"Does this mean that there was a lab leak in one of Moderna’s facilities? The idea borders on the absurd"

NIH sues bioNtech Gene Therapies for covid royalties


Since the NIH did the GoF experiments and are most liekly to be behind the lab leak as they then owned the "vaccinne" to the virus they created it seems a little less absurd.

Expand full comment

The bat doesn't matter. Where's the virus? Doesn't exist.


Expand full comment

The meanwhile deceased German philosopher Gunnar Kaiser brought the, for me, most convincing argument against the lab leak theory / GoF issue:

GoF on really dangerous, i.e. deadly viruses would require first a safe and effective countermeasure for both., the lab workers and the elites, such as the top politicians; certainly all functions between them.

It is impossible to find first the safe and effective countermeasure and later the dangerous virus.

If GoF is really intended you must get some smart people involved. They want to protect themselver.

You might think on stupid lab personel, the stupid lab heads, stupid institutional presidents etc. ....

Therefore GoF is extremely unlikely (impossible) to occur.

As GoF is extremely unlikely or impossible, then there iwill never be a relevant lab leak.

It is useless speculating on lab leaks of low relevance.

Expand full comment

There is Anthony Fauci advocating in a paper from 2012 for GoF.


So to claim that there were no GoF efforts would be ludicrous. That was the whole point why virologists helped Anthony Fauci covering up the lab-leak theory. Because many virologists are in fact infatuated with GoF research. They find their virus world so much more interesting with GoF than without GoF. So they are reluctant of letting go of GoF. You can find YouTube videos of virologists arguing for GoF.

Of course it is true what Gunnar Kaiser argued that the intenional release of a GoF virus does not make any sense since it would also affect the elites.

However, since when have humans NOT done things that harm themselves and others? It happens all the time. Humans tend to run after the causes of suffering. See how the virologists run after GoF. Is it really true that GoF is likely to bring more benefit than harm - like Anthony Fauci argued in his paper? Virologists who simply abstain from GoF, who can even imagine such a world? There will always be a few virologists doing GoF research and pitching it to the government and Defense Departments in order to receive big money for their studies. And the politicians and senior public servants like Fauci, dumb and corrupted as they often are, will give lots and lots of money to GoF.

In fact this Covid pandemic will probably lead to even MORE taxpayer money being spent on GoF research under the pretense that our governments are better prepared for future pandemics. GoF is ridiculous of course, but I am also not entirely in favour of Sasha Latypova's point of view that GoF is not really possible and that a virus can not be made more harmful by GoF. Although it is probably the best point of view since getting scared about viruses is really detrimental to our health. The fear of viruses is certainly much worse than the viruses themselves.

Expand full comment

Thank you very much!

I am strongly in favor of your last sentence.

Maybe the undersanding of GoF is an issue.

My position remains: GoF in the sense of making a virus more harmful is not logic.

However, if you or Fauci understands GoF in another way: Why not?

More infectious would usually contradict more harmful.

And research that surrounds GoF could also lead to knowledge that would best be covered by military and secret services. Please think of the possibillity that a test (e.g. RT-PCR) would detect something in ill patients, but could be disturbed by other measures.

Or think of toxic peptides whose gen codes could be inserted in gentechnologically manufactured vaccines. Maybe, such research could be done under the umbrella of GoF.

This way, I would not deny the existance of GoF.

Expand full comment

Meddling with nature can cause a certain amount of harm. Just like certain medicines can be detrimental to health even though certain people and doctors tell us these same medicines are absolutely safe and can do no harm or won't 'normally' cause any harm.

Plastics are safe. Nicotine is safe. DDT is safe. Thilomersal is a safe and effective preservative for vaccines. Aluminium is safe as an adjuvant for vaccines. Aluminium pots are safe. Asbestos is natural and safe and beneficial. GoF is safe and completely harmless.

Phtalates are safe. Burning our garbage is safe. Mobile phones are safe.

Nuclear energy is safe and clean.

Vaccines are safe and effective.

Cocaine is safe.

Opioids are safe.

Antipsychotics are safe and effective.

Masks cause no problems to environment and are not detrimental to our health, or at least the benefit outweighs the harm.

