Trump Discusses the State of Vaccine Development
May 15th, 2020Update: Why Don’t We Already Have a Coronavirus Vaccine?
Via: Prof. Delores Cahill on The Highwire:
—
Debunking the Narrative (With Prof. Dolores Cahill)
Via: Fox:
Posted in Biotechnology, Dictatorship, Elite, False Flag Operations, Fraud, Health, Kill Off, Media, Perception Management, Social Engineering, War | Top Of Page
Summary of the long comment that follows: I went hunting online and found stuff suggesting work on an HIV vaccine involved a focus on the same external structures as that coded for by CV-19’s unique nucleotide sequence. I don’t know enough about whatever the heck’s going on to speak on this with authority, but I’m looking at the blog I found via https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=57753 and specifically the post dealing with Nature’s ‘proximal origins’ paper, with renewed respect: https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/03/19/china-owns-nature-magazines-ass-debunking-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2-claiming-covid-19-wasnt-from-a-lab/
OK. First of all, my apologies if I’m reinventing the wheel here…
I can’t remember everything Professor Cahill said, but I think she referenced the following paper from 2015:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985.pdf?origin=ppub
A couple of sentences from that paper’s last few paragraphs:
“This hypothesis is illustrated by the ability of a chimeric virus containing the SHC014 spike in a SARS-CoV backbone to cause robust infection in both human airway cultures and in mice without RBD adaptation…On the basis of these findings, scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue, as increased pathogenicity in mammalian models cannot be excluded.”
(A ’chimeric virus’ = a cross of two or more, whether natural or artificial.)
OK, certainly relevant to ethics questions and the later prohibition on gain-of-function research, but she also referenced ‘The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2’ paper as evidence for tinkering, yet this is the paper that was used by the MSM as pushback against the theory of a lab origin:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
The MSM focused on the paper’s conclusions of a ‘likely’ animal origin, which was communicated using similar verbiage implying known likelihoods, language deliberately aimed at promoting the false dichotomy, already widely pushed in the MSM, between an animal origin and a lab origin. However, Professor Cahill focuses on the section describing the unique genetics of CV-19, which also describes how “the insertion of 12 nucleotides…additionally led to the predicted acquisition of three O-linked glycans around the site.”
Intrigued, I did a quick search to see whether the main author of this paper (and Scripps Research Institute) had any connection with Dr Fauci, and found some interesting info from July 2019 on work on an HIV vaccine:
https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2019/20190710-burton-nih-award-new-hiv-vaccination.html
Here’s something from that paper: “By integrating a number of scientific fields with state-of-the art imaging and other technologies, the CHAVI-ID made significant strides, identifying stable regions on HIV’s outer coat, or “envelope,” that could be targeted by bnAbs.”
I first assumed that ‘stable regions’ must refer to proteins, but then I found this paper and others which make it clear they consist of glycans and that this has been a focus of research for sometime:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-8872-9_6
Most of the focus *in the literature* is on N-linked glycans. But it turns out O-linked glycans are HIV’s little secret; the following paper from February this year showing that HIV pulls off some of its best work at evading the immune system using O-linked glycans seems to suggest this is new information:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124720300814
However, that’s actually not the case:
https://www.prosci-inc.com/media/wysiwyg/HIV_glycans_in_infection_and_Immunity-2014-143-176_.pdf
So where did it come from? To borrow a word from the ‘proximal origin’ paper, the explanations given by Jennifer Zeng certainly seem the most parsimonious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNsYQrLX5Rk (from 13’ to 17’)
However, it seems to this untrained fellow, who occasionally bumps into interesting stuff, that there are good grounds for arguing we have seen deliberate obfuscation of evidence linking glycan-targeted HIV vaccine research with the origin of an abruptly differentiated CV-19..