Un laboratoire a créé un virus COVID encore plus dangereux, par Dr Mercola
Un glycane est un polymère composé de monosaccharides reliés entre eux par une liaison glycosidique. ... Les végétaux produisent des glycanes complexes et particulièrement résistants, dont la cellulose.
Un séquon est une séquence d'acides aminés d'une protéine pouvant servir à la liaison d'un polysaccharide, typiquement un glycane lié par une liaison "N"-glycosyle sur un résidu d'asparagine. (wikipedia)Un laboratoire a créé un virus COVID encore plus dangereux
Analyse par le Dr Joseph Mercola 22 octobre 2021
EN BREF
Les scientifiques préparent déjà des versions plus virulentes et mortelles du SRAS-CoV-2
En passant en série le SRAS-CoV-2 vivant dans le plasma récupéré obtenu d'un patient COVID-19 et qui contenait de grandes quantités d'anticorps neutralisants, le virus a fini par muter pour échapper aux anticorps
La variante SARS-CoV-2 qu'ils ont créée contourne l'immunité acquise ou annule l'immunité que vous auriez normalement après avoir récupéré de l'infection. En tant que tel, il pourrait être extrêmement mortel
Étant donné que le virus peut muter pour échapper aux anticorps neutralisants, il pourrait également muter sous la «pression sélective» de la vaccination.
Le Dr Anthony Fauci et Peter Daszak ont été deux personnalités éminentes de la pandémie de COVID-19, qui ont tous deux beaucoup à gagner à induire le public et le monde en erreur sur l'origine du SRAS-CoV-2, car ils ont peut-être tous deux été impliqués dans son création
Cet article a été précédemment publié le 5 février 2021 et a été mis à jour avec de nouvelles informations.
Si le SARS-CoV-2 a mis vos nerfs à rue épreuve , j'ai de mauvaises nouvelles pour vous. Les scientifiques préparent déjà des versions plus virulentes et mortelles. Dans un article publié sur Twitter le 22 janvier 2021, l'entrepreneur en biotechnologie Yuri Deigin a souligné une étude publiée sur le serveur de préimpression bioRxiv fin décembre 2020, en déclarant :(1)
"D'accord, le prix de la recherche sur le gain de fonction la plus folle et la plus dangereuse revient aux virologues italiens qui ont pris le SRAS[-CoV-]2 et l'ont mis ( passé) in vitro en présence d'anticorps neutralisants.(2) Il a rapidement été obligé de muter pour leur échapper. Yay voila un titre de roman, SARS3 encore plus dangereux!"
Le "passage" fait référence à une technique de génie génétique dans laquelle un virus est cultivé dans une série de différentes cultures de tissus animaux. À chaque « passage », le virus mutera légèrement, acquérant différentes fonctions
Le passage en série permet au virus de sauter des espèces
À titre d'exemple, un résultat potentiel de cette technique quelque peu grossière (compte tenu de la technologie de génie génétique maintenant disponible) serait que le virus pourrait acquérir la capacité d'infecter une espèce hôte qu'il ne pouvait pas infecter auparavant. Certains experts ont émis l'hypothèse que cela pourrait être l'une des façons dont le SARS-CoV-2 a été créé.
Dans un article de fond (3) publié dans le New York Magazine le 4 janvier 2021, Nicholson Baker a passé en revue l'histoire de la recherche virale sur le gain de fonction, en fournissant l'exemple suivant de passage en série :
"Baric… a décrit dans ce premier article comment son laboratoire a pu entraîner un coronavirus, le MHV, qui provoque l'hépatite chez la souris, à sauter d'une espèce à l'autre, afin qu'il puisse infecter de manière fiable les cultures de cellules BHK (rein de bébé hamster).
Ils l'ont fait en utilisant des passages en série : en dosant à plusieurs reprises une solution mélangée de cellules de souris et de cellules de hamster avec le virus de l'hépatite de souris, tout en diminuant à chaque fois le nombre de cellules de souris et en augmentant la concentration de cellules de hamster.
Au début, comme on pouvait s'y attendre, le virus de l'hépatite de la souris ne pouvait pas faire grand-chose avec les cellules de hamster, qui étaient presque indemnes d'infection, flottant dans leur monde de sérum fœtal-veau.