Thalidomide is safe and effective.


Expand full comment

I agree largely, allthough I do not see relevance and relationship to this thread.

If you would suffer from leprosy (and some other nasty diseases) and, as a female be old enough, you would be glad to get thalidomide.

And it might well be that nicotine is safe - but this is certainly a natural compound.

Expand full comment

Does a virus that is being made more transmissible through GoF mean that it is not causing any harm? In my opinion the argument that a GoF virus is not something we need to worry about since it is transmissible, does not hold.

In my opinion GoF research is not safe.

Expand full comment

Certainly! I agree, GoF is not safe.

Nevertheless, I would stress that fear mongering with GoF might be more efficacious and more dangerous. Cheaper and with less risks for those who pay for it. Or more correctly: Who let the tax payers pay for it.

Expand full comment

"It seems to us that the lab-leak controversy helps conceal these things."

Exactly! I cannot be repeated enough.

Expand full comment

The plot thickens. Everyone wanted in on the SARS COV party:


Montana Bio Lab - Vincent Munster has not been in the limelight.

Expand full comment

I am sure people have said this already, but the third option is that there was no virus, the whole thing was an elaborate scam. " They " want us to believe the lab leak theory so when the next thing is rolled out they will scare people into submission again. There is no evidence that a virus is the causative agent of any illness. We can become ill for many reasons, from multiple environmental toxins, but not a virus.

Expand full comment

The article reminds me of the book "Virus Mania" first published in 2007, updated in 2020 to reflect the Covid crisis that puts things into a larger perspective.


I think that we just have to learn as a global population not to get scared too much when somebody else is scared and hallucinating and not to ask for frantic actions and measures but to ask for more calm and sitting it out.

The author of the book Virus Mania Dr. Köhnlein is really laid back and calm. He is just not buying into the virus mania. Others might become maniacs, but he stays completely calm.

One of his patients with influenza-like illness came to his GP practice since his employer wanted a SARS-COV2 test result. Köhnlein refused to do a SARS-COV2 test but did an influenza test instead. The influenza test came back positive. Maybe the SARS COV2 test would have come back positive, too. But then the family had influenza and not Covid. Köhnlein is quite a wise GP. There should be more people like him. A good thinker, who is flexible in his approach.

Expand full comment
Mar 15·edited Mar 15

I like this article questioning so many things. I personally have the hypothesis that the computer data of the alleged SARS COV2 virus sequences that were published in China may be in some parts thingies that have been put together in the computer from different bat coronaviruses.

I also question the severity of COVID, the sickness. So far I have not met anyone who was hospitalized because of (not with) Covid (not because of fear of Covid) and or died because of Covid. I heard of a lady in US who had had terminal lung cancer for 10 years. She went into hospital with a broken back (I assume because the cancer had metastasized into the spine), and she was then said to have died of COVID but in my opinion she died of cancer, and only because she had no health insurance and because she had a lung condition the hospital said that she had COVID. The other hear-say stories of COVID hospitalizations or deaths I could not get verified, and the people who told me about them said that they happened overseas, so they could not verify those deaths/hospitalization themselves either at first hand, i.e. whether the hospitalization only happened due to fear and was in fact not actually that serious, or whether the death was not in fact due to a terminal cancer or another health condition.

We had lots of SARS COV2 positive tests in Germany during the first Covid wave at a time when later on they said that the deadliest variant was around. Germany did a lot of PCR testing early on, found many positive tests with often asymptomatic infection and yet there was no excess mortality whatsoever so that the virologist Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck who had overseen the testing at the early Heinsberg outbreak gave a prognosis in an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in spring 2020 that in his opinion we will most probably NOT have any excess mortality in 2020 in Germany. That means that most infections in Heinsberg did go unnoticed. The Head of the Austrian center of disease controll AGES, Prof. Dr. Franz Allersberger said in an interview with CIBIS in early summer 2021 that in his opinion noone would have noticed the pandemic if it was not for the PCR tests.

So this is really pointing towards a bat dilemma.

I also noticed that Germany came up with lots of Covid deaths after the EU decided on 10/12/2020 to give those EU countries more money in grants who were more affected by the pandemic. Can it really be that all of a sudden half the people who died in Germany died of Covid??? What tests did they use all of a sudden to get such an extremely high positivity rate? It is clear that not all of those people could have possibly died of Covid. Otherwise there would be those deaths missing that usually die of heart attacks, cancer, strokes, old age, infections other than Covid, etc

Plus Germany had a huge 29 percent increase in mortality almost singularly in the above 80 year age group in January 2021. Mostly very elderly residents from residential care homes would have received two Covid shots in January 2021, provided they did not die already after the first injection. So it seems that those residents did NOT benefit from their Pfizer/Biontech mRNA vaccinations.

Here is a translation from the January 2021 report from the German Office of Statistics:

Above-average number of deaths, especially in the 80+ age group:

"The above-average number of deaths in January 2021 was largely due to an increase in deaths in the 80+ age group. In January, 29% or 14,464 more people aged 80 and over died than the average for the previous four years in this month. The number of deaths among the under-80s differed significantly less from the four-year average in January (+4% or +1,461 deaths)."


Is it only me asking why the group that was prioritized for Pfizer/Biontech injections died in such large numbers?

I personally also like the ideas set out in Robert F. Kennedy's Book "The Wuhan Cover-Up" and Harvey Risch's recent testimony at Senator Johnson's round table hearing even though you yourselves may disagree with some of their statements. Yet, I also believe now after much research and not believing it at the start that DARPA was feeling that they needed to come up with another dual use success story, and therefore decided that the DARPA Moderna contract had to be made into a dual use success story. Hence the need for a pandemic and hence the supposedly ingenious brand-new mRNA platform technology. A platform that proved to be quite mediocre at best, in fact probably causing injuries, but still the UK, US, Canadian, Australian, and Germany are very keen to promote mRNA "life-saving" technology and started to build large mRNA vaccines production facilities in their countries.

Here is Harvey Risch also pointing towards DARPA:

"So my hypothesis, what I believe is that both the virus origin cover up and the forced vaccination of the entire planet were orchestrated to protect the integrity of the bio weapons industry. Once the general public understood the reckless and cavalier behavior of this industry that had operated under a false and misrepresented pretense of vaccine development that has never been successfully, commercially, commercially realized, it would then clamor to shut down the industry, and so the suppression of knowledge of the industry's reckless involvement in the Wuhan leak is an obvious cover up, and we have proof of that cover up from the FOIA documents involving Fauci, Collins, Jeremy Farrar and others.

And my conclusion, then, is the reason why the whole population had to be vaccinated is to show that the bioweapons industry supposedly did have a rationale of vaccine development as part of its claimed dual use research. The vaccines, then, are the evidence that the bioweapons industry was properly justified from the beginning, without a successful vaccine to show for itself in the time of a pandemic crisis, especially one caused by a leak from a bioweapons industry source itself, it would be clear to everyone that the rationale for the industry's existence was a fraud in the first place. And so the Covid vaccines themselves supplied the defense against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual use, but offensive, only violating the 1975 treaty. So the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good. And in this context, it did not matter what collateral damage the vaccines caused. All there had to be was the public thinking, public thought of this theater, that the industry had been doing its worst work to produce usable vaccines, not offensive bioweapons."


Expand full comment

Great work!

Re "On the first of January the Chinese shut down the Wuhan market. Some days later they destroyed coronaviruses in labs. This seems to us to be evidence that the Chinese themselves were uncertain what was happening or why, and were simply taking every precaution," hospitals were told either to destroy their Covid samples or send them to a biolab equipped to handle them. It was a precaution.

Expand full comment

By far the best explanation for the alleged pandemic is the vaccines. They are the one certainty in the entire scenario. The pandemic was necessary to justify their use. It proved to be a relatively simple matter, following guidelines showcased at Event 201, to generate what was essentially a 'virtual' pandemic event sufficient to get people to accept the very real injections.

Expand full comment

The idea of a deadly virus potentially emerging from animals has been used for years by Fauci et al to justify research projects on vaccine development. 'Emerging infectious diseases' - largely a potential or imaginary problem rather than an actual one - have become a major driver of research into viruses. Coincidentally this research is also pertinent to bioweapons development.

