The Working Document I told you about

I mentioned a working document about McKernan and clones...here it is.

What you see below is the text of a Google document that I started writing supposedly with the idea that Martin Neil and Jonathan Engler and Nick Hudson would help me write it and share it widely. Jessica Hockett was the glue in this PANDA sandwich and had encouraged me to work with these men.

Keep in mind, I have presented to PANDA three times. I was met in PANDA by more than a few meddlers, including virologists named Mary and Jennifer. Many more there were pretty solid thinkers. Still, I never really attended meetings because I wasn’t really welcome and always harrassed by certain people. Jonathan and Nick sit on PANDA’s executive committee. John Beaudoin was a regular there, as was Mark Girardot. They didn’t need Jessica to get my attention, but it was her that vouched for them several times. She was the new friend reason I reopened the PANDA slack after more than a year.

These people worked me for months. In the end, it came down to inconsistencies…that became patterns of behavior. To illustrate the spectacular commitment to lies that is required for these games, I played a June 6 voice mail

https://stream.gigaohm.bio/w/3442q71n6uzwMckdXtxa7N?start=1h30m58s

from Jessica to illustrate her unwillingness to accept that any of these men could be foreign meddlers. Even as she was keenly aware of the existence of the document below…and how SHE HAD ENCOURAGED me to write it with them!

To illustrate further their malevolent nature, I offer this document that precedes their substack called ‘Claim of Function’ by at least a few months. I offer this text as proof that they never intended to help me get my message out. Rather than help me with this document, they ignored it until I removed it from Google Docs. Several weeks later, they presented me with their esssay and asked me to comment. Afterward Jessica lied to my friend and I.

These people are liars that have lied to me in private for months about their desire to help me and my family. Take very seriously the games they are playing because they will continue to play these games until we stop allowing them.

The text below is raw as it stood when I revoked their access weeks ago. I might be giving up more information here that is necessary. But the biological truth is not mine. It belongs to our grandchildren.

I am recording with a special podcast today, so I might not be LIVE today.

Humbly yours,

jay

*********************

Papers missing

Another thing that belongs here is the paper that did metagenomics on prepandemic samples.  FIND THIS PAPER.

Big Picture

McKernan is making the false argument that

            IF the measurable genetic swarm of SARS2/CoVs is not very diverse

                        THEN Clones create nothing Nature doesn’t

He is also making us accept

that millions of sequences have been recorded

these sequences can be arranged in a phylogenic tree

that CoVs circulate the globe every year, so why not an engineered one?

Focus Questions:

1. Is reverse genetics the bedrock methodology for coronavirus biology?

2. Could it be that cDNA>>infectious RNA transfections is not virology at all?

3. Does the use of cDNA to manufacture nearly pure stocks of viral genomic RNA result in a purity that has an equivalent in natural infection?

4. If an RNA clone could be packaged as virus and released–or packaged in a virus-like particle, LNP, etc. and released–would there be limited spread of that signal in the population, or some portion of it? (If sgRNA particles can cause symptoms when shed, but not spread further for example)

5. If the cause of SARS1 was a known quantity of clone released in China at one point, then the outbreak and epidemic was the effect of ONE CLONE UNIT.  Could SARS2 be the near simultaneous release of more than one CLONE UNIT in several places around the world?

If you want to watch part from 4min to about 7:30 for a crash course in the fidelity of coronaviruses, and see if you have questions.  But realize that the overcomplications and portrayal of understanding that follows is IMHO grossly overstated.  But that’s part of the schtick we are up against.  They claim they know all this stuff to the fine details.

Key point is LOADS of Recombination, which means many many errors.  Flu is really bad at copying itself relative to CoVs (very limited evidence for this assertion).  McKernan argues that this claimed 10^-6 error rate is more akin to DNA.  It is this number that he is using to justify the idea that the swarm is irrelevant for CoVs and therefore using CLONES is the same as a natural virus, and actually not as good somehow.

SMOKING GUN:

Broad-spectrum coronavirus antiviral drug discovery - IEDC_14_1581171.pdf

2019. This paper is THE paper.  2019. Sina Bavari (USAMRIID) and Tortura (Baric’s last post doc before pandemic) write a paper review about CoV pandemics, reverse genetics (clones), and antivirals targeting the genetic swarm…for a CoV pandemic coming from a market in China from a bat or camel.  Remdesivir is the predicted best candidate antiviral in this paper. Why is no one talking about this paper?  Why did I have to insert it into Bobby’s book?  Why wasn’t it already framed above his desk while writing?