Mais à la fin de l'expérience, après des dizaines de passages en cultures cellulaires, le virus avait muté : il avait maîtrisé l'astuce de parasiter un rongeur inconnu. Un fléau de souris s'est transformé en fléau de hamsters…"
Des scientifiques ont créé un coronavirus qui échappe aux anticorps
Alors, qu'ont-ils trouvé exactement maintenant? Comme le résume Deigin, les chercheurs ont passé en série le SRAS-CoV-2 vivant dans le plasma récupéré obtenu à partir d'un patient COVID-19 qui contenait une grande quantité d'anticorps neutralisants.(4)
Pour plus de précision, vous avez deux types d'anticorps. Les anticorps neutralisants sont, comme leur nom l'indique, des anticorps qui neutralisent (tuent) les virus et préviennent l'infection, tandis que les anticorps de liaison ne peuvent empêcher l'infection.
Les anticorps neutralisants dans le plasma ont réussi à neutraliser complètement le virus au cours des sept premiers passages, mais ensuite, le virus a muté pour échapper aux anticorps. Comme l'expliquent les auteurs : (5)
"Le plasma a complètement neutralisé le virus pendant 7 passages, mais après 45 jours, la délétion de F140 dans la boucle N3 du domaine N-terminal de pointe (NTD) a conduit à une percée partielle. Au jour 73, une substitution E484K dans le domaine de liaison au récepteur (RBD) s'est produite, suivie au jour 80 d'une insertion dans la boucle NTD N5 contenant un nouveau glycane sequon, qui a généré une variante complètement résistante à la neutralisation plasmatique."
En d'autres termes, ils ont créé une variante du SRAS-CoV-2 qui contourne l'immunité acquise et annule l'immunité que vous auriez normalement après avoir récupéré de l'infection.
En tant que tel, cela pourrait être extrêmement mortel. "La modélisation informatique prédit que la suppression et l'insertion dans les boucles N3 et N5 empêchent la liaison des anticorps neutralisants", déclarent les auteurs, ajoutant :
"L'émergence récente au Royaume-Uni et en Afrique du Sud de variantes naturelles avec des changements similaires suggère que le SRAS-CoV-2 a le potentiel d'échapper à une réponse immunitaire efficace et que des vaccins et des anticorps capables de contrôler les variantes émergentes devraient être développés."
La suite de l'article est en anglais
La traduction automatique est possible ici : https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=en&tl=fr&u=https://lezarceleurs.blogspot.com/2021/10/un-laboratoire-cree-un-virus-covid.html
Selective Pressure of Vaccination May Pose a Problem
Now, further down in the paper, they point out that the reason they did this study was to determine "whether the authentic virus, under the selective pressure of the polyclonal immune response in convalescent or vaccinated people, can evolve to escape herd immunity and antibody treatment."
Since the virus can mutate to evade neutralizing antibodies, then it could potentially mutate under the "selective pressure" of vaccination as well, which in turn raises the question: If we mass vaccinate, will we end up with a more lethal virus?
The solution these researchers seem to propose is to start thinking about vaccinating people for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, meaning we may need to develop a new vaccine — much like the seasonal flu vaccine, — to match the circulating strains of each season.
Considering the first COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (which are most accurately described as gene therapy) are wreaking absolute havoc on people's health already, the idea of implementing a twice-a-year gene-therapy regimen against COVID-19 strikes me as assured destruction of the human race.
Is SARS-CoV-2 Result of Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan?
Jamie Metzl is a geopolitics expert, World Health Organization adviser and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. January 4, 2021, CBS News interviewed her about the "conspiracy theory" that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a biosecurity level 4 laboratory in Wuhan, China. Metzl believes the COVID-19 pandemic is the result of an accidental leak from that lab.
This, he says, is a logical conclusion based on the facts before us. First, Wuhan is far from the southern part of China where horseshoe bats (the supposed source host) exist.
Second, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was known to have performed controversial gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses and, according to U.S. diplomats who had visited the lab in 2018, significant safety shortcomings were apparent.6
Third, SARS-CoV-2's closest relative (RaTG13) has been traced back to samples collected in 2012 from miners sickened after working in an abandoned mine in Mojiang. There's no trace of the virus anywhere between 2012 and 2019, until it suddenly caused an outbreak in Wuhan.