Why bats? Well they're great for propaganda purposes - watch out for the sinister bats hidden away in dark caves secretly evolving deadly viruses, one whiff of which could kill a regiment. Scary stuff.

Expand full comment

Personally based upon a few pieces of information.

The most important is, who has the original 37 pairs of a sequence. Who has tried to draw SARS CoV 2 using a computer using these 37 pairs of the sequence. Is it the same as what is in the published paper by Wu et all (2020).

No flu/cold has ever shown to contagious.

Vit D has been shown to prevent severe illness in those with flu/cold.

Probably others, perhaps next time.

Expand full comment

The 37 base pairs was a misunderstanding by Tom Cowan.

In one paper the authors wrote that they "designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence", Cowan thought that it meant that "rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs." (http://web.archive.org/web/20201015211840/https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/) Cowan later edited his article to remove the text about the 37 base pairs, but by that point the original version had already been copied to a bunch of websites.

In an article where Jon Rappoport commented on Cowan's article, he quoted the same text about the 37 base pairs I quoted above but he didn't point out any error within the text, which is a good indication of how much he knows about genetics (even though someone in his comments section did point out the error) (https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/).

So the 37 pairs were pairs of PCR primers and not base pairs. In the PCR-based sequencing method which was used in the paper, the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was divided into 37 segments, where each segment was amplified by PCR. So in order to amplify the segments, the authors needed to pick forward primer at the start of each segment and a reverse primer at the end of each segment. The segments covered the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 apart from small parts of the untranslated regions. So it was not necessary for computer software to fill in any gaps between the amplicons, because no such gaps existed because the amplicons were overlapping.

Expand full comment

Hi it's good that you mention others in regards to 37 pairs.

But I prefer to stay with the original published paper.

Using the same methodology as described in the paper, replicate the same genome using a computer.....

Can that be done!

Expand full comment

I have tried running MEGAHIT and Trinity on the raw reads from the paper by Wu et al., but I wasn't able to reproduce the original 30,474-base contig: sars2.net/hamburgmath.html. I then realized it was because the original contig accidentally included a 597-base segment of human DNA at the 3' end, but human reads were masked with N letters in the raw reads that were uploaded to the NCBI's Sequence Read Archive. The NCBI even provides a tool called Human Scrubber which can be used to mask human reads with N bases for privacy reasons.

I was almost able to reproduce the current 29,903-base version of Wuhan-Hu-1, but my MEGAHIT contig was only missing the last 30 bases of the poly(A) tail. However that's because the full poly(A) tail is not included in the raw reads, and Wu et al. wrote that they used RACE to sequence the poly(A) tail. RACE is a method similar to PCR which only requires specifying one primer instead of two primers so it can be used to amplify the ends of a genome.

Expand full comment

So Wu et al have not done due diligence on their paper. So it should be retracted if you are saying you are getting a different value for the alleged virus.

All attempts to reconstruct the virus should be the same. Otherwise they falsified their results.

If you develop a test based upon a falsified paper , this is concerning.

Also finding a virus using the Wu et al methodology has only established that they think they have a virus. If you test 1 million people based upon that result and 1 in 10 have cold symptoms and they all test positive. It doesn't mean you have a virus. It's an assumption...

Expand full comment

Based on the metagenomic raw reads that Wu et al. uploaded to the NCBI's Sequence Read Archive, I can otherwise reproduce Wuhan-Hu-1 exactly except I'm just getting a shorter poly(A) tail, which is not a big deal. And Wu et al. didn't even claim that the entire 33-base poly(A) tail was included in the metagenomic reads, because they wrote that they used RACE to sequence the 3' end.

Expand full comment

So basically it's different than Wu at al.

Others have claimed they can't reproduce Wu et al too.

But besides this, no proof of contagion. It just means people are testing positive. 80% of which have no symptoms of anything.

Expand full comment

I’m bewildered by the ongoing ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, and I do not have the expertise to engage in this argument.

However, it seems clear, that whatever was going on with ‘SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19’, it was not a serious threat to most people, so how did we end up with a ‘vaccine solution’ being pressed upon mass populations, and voluntary informed consent for Covid-19 vaccination being trashed?

In regard to the ‘virus’/‘no virus’ argument, what do people think about this human challenge study? A lot to consider here, particularly from an ethical perspective…

Killingley, B., Mann, A.J., Kalinova, M. et al. Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Nat Med 28, 1031–1041 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9

The paper states:

“Participants were inoculated intranasally by pipette with 10 TCID50 of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (100 µl per naris) between both nostrils, with an initial sentinel group (n = 3) followed by the remaining individuals in the cohort.”

See this section re the challenge virus:


The SARS-CoV-2 challenge virus (full formal name: SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) was obtained with consent from a nose/throat swab taken from a patient in the UK with COVID-19, facilitated by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C)52 using their study protocol (study registry ISRCTN66726260) approved by the South Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028).

The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line with the clinical sample. Sequence analysis showed this to be from the 20A clade of the B.1 lineage and possessed the D614G mutation. A seed virus stock was then generated by a further passage on the same cGMP Vero cell line. The seed virus stock was then used to manufacture the challenge virus in accordance with cGMP at the Zayed Centre for Research GMP manufacturing facility of Great Ormond Street Hospital, and a challenge virus master virus bank (MVB) was produced. Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests). This included whole-genome sequencing for confirmation that the GMP virus was unaltered compared to the original clinical isolate. The sequence of the challenge virus has been deposited in GenBank (accession number OM294022). In the UK, because they are not medicinal products, challenge viruses are not regulated by the MHRA. However, the challenge virus was manufactured according to GMP, and the supporting paperwork was reviewed by the MHRA, which confirmed that the manufacture was suitable for the challenge agent to be used in future efficacy studies of investigational medicinal products. Therefore, in future clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product, the challenge virus will be reviewed as part of the clinical trial application to the MHRA. The challenge virus was stored in a secure –80 °C freezer (normal temperature range, −60 °C to −90 °C) until use. The SARS-CoV-2 inoculum dose (101 TCID50) was selected as the lowest infectious dose that could be reliably quantified by viral culture.


Expand full comment

True. This raises a whole lot of other issues.

I wonder whether a frozen virus can actually survive. What sense does it make to use such a frozen virus as a challenge virus when the virus is mutating constantly? What are scientists doing there?

And then there are ethical questions:

On the one hand scientists find it okay to challenge for the good of humanity young people with a supposedly deadly virus that - according to governemnt propaganda devised to push the billions of purchased vaccines - frequently causes serious long term effects in young people, on the other hand the scientists employed by pharmaceutical companies say that it would not be humanitarian to keep the controll groups of the Pfizer and Moderna trials unvaccinated so that we do now not know for sure whether the vaccines are harmful or beneficial.

Expand full comment

PU - "It seems to us that the lab-leak controversy helps conceal these things."

This is how MDM ops work Mr. Mulder https://youtu.be/-RQxD4Ff7dY?t=36

Expand full comment

Sadly your brain failed to notice parentheses.. often wrap round words that get used but have different connotations… I never said anything about scary viruses.. I talked about gain of function… and offshoring the work in order to provide a scapegoat… you may one day realise that certain scientists.. on US soil released lots of other pathogens and blamed various other countries.. lassa.. Ebola.. aids…Marburg .. anthrax…not sure why you would feel it necessary to pick holes in a comment yet avoid appointing blame to the real culprits… unless of course you are part of the misinformation team dealing with truths best kept silenced.

Expand full comment

I reread your first comment several times, and I still don't see any parentheses. So you must be right: my brain failed to notice them. Humblest apologies.

Expand full comment

If we can agree that any invisibility in this discussion .. centres around those points that mention the true source of the “Wuhan” virus… a big clue here is the very first Covid vaccine went into the arm of an American soldier some time in 2016 … and Bill Gates took out two patents for the Corona Virus in the same year.. strange how Fauci brags about a “new” pandemic from a Whitehouse podium about to hit the western world in 2017 a year after the patents were lodged.. fear porn is what drove panic.. not the “virus”

Expand full comment

Congratulations on playing the ball so adeptly, taking a great deal more patience than I bet they expected.

Expand full comment