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00221-18

2018. Related to Tortura & Bavari above. Remdesivir messes with translation and ExoN Exoribonuclease as mechanism of action.

*****SIGNS THAT THEY USED CLONES

One thing that would be expected if clones were used to seed a homogenous signal at the start of the pandemic (independent of whether there was an existing background signal to compound things) is an unnatural uniformity of geographically unrelated sequences found in the first few months of the pandemic:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf

Alina Chan’s as yet unfinalized preprint showing that SARS1 showed more variation in the limited sequences we did have…and that it changed much more rapidly versus the signal we had from SARS2, which was very very stable for some time at the start.  I see clones.  She never would communicate with me.  

I did two bike rides on this paper when it was released (still trapped in GOF lie obviously):

*****CLONES are a fundamental bedrock methodology of RNA VIROLOGY

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682284710531

Good old review to read exactly how impactful these clones were in allowing this field to grow in ways that would have never been possible if trapped using samples alone.  This allows you to see that Baric is not JS Bach (two John Leake from Courageous Discourse this week have said this exact thing) having invented all of this.  Hardly.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11774510/

Everyone should be familiar with this chapter.  This is basically the foundation of CoV clones explained in a place no one but they read.

Basically what I hope you will read yourself is that they need to do something very special.  They need to put full genomes into the cells along with RNA for the N protein.  I think this is the KEY idea, and I have been sitting on it:  They see no CYTOPATHIC EFFECT unless they cotransfect N-protein RNA with full length Genomes. 

In my interpretation, this idea can be seen in other papers where the N-protein is co-transfected into cultures to package virus.  What this means for us needs to be decided.  To me, this is complicated by the many times when I have heard Baric say that M and E proteins are needed for assembly, but N is also needed, and actually N and M are sufficient.  

But it doesn’t seem to indicate that transfection of genomic transcripts alone might not get the purity that I was imagining.  And Kevin may be relying on this idea to argue that clones don’t matter because they all do the sgRNA thing.  

But I believe this chapter suggests that full genomes can be coaxed into particles with N protein alone.  That would be something that is very very hard to find anywhere else.  But if you check the 229E papers below (2019!), you will find they did the same thing.

Also explained here is assembly using endonuclease cut sites.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC110934/

Another clone assembly paper that seems to give away that the BglI restriction endonuclease was used because it creates flexible transcript specific ends.  That allows it to be used for large clone assembly in a way that other specific enzymes leaving specific ends cannot.  This is a key idea because the current narrative is selling the following:

DEFUSE proposal is real BECAUSE a USRTK FOIA request revealed an enzyme being discussed or ordered that was also in the DEFUSE proposal therefore they were doing the experiments.  This was a seeded result, not evidence of the likely generation of pandemic potential by EcoHealth and their partners as portrayed. 

As the 1994 review already demonstrates, cloning RNA viruses was a thing for many labs and Baric’s application of a particular enzyme or combination of enzymes, while clever, is not super secret sauce technology that nearly any molecular biologist could not have formulated if given the task of solving that problem.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18579604/

Here is the best example of how clones are used to produce ALL THE MATERIAL in an experiment.  Here is an example of the resurrection of SARS viruses from limited sequences in the wild. Using only synthetic clone materials, these experiments describe the use of an ‘animal model’ that allows a chimeric virus jumping between civets and humans is justified by making a cell line expressing the civet ACE2 receptor and then showing that SARS Urbani clones can infect this cell line.  

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33879586/

In this paper, clones are created using a previously published user-friendly reverse genetics kit for SARS-CoV2 and a humanized mouse model is established for SARS-CoV2 infection using RG-rescued SARS-CoV2 viruses.  So this paper purports to establish the use of reverse genetics 

*****DIRECT NANOPORE SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO SHOW MORE NOT LESS or the same virology

Direct nanopore sequencing is a relatively new technology that removes the need to convert viral RNA to DNA, a crucial step in PCR tests and sequencing alike that many many ignore as being a huge source of error and confounding signals.  The very existence of this technology and its lack of universal application to all things virology is already a huge red flag.  However, when it has been applied, there is a striking lack of increased resolution in some key ideas of virology, one of the most important of which is the infectious cycle.  One might have expected to have the details of the infectious cycle sorted out in one fell swoop, that we would measure the ratio of infectious to noninfectious particles, or try to characterized the subcellular organization of these different RNAs, etc. but nothing of the sort has occurred. 

If you grow a virus in a cell culture, and you take the supernatant, you should expect to find full genomes here, not sgRNAs.  Kevin McKernan and many other virologists claim that sgRNAs are not packaged, yet they are consistently found in these studies and it isn’t seen as part of the infectious cycle! This is important because a clone infection would generate sgRNAs as well, but highly homogenous ones unlike a natural already heterogenous infectious cloud of a preponderance of sgRNAs and not gRNAs that are packaged and shed.  Gosh I hope this is clear. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724671/

Direct RNA nanopore sequencing of 229E full-length coronavirus genomes prepandemic.  This paper starts with a genetic clone of 299E and analyzes the sgRNA complement produced without really trying to argue that the sgRNA’s are not packaged.  They find two full length transcripts, 1000s of sgRNAs without ORF1 or ORF2.  So where is all the virus?  I think this suggests that infectious material is composed of sgRNAs packaged…that express immunogenic proteins in others at best.  This lines up with every northern blot ever done in the past.  They don’t start from a patient sample because there isn’t one.  You can also try to glean more here with regards to what ‘packaging virus’ means to these people.  

Kevin McKernan has said there is no reason to use clones because they can package virus.  It’s weird how he’s working on this particular objection.

So in this paper, like the clone book chapter cited above, they use a combination of gRNA and N-protein RNA to package virus.  QUOTE:

1.5µg of full-length viral genome RNA, along with 0.75µgof in vitro transcribed CoV-229e nucleocapsid Protein mRNA, was used to transfect 1×106 Huh7 cells using the TransIT-mRNA transfection kit according to the manufacturer's instructions (MirusBio). At 72 Post Transfection (p.t.), cell culture supernatants were collected and serially passaged in Huh7 Cells For 21 (WT) or 12 times (HCoV-229E_SL2-SARS-CoV and HCoV229E_SL2-BCoV), respectively.

In this paper, they do NOT find the canonically assumed assortment of sgRNA species:

As indicated above, only 12% of the sgRNAs were found to conform to our current understanding of discontinuous mRNA transcription in coronaviruses, resulting in mRNAs that (all) carry an identical 5′-leader sequence that is fused to the 3′-coding (“body”) sequence of the respective mRNA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179501/pdf/main.pdf

Same basic experiment as shown above except with updated clones for SARS-CoV2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289263/

Here is an infectious clone of SARS-CoV2 done with a Chinese lab and at least two that worked with Baric before.  Here you can get numbers from electroporation of full genome RNAs into a cell culture and what comes out.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168523/

Related to above paper Nature Protocols

*****BARIC WAS WORKING ON COCKTAILS AND ATTENUATED DREAMS

I wonder if Baric was ever a bad guy, or just a naive molecular biologist:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16891412/

Brilliant paper demonstrating that Baric was pursuing attenuation strategies that would prevent recombination and genetic deattenuation (if that’s a word) due to recombination.  He wasn’t working on spike or other proteins as a vaccine.  He was interested in attenuated CoVs for vaccines and biotech transfection delivery.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18199635/

More evidence Baric was working on ‘traditional’ strategies.  Here he is looking for monoclonals and advocating for a cocktail of antibodies as a universal CoV countermeasure.  Why is this interesting?  Because there was a cocktail of three antibodies called ZMapp that was from Canada.  The inventor was a Chinese lady that worked with Plumber (HIV expert in Canada that died at the start of the pandemic) and who was picked up and disappeared as a spy at the start of the pandemic.  So the only competitor with any publications about an alternative to Remdesivir was dead or disappeared just at the start of the pandemic.  Mark Kulacz has some suspicions that trials comparing Remdesivir to Zmapp were ongoing at USAMRIID and that a shutdown in 2019 may have been related to it.  

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14569023/

Here again, making clones of SARS1 to find monoclonals that can be used in a cocktail to create a universal CoV countermeasure.

In this era of his career, he is not saving the world from the most deadly of catastrophic events.  That doesn’t start to be his sales pitch until 2016.

*****PCR signals could be created using CLONES or the cDNA used to generate infectious RNA

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-39232-0

PCR contamination from the floor of the lab when looking for SARS in wildlife.  

Inovio producing spike videos could be used here.