Lastly, "We see this massive Chinese cover-up," Metzl says, "destroying samples, shutting off access to databases, imprisoning journalists [and] silencing scientists."
On top of that, Metzl points out that scientists working at the WIV have been unable to account for all the viruses in their database, and level 4 biosecurity laboratories around the world have experienced many safety breaches in the past.
Investigative Committees Are Severely Compromised
As noted by Metzl — who also published an op-ed about this in Newsweek — what we need is a full, independent, all-access forensic investigation into the origin of this virus. If we don't, we will not be ready for whatever else that might be right around the corner.
He also warned that while the WHO had assembled a committee7 to investigate, China was granted veto power to decide who would be on that committee, and the primary investigation was to be carried out by Chinese representatives. The WHO's committee would then simply review their findings. This questionable setup made it highly unlikely that we would get to the truth.
Indeed, almost immediately, and as soon as the report was made public when the WHO's committee was done with their "investigation," the members of the committee raised serious concerns about its ability to conduct an unbiased investigation. One of its members was singled out as particularly ethically compromised: Peter Daszak, Ph.D., is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that has worked closely with the WIV.
When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, the EcoHealth Alliance was actually providing funding to the WIV to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses. He has publicly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.8
However, a pile of evidence collected in the months following put huge doubts on Daszak's claims,9 so much so that a U.S. GOP House Foreign Affairs Committee member called for Daszak to be subpoenaed to testify about the"disinformation campaign designed to suppress public discussion about a potential lab leak."10
Daszak Was the Fox Guarding the Hen House
Importantly, correspondence obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) show Daszak played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 from the very beginning by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as "conspiracy theory."11,12
This manufactured "consensus" was then relied on by the media to counter anyone presenting theories and evidence to the contrary. Daszak also was the head of a second commission to investigate the origin of the virus, The Lancet COVID-19 commission,13 thereby ensuring that the "consensus" would be maintained.
Ironically, in 2015, Daszak actually warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident and that "the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan."14 Earlier that year, he was also a key speaker at a National Academies of Science seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases.
Among the material Daszak presented at that meeting was a paper titled, "Assessing Coronavirus Threats," which included an examination of the "spillover potential" from "genetic and experimental studies" on viruses. In particular, he highlighted the danger of experimenting on "humanized mice," meaning lab mice that have been genetically altered to carry human genes, cells or tissues.
Considering Daszak's personal involvement with gain-of-function research in general, and research efforts at WIV in particular, he had more than enough motivation to make sure the blame for the COVID-19 pandemic was not laid at the feet of researchers such as himself, especially those at WIV.
As part of these investigative committees, any conclusions they came up with was suspect. In fact, according to reports, the original WHO commission had no intention of investigating either the WIV15 or the lab escape theory!16 Not surprisingly, in June 2021, the Daily Mail reported that Daszak was removed from the COVID commission looking at the origins of the pandemic “after helping secretly denounce the lab leak theory while failing to mention his close ties to the same facility.”17
WHO Appoints Second Investigative Committee on COVID Origin
With mounting evidence that the virus may have come from a lab, whether leaked or intentional, WHO's director general Tedros Ghebreyesus has decided that a second investigation is needed. "Despite the WHO's initial findings, Tedros has called for audits of Wuhan laboratories, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some scientists believe may be the source of the virus that caused the first infections in China," NPR reported.18
Ghebreyesus announced the appointment of the new, 26-member committee October 13, 2021 — and Daszak is not a part of it. In an editorial in the journal Science, Ghebreyesus wrote:19
"The newly established World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Advisory Group on the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)20 presents an unprecedented opportunity to better guide studies that specifically investigate high-threat pathogens.
Its mandate is to advise the WHO on developing a framework to define comprehensive studies on the origins of such pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2 — information that is essential for developing policies and enhancing preparedness to reduce the possibility of future zoonotic spillover events (transmission of a pathogen from animals to humans) and the chance that those events become major outbreaks …
… it's clear that the scientific processes have been hurt by politicization, which is why the global scientific community must redouble efforts to drive the scientific process forward. In forming SAGO, experts were selected (from an open call for applicants) with diverse technical expertise from countries in all six WHO regions …
… laboratory hypotheses must be examined carefully, with a focus on labs in the location where the first reports of human infections emerged in Wuhan. A lab accident cannot be ruled out until there is sufficient evidence to do so and those results are openly shared."
Links to US Commissioned Research
While most of the focus has been on the WIV, the U.S. and other Western nations are not without blame. In the video above, "The Next Revolution" host Steve Hilton reviews the origin of COVID-19, linking the outbreak to research around the world.
He starts reviewing research done by the Erasmus Centre in the Netherlands 10 years ago. There, they were able to get an influenza A/H5N1 virus to mutate and become airborne by injecting it into ferrets. This led to an explosion of gain-of-function virus research all around the world. Interestingly, that Dutch study was funded by none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
While the original intent may have been noble — stay a step ahead of nature so we're not surprised by natural mutations that might threaten the human population — by creating more virulent pathogens, the work itself ends up posing significant risk.
This was why, in 2014, the Obama administration put a moratorium on gain-of-function research after recent biosafety incidents had highlighted the risky nature of such study. The moratorium included pausing gain-of-function research on influenza, MERS and SARS viruses.
However, as noted by Hilton, Fauci has long been a steadfast advocate of this kind of research, and shortly before the moratorium was put into place, he had funded a project to assess the risk of bat coronavirus emergence and the "spillover potential at high-risk human-wildlife interfaces in China." At the end of that project description, they state:
"Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding essays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice."
This is precisely the kind of research the Obama administration placed a moratorium on, but Fauci didn't drop it. Instead, he contracted it out to the EcoHealth Alliance — the group run by Daszak. Daszak himself was the project leader. Over the next six years, EcoHealth Alliance received $3.75 million for projects relating to this investigation.
Fauci, Daszak and the WIV Appear To Be Key Culprits
Daszak, in turn, subcontracted out a key piece of the research — the gain-of-function part — to the WIV. In his report, Hilton reviews some of the papers published throughout this project, proving they were indeed part of the research Fauci funded.
He points out that while many admit the NIAID funded the WIV in general, a paper co-written by Daszak and Shi Zhengli, proves Fauci funded gain-of-function research on bat coronavirus specifically.
After Hilton's team reached out to the NIH and Fauci for comment, the paper mysteriously disappeared. The paper in question, published in 2017, shows they built various chimeras based on bat coronaviruses collected. They then infected human cells with these chimeras in the lab, proving that their manmade viruses could replicate.
The genetic changes they made to these chimeras "unlocked a specific doorway to the human body," Hilton explains, and this doorway is precisely the one SARS-CoV-2 uses, namely the ACE2 receptor.
While none of the genetically engineered viruses described in that 2017 paper is identical to SARS-CoV-2, the paper proves it's possible to create these kinds of viruses using current technologies. What's more, that project continued for another three years, which puts us into 2020. During those three years, any number of new variants may have been created.
In light of the evidence, Fauci's role as chief medical adviser to the White House and leader of the coronavirus task force is "completely untenable," Hilton says. Indeed, his conflicts of interest make Fauci just as unsuitable for these roles as Daszak is for the ones to which he was assigned.
They're both involved up to their eyeballs in the research that may be the very source of this pandemic, yet both have been placed in key roles to inform, guide and direct the public on these matters. It's scientific corruption at its finest.
Surely, there are other experts out there who would be just as, if not more, qualified for these roles. "Fauci must step aside until we get to the bottom of his role in creating — unintentionally, of course — this catastrophic global pandemic," Hilton says. We also need to know whether the U.S. government is still funding research that could lead to another, even more devastating pandemic.
- 1 Twitter Yuri Deigin January 22, 2021
- 2, 4, 5 bioRxiv December 28, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.28.424451
- 3 New York January 4, 2021
- 6 Newsmax April 14, 2020
- 7 WHO.int Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus
- 8 GM Watch September 23, 2020
- 9 The Wall Street Journal September 25, 2021
- 10 Yahoo! August 2, 2021
- 11 USRTK November 18, 2020
- 12 GM Watch November 19, 2020
- 13 The Lancet October 10, 2020; 396(10257: 1102-1124
- 14 Daily Mail January 9, 2021, A conflict of interest
- 15 Daily Mail January 9, 2021
- 16 Yahoo News January 24, 2021 at 14 minutes
- 17 Daily Mail June 21, 2021
- 18 NPR October 13, 2021
- 19 Science October 13, 2021
- 20 WHO October 13, 2021
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire