirectly by the immunity of those around them. Outbreaks will be smaller and rarer, and there will be fewer opportunities for vaccine escape variants to arise and spread.

That said, variants of SARS-CoV-2 will continue to emerge, and selection will favour variants that escape our immunity. Vaccine developers will continue to broaden the spectrum of the vaccines that are available, and boosters will hopefully allow us to maintain long-term practical herd immunity.

It’s possible that an immune escape variant will emerge that is severe enough, and transmissible enough, that it will cause a new pandemic for which we do not have even practical herd immunity. But barring that, while we may not be free of COVID-19, we can be confident that in the not-too-distant future it will be manageable when we return to near-normal life.

Caroline Colijn's research group receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Genome British Columbia, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Canada 150 Research Chair program of the Federal Government of Canada.

Paul Tupper's research group receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Read More

Continue Reading

Stocks

Citadel Settles Suit Alleging Former Senior Trader Shared Its Algorithmic “Secret Sauce”

Citadel Settles Suit Alleging Former Senior Trader Shared Its Algorithmic "Secret Sauce"

Citadel has reached a settlement with the British hedge fund it accused of trying to plunder one of its senior traders in an effort to get to its algorit

Published

on

Citadel Settles Suit Alleging Former Senior Trader Shared Its Algorithmic "Secret Sauce"

Citadel has reached a settlement with the British hedge fund it accused of trying to plunder one of its senior traders in an effort to get to its algorithmic "secret sauce".

GSA Capital Partners LLC and Citadel announced the settlement late last week after Citadel accused the fund of obtaining "closely guarded" trading strategies when it hired the employee in question, Vedat Cologlu, according to Bloomberg. 

GSA said of the settlement that the two firms “recognize and respect the importance and value of the other’s rights over their confidential information and intellectual property.”

We first documented that Citadel was suing British hedge fund GSA Capital in January of 2020, after GSA attempted to hire Cologlu, allegedly in hopes of accessing the quant secrets at the core of Citadel's "ABC" automated trading strategy. 

Recall, we wrote back in November of 2020 that Citadel was seeking around $40 million over claims that GSA was able to obtain information on the strategy via texts and WhatsApp.

Citadel argued late last year that GSA "can't unsee" and can't forget the information that was taken from Citadel's secret algorithm. Citadel is also moving to try and block GSA from using their trading model. GSA has argued that they found no "secret sauce" from a high-level description of the structure of a trading algorithm. 

David Craig, a lawyer for Citadel Securities, said in late 2020: “GSA’s most senior managers now know where and how Citadel makes hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues. They cannot forget that information, or put it out of their minds.”

He noted that only 15 of Citadel's 3,000 employees ever had access to the "strategic logic" of the strategy. One of those employees was Cologlu, a 2007 Wharton grad and self-described "stat arb trader", who helped operate and administer the models whose "returns were notably high given the low level of risk it took on."

Citadel has claimed its "ABC" quant strategy cost more than $100 million to develop. In its lawsuit, Citadel alleged that the UK fund wanted Cologlu to hand over confidential information about the strategy:

GSA asked for sensitive information on his equity-trading including his profits and the speed of the trades. And then Cologlu handed over a plan that Citadel argues was based on its own confidential model, including the way the algorithm made predictions.

And there's good reason for the information to be coveted. Citadel Securities has been wildly profitable: the company posted a record $6.7 billion in revenue in 2020. This was almost double the previous high in 2018. The blockbuster result came after some of its traders moved from Chicago and New York to set up shop in a Palm Beach hotel in late March 2020 as the pandemic upended lives and markets across the globe. The results of the privately-held company were released in presentation to investors as part of a $2.5 billion loan Citadel Securities was seeking.

The Citadel securities trading arm started as a high-frequency market-maker in options before pushing into equities. Today, the firm dominates that realm and has had a very close relationship with the likes of the millennials' favorite trading platform, Robinhood. We documented back in September 2020 that Citadel now controls 41% of all retail trading. 

GSA was spun out of Deutsche Bank AG in 2005 and manages around $7.5 billion. Citadel’s legal filing names GSA founder and majority owner Jonathan Hiscox as a defendant, alongside other officials including the chief technology officer.

Back in January 2020, we noted the full details of Citadel's lawsuit. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/12/2021 - 14:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

UK Government Adviser Says Mask Mandates Should Continue “Forever”

UK Government Adviser Says Mask Mandates Should Continue "Forever"

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A UK government adviser and former Communist Party member Susan Michie says that mask mandates and social distancing should…

Published

on

UK Government Adviser Says Mask Mandates Should Continue "Forever"

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A UK government adviser and former Communist Party member Susan Michie says that mask mandates and social distancing should continue “forever” and that people should adopt such behaviour just as they did with wearing seatbelts.

Michie, who is a Professor of Health Psychology at UCL and a leading member of SAGE, said such control measures should become part of people’s “normal” routine behaviour.

"Vaccines are a really important part of pandemic control but it is only one part. [A] test, trace and isolate system, [as well as] border controls, are really essential. And the third thing is people’s behaviour. That is, the behaviour of social distancing, of… making sure there’s good ventilation [when you’re indoors], or if there’s not, wearing face masks, and [keeping up] hand and surface hygiene."

"We will need to keep these going in the long term, and that will be good not only for Covid but also to reduce other [diseases] at a time when the NHS is [struggling]… I think forever, to some extent…"

"I think there’s lots of different behaviours that we have changed in our lives. We now routinely wear seatbelts – we didn’t use to. We now routinely pick up dog poo in the parks – we didn’t use to. When people see that there is a threat and there is something they can do to reduce that [to protect] themselves, their loved ones and their communities, what we have seen over this last year is that people do that."

Michie’s comments once again emphasize how many scientific advisers have become drunk on COVID-19 power and never want to relinquish it.

“Unsurprisingly, Channel 5 News made absolutely no effort to scrutinise these claims. The programme’s presenter raised no objection to the idea that mask-wearing and social distancing could continue “forever”, resorting only to friendly laughter,” writes Michael Curzon.

“Professor Michie’s co-panellist, a fellow scientist at UCL, Dr Shikta Das, said:

“I think Susan has made a very good point here,” adding that the vaccine roll-out has created a “false sense of security”.

She concluded:

“I don’t think we are yet ready to unlock.”

How’s all that for balance!

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Michie is known to be a long-time Communist hardliner and was so zealous in her beliefs she garnered the nickname “Stalin’s nanny.”

Her sentiment echoes that of fellow government adviser Professor Neil Ferguson, who once acknowledged that he was surprised authorities were able to “get away with” the same draconian measures that Communist China imposed at the start of the pandemic.

“[China] is a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with [lockdown] in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could,” said Ferguson.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/12/2021 - 11:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending