Japanese Scientists Find Indisputable Evidence That ALL COVID Variants Are Man-Made
December 16th, 2023Via: The Highwire:
A stunning Japanese study that has evolved from preprint to peer-reviewed publication suggests that all COVID-19 variants were engineered in biolabs and intentionally released upon humanity. First released in August 2023, the study, conducted by renowned Japanese virologists Professors Atsushi Tanaka and Takayuki Miyazawa of Osaka Medical University and Kyoto University, affirms that the push to keep COVID around is part of a nefarious deep state scheme to remove our individual freedoms and control us.
…
As their work progressed, they discovered roughly 100 separate Omicron subvariants that could not possibly have arisen naturally. The existence of these variants and the systematic order in which they appeared provide conclusive evidence of large-scale lab creation and release of COVID-19 viruses. Specifically, to determine the order of mutations leading to the formation of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, Tanaka and Miyazawa compared the sequences of 129 Omicron BA.1-related isolates, 141 BA.1.1-related isolates, and 122 BA.2-related isolates, and attempted to clarify the evolutionary processes of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, including the order of mutations leading to their formation and the occurrence of homologous recombination. Surprised by their findings, the scientists remarked:
“As a result, we concluded that the formation of part of Omicron isolated BA.1, BA.1.1, and BA.2 was not the product of genome evolution, as is commonly observed in nature, such as the accumulation of mutations and homologous recombinations. Furthermore, the study of 35 recombinant isolates of Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 confirmed that Omicron variants were already present in 2020. The analysis showed that Omicron variants were formed by an entirely new mechanism that cannot be explained by previous biology, and knowing how the SARS-CoV-2 variants were formed prompts a reconsideration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
These results suggest that the establishment of BA.1-0.1 and BA.1.1-0.1 isolates occurred independently. On the other hand, if reversion mutations caused each of these isolates with one amino acid different to the Wuhan-type, these isolates could be detected by examining an astronomical number of isolates. However, these virus strains were detected in the number of sequenced whole genomes (a limited number), rather than in astronomical numbers examined. The fact that most of these mutations occurred without synonymous mutations suggests that none of them arose as a result of trial-and-error random mutations in nature.”
So after reading this article and then the actual research paper, I’m not so clear if it is ‘indisputable’ or ‘suggested’ (the actual research is clear that their findings ‘suggest’ but are not exclusive and were not exhaustive – so I’d say that this is a really good directional analysis but nowhere near the ‘indisputable’ as claimed by the writers of various articles about it)
– if it is ALL Covid variant isolates or (as the paper states) ONLY the Omicron variant isolates (then I’m smiling because I STILL have people on my feeds claiming that Covid has never been isolated and those same people are now starting to report this article with no apparent sense of irony)
– Then in the research lines 227-8 “The insertion of a polybasic furin cleavage site into the S protein make it impossible to conclude whether SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally occurring or an artifical virus” would seem to reject any claim that this evidence is ‘idisputable’
– Research lines 231-2 “The following results presented in this study may support the hypothesis that the Omicron variants were artifically synthesized rather than naturally occurring…” – note the use of ‘may’ and that this is only Omicron and not ALL variants
– Research line 262 – “In that case, we should suspect that the other variants (Alpha to Delta) were also artifically generated viruses.” – No, this is not good science. It’s fine to speculate, and to suggest a direction for future research to discover, but this is a very speculative punt and really poorly-worded.
– Research line 265-6 the ‘Indisputable’ evidence in the articles about this research seem to overlook all of the less conclusive statements in the actual research like this one on lines 265-6 “The possibility that the set of mutants was artificially generated… is supported.” and again on 269-70 “…we believe it is not scientific to discuss the mutation process of SARS-CoV-2 without excluding the possibility of artifically synthesized viruses.” and lines 272-75 “…our analysis employed databases with a limited number of viral sequences, and we cannot deny the possibility that unreliable data may have been registered due to technical problems in sequencing or some other issues. Furthermore, we do not conclude that these viruses were artificially synthesized and distributed based on malicious intent.” limited, possibility of unreliable data, and they do not conclude the ‘Indisputable’ that the article writers are adding on.
– Positives: they do suggest a new mechanism which cannot be explained by previous biology and which is worthy of inclusion in future research analysis.
– Positives: they do suggest that Omicron may have been artificially engineered.
– Zenodo.org is an open repository and not a peer-reviewed journal. ‘Publication’ on Zenodo is not an indicator of quality of research.
– I’d have preferred to have seen a literature review by these scientists where they address the alternative explanations e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446972/
Overall, I was a bit disappointed by the gap between the articles about this research and the research itself.
Thanks for the deep-dive analysis williamspd, and thanks Kevin for posting it. Truth is embedded in most news, but sorting out the chaff is a trick.
Right — the sensational headlines do not do justice to the article. Turning science into sensationalism. Clickbaiting.
In William’s line 262 criticism, however, I don’t see the problem with ‘suspect’. It is so close to ‘speculate’ that I would use them interchangeably, in the sense of ‘I wonder if’ and ‘it could be that’. Who knows how a native Japanese speaker would chose to use one or the other English word, or a native English speaker would translate from the equivalent Japanese. Or did AI chose it? 🙂 Whichever — I’d blame the awkward use of English here on translation rather than on any muddy thinking on the part of the scientists (though the supervising investigator should have caught the errors and fixed them before publication).
First there was immune escape caused by the shots (and blamed on the unjabbed), then transmissible mutations of the virus associated with molnupiravir, and now this.
The weirdest thing I found floating around re. Omicron before this was speculation it was engineered by anti-globalist forces to expose the global population to a much more infectious but more innocuous and immunity-inducing version in order to sabotage the push towards vaccine mandates/passports.
We have to kill the villagers to save them?
@Snowman
Weird take, huh? The more that comes out, the weirder it seems to get.
Chris Martenson:
https://twitter.com/EricMeller/status/1740445588511142285