➡ On October 18, 2023, another Wednesday webinar took place, covering topics such as the origin of the lab leak theory for SARS-CoV-2, several announcements, and the assumptions about COVID-19 being a bioweapon. The speaker is set to attend and present at the Weston Price Conference and announce the launch of biodynamically grown Ashitaba tea blends. The speaker also discussed a paper which allegedly validates the lab leak theory, exploring the case of a 41-year-old patient, and questioning the methodology used to identify SARS-CoV-2 genome.
➡ The text discusses the process used for genomic sequencing and assembly in COVID-19, highlighting the bias in selections made from over 380,000 strands, the use of different software for assembly, and the role of these choices in identifying the virus. It scrutinizes the variance that could potentially result from using different software and suggests that the outcomes could have significantly altered our understanding of the virus and the subsequent pandemic.
➡ The text discusses how the unusual elements in the genome of a supposed new organism led to the origination of the lab leak theory. The genome appears manipulated, like appending the ‘mouth’ of a flesh-eating bird onto a unicorn, challenging conventional known evolutionary processes, implying a lab created anomaly. The text stresses the need to verify this hypothesis by trying to assemble the organism’s genome from the available genome data independently. Initial attempts have been unsuccessful, furthering suspicion of deliberate alteration to support a lab-leak theory.
➡ The speaker alleges that a particular genome was fabricated to propagate two theories surrounding its origin, either as a lab leak or natural genesis, arguing neither to be true. The speaker criticizes this running narrative, suggesting it was constructed to divert attention from deeper investigation into the genesis of the genome.

Hey, welcome everybody, to another Wednesday webinar. Thanks for joining me. It’s always an honor to have people tune in. Today is October 18, 2023 and I’m going to hopefully get to some question and answers. I’ll at least get to the questions. Whether will be any answers remains to be seen. And I wanted to, before that, talk about something which seems on first blush to be old hat. Why are you keep talking about this? But I have a slightly different angle and I will tell you the reasons why.

I think I need to go over this one more time, which is the origin of the lab leak for SARS Cove Two theory or hypothesis or something before that. The announcements are, of course, this week, starting Thursday or Friday, tomorrow or Friday is the Weston Price Conference in Kansas City, which I will be attending and speaking at on Friday. I’m part of a panel on Friday night and then I give two hour and 15 minutes or so talks on Saturday afternoon.

So I hope to meet a lot of you there. I hope a lot of new people come and I would love it if everybody who listens and is interested in what I’m doing, if you could come up and introduce yourself and that would be great because it’s great to meet people who are interested in what we’re doing. The other brief announcements today we finally are, not today, but this week we finally were able to launch our biodynamically grown ashitaba tea blends.

So I believe there’s four of them mixed with different herbs. So one for heart and one for metabolic problems and one for female problems and I think a general support. So this may be the first biodynamically grown Ashitaba tea that exists. It may not be, but I think it probably is. So it took a long time coming. So check that out. And the other thing I think today, or maybe this week is I think today actually is the last day of our sea plasma sale.

And of course, I’ve spoken about this a lot. This is one of the, if not the foundational medicine because this sort of structured seawater, which is sort of an upgrade of the quinton plasma, which I have spoken about many times, is probably one of the best medicines that has ever been discovered. So it’s something that I take, and I would encourage just about anybody who’s either well or healthy, which includes everybody to think about taking a little bit of plasma seawater every day.

Okay, the origin of the theory or idea that SARS Cove Two was a gain of function lab leak virus. First of all, why is that even important? For one thing, even amongst the people who have listened to me for years, they still sometimes say things that make me think that this gain of function of viruses must be something that’s actually happening in these bio labs supposedly all over the world, possibly even in the Ukraine, I don’t know.

They must be making some sort of bioweapon. So they must be engineering something. So this is a scary thing and we need to figure out what that is. And they passionately believe in the bioweapon. Something was unleashed on the people. But the other thing that brought this to my attention is for some reason, I get invitations to the doctors for COVID Ethics. I don’t know if they’re weekly, I think, so seminars or workshops or meetings or whatever they are.

And they had a meet this week’s. Guest was a supposedly eminent virologist, or so they were introduced. Whoops? Wrong one who I found out wrote this book called The Origin of the Virus. Hidden truths behind the microbe that killed millions of people. Paperback so Professor Angus Dalglish was the one who was speaking, and obviously, I haven’t read the book, but he talks about the examining the genome of the virus and the peculiar nature of the spike proteins put there by gain of function studies of concern impeccable in its reasoning.

The matters are explained in terms that are fully understandable. So that’s what I’m going to try to do today is to make this actually fully understandable was the number one bestseller on Amazon in infectious and contagious disease. So that’s sort of like being the number one bestseller in unicorn ology. So I don’t know if that’s a mark of distinction or not, but anyways, it is the number one bestseller.

So this idea, this theory, is still very much a part of our world, and we need to know, hopefully everybody will know within a half an hour where this came from. Okay, so that’s what we turn to next. And the answer to where this came from is actually very simple. It came from this paper, which I didn’t download. I don’t know why, but I just didn’t, which we’ve gone over a million times.

It’s an exaggeration. Andy Kaufman has gone over it. Most of us have gone over it, but not maybe with this particular angle. And this is the fan wu. He was the lead author. So this is the fan wu paper. And it’s a new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. It was accepted on 20 eigth of January 2020, published online the 3 February 2020. This paper is the origin of the gain of function lab leak hypothesis.

Of that there is no doubt. This paper defined the so called index genome, otherwise known as the first genome for SARS Cove Two. So before this paper, there was no genome published for this quote, novel virus that later became known as SARS Cove Two. So the entire gain of function narrative is dependent on this paper and what they found in this paper. So we’re going to take a good look at what this paper did and ask a question that has actually not been asked, as far as I know, as of yet again, I don’t have this.

So you’re going to either have to look it up yourself if you doubt that I’m reading correctly or take my word for it, or both. So this was a paper that, again, most people know. So paper studied, or the patient studies, was a 41 year old man with no history of hepatitis, TB, or diabetes, and he was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan, China in December 26, 2019, six days after the onset of the disease.

And I’m not going to read the whole thing, but he had fever, chest tightness, unproductive cough, pain and weakness for a Wheat on presentation, and a bunch of physical exams, signs and round glass opacities on a chest X ray and maybe a CT scan and a bunch of abnormal lab tests. And then they did PCR tests and other antibody and antigen tests for things like strep pneumonia and Mycoplasm atypical pneumonias for different viral causes of pneumonia, allegedly.

And all of these were negative. So what we have here is one patient with signs and symptoms of an atypical, meaning an unusual pneumonia, and all of the usual viral and bacterial causes of this pneumonia were tested negative. So that is the scenario we’re talking about. So in that situation, they went right to what is called deep metagenomic de novo unbiased genome assembly to find out if in fact there was a new virus causing these symptoms in this patient in Wuhan.

So the two most important words that I said there were unbiased meaning since they didn’t know what the etiological causative agent for this person’s pneumonia was. In other words, which bacteria or in particular which virus, they were not going to look for something with a template. They were not going to test for any particular virus. They were just going to use so called deep metagenomic sequencing. And I’ll explain what that means in a minute to find out if there was any new genome of a virus in this person’s lungs.

It was unbiased because they didn’t look for anyone in particular. They were just going to look for and to see what’s in there. The de novo part means this was going to be looking for a new virus, one that’s de novo I e. New and I-E-A virus that had never been found before. So that was their task. So what did they do? As they say in the bottom here, we collected BALF bronchial, alveolar lavage fluid, and performed deep metatranscriptomic sequencing.

Sorry about that. In other words, they didn’t look for a, quote, virus. They didn’t look for a particle, they didn’t look for an organism, they didn’t look for anything that would be fit the definition of a virus. They went in with a bronchoscope, took some of the fluid from this guy’s lung, and went right from there and to see what sequence they could find in this person’s fluid.

Now, the interesting thing about this paper is in the beginning there’s no method section. Later at the end in the sort of appendix, they do put a method section. But here they’re just describing what they did. Okay, so let’s just be very clear. They took the lung fluid, didn’t filter it, didn’t centrifuge it, didn’t take any particular part of it, just the entire lung fluid. Didn’t look for a virus, didn’t look for a particle and immediately went to what sequence can we find that’s new? And we’re going to do this unbiasedly, so we’re just going to see what they could find.

Now, the interesting thing about this, and I’ve heard this from countless number of people, when you ask them what are they looking for or what do they expect to find, they say to me they’re looking for the genome that was there in this fluid. A genome is a long string of base pairs and they’re looking for this long string. And if they find a long string and a predominance of a certain kind of long string, in other words, each long string is identical, then that is the evidence for having found the genome of the new virus.

The important part of what I just said is people think they’re looking for a single genome. Or in other words, when deep metatranscriptinomic sequencing means you take these pieces of genetic material, in this case RNA, you cut them up into little pieces, you discard some of them and then you start putting the pieces together based on certain algorithms which have been programmed into the software. And these tend to have to do with overlapping sequences.

In other words, if you have a sequence ABCD, then next one is Bcde. So those two overlap and then you’ve got ABCD and E. And the next one that overlaps is CDEF. So now you’ve extended it by one and you keep doing that to put the entire genome into a long string together. And I’m going to use some analogies as we go. And again, this is like puzzle pieces.

So you put all these puzzle pieces out and then you see how do these puzzle pieces fit. And again, most laymen and most people who I’ve asked, what do they do? They think they find a single long strand in this mixture. But let me read actually what they say about what they actually did. So in total we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads. That’s little pieces that were de novo anew assembled and screened for potential etiological agents of the 384,096 contigs, that’s longer pieces, contiguous pieces assembled by megahit.

That’s one of the software assembly programs, the longest had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS like coronavirus. And then they put the number of the gene bank and this long piece was 30,474 nucleotides long. So in other words, let me unpack that they didn’t find a single long strand. In fact they found 384,000 plus a little bit different strands of various lengths. And they chose the longest one, which was 30,000 plus nucleotides.

That’s like essentially letters. And they chose that as the index genome. Now, at this point, you could legitimately ask why did they choose that one and not a one that was 20,000 or 26,000 or 16,000 or 11,000 or any other thousand? And that would be a very good question because there’s no answer to that except you would have to conclude that basically the so called fix was in from the start, that this was not unbiased, and that the reason they chose this number of nucleotides as the proper genome in this mixture of 384,000 was because it was the closest.

Although, as you’ll see in a minute, not very close to the original or SARS cove one. So in other words, this was not unbiased at all. They were looking for the closest match the computer would spit out amongst these 384,000 different possibilities with no way of knowing which one was the correct one. And they chose the one that was the most similar in length and composition to the previous SARS Cove one.

But that’s not all the interesting things about this. Let me go to the method section and there’s something else that’s very important to understand. So this is now in the method section, which was in the appendix. So it’s under data processing and identification of the viral agents. Sequencing reads were first adapter and quality trimmed using the Trimomatic program. The remaining 56 million plus reads were assembled de novo using both Megahit and Trinity with default parameter settings.

Megahit generated a total of 384,000, size range 200 to 30,000. Trinity generated 1,329,960 contigs with a size range of 200 to 11,760 nucleotides. So in other words, unlike what they said in the body of the paper, they actually didn’t just use the Megahit program, they used both the Mega Hit and the Trinity program. These are two, I would say I’m no expert on software programs for imaginary virus assembly, but these are two of the main software programs used to assemble the genomes of viruses.

So it’s not like one is good and the other one is bad. These are the two main ones that are used. When they used the Mega Hit program, they got 384,000 and they got the 30,000 genome. When they used the Trinity program, they got over 1. 3 million different possibilities and the longest was 11,000 nucleotides or 11,000 plus, which is nowhere near the length of a coronavirus. And so they essentially threw out the data from the Trinity program.

Now you have to ask yourself, why wasn’t the Trinity program correct? What’s the difference? I mean, they use slightly different algorithms and I can’t tell you the different algorithms they use, but I did look up what is there to say about these programs and here are some papers that I found. So these are in standard virology. So megahit ultrafast single node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct debris graph.

And they only say the important part here is Megahit generated three times larger assemblies with longer contigs. In other words, Megahit is good at assembling longer strands than previously used genomes. That’s obviously because they use different algorithms and maybe not so exact. In other words, instead of having three letters have to line up, maybe they only have two. I don’t know if this is actually what it is.

And so obviously you’ll get a longer string if you have less stringent criteria. Whereas again, a similar paper by normal virologist or supplement or assembly people reconstructing a full length genome without a transcriptome, without a genome from the sequencing data, and they talk about how accurate it is and it’s very sensitive and all that stuff. It’s a unified and general solution for this reconstruction in any sample in the complete absence of a reference genome.

In other words, if they don’t have a standard, they can find the genome with this one. Now, here is my basic point. If Fan Wu and his group didn’t use Megahit, they would have come to the conclusion based on Trinity, a reputable, well used normal assembly program, that there was no genome longer than 11,700 nucleotides, therefore there was no coronavirus, therefore this is not SARS Cove Two. Therefore there’s no PCR primers to make from this, therefore there’s no pandemic, therefore there is no gain of function lab leaked virus.

All they would have had to do to come to that exact conclusion was only to use the Trinity program. So we would not have had any of this stuff that went on if for some reason they had only used one of the best programs available, that many virologists apparently only use Trinity and they would have not found anything even remotely similar to SARS Cove One and this whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

Think about that for a minute. This was all based on that. There was a different program which was good at finding longer pieces because they have different assembly criteria, therefore found a longer piece, supposedly, and that became the index or first published genome upon which the PCR primers were made. And all of the rest of the genomes were referred back to this index genome and this became the template.

So from then on, instead of a de novo unbiased synthesis, you put this 30,000 base pair nucleotide sequence into your computer and see if your data can match this every time it makes a mistake and then you get the variance, et cetera. But that’s actually not the main point I want to make here. And now I’m coming to the real reason I’m doing this, which is when you look at this 30,000 base pair nucleotide pair genome, so they publish this and that becomes the index genome and all of the gain of function studies and information refer back to this genome, all of them.

And why is that? Because when they look at this genome, they say to themselves, oh my God, this could not have evolved naturally. Somebody gained of function, in other words, made this genome to be a dangerous virus that’s going to kill us all. So let me try to explain what I mean by that. In other words, here’s a different analogy that hope this makes the point across, gets my point across.

So they found this unicorn. They had found previous unicorns before. And in the evolution of the unicorn, they see that one little thing changes at a time. In other words, in the original unicorn there was 33 teeth. And now this new unicorn has 34 teeth. And it used to be the unicorn’s feathers were black and now the unicorn feathers are dark brown. So that’s close. And you can easily imagine if you believe in the whole genome based evolution, which is itself a problem.

But let’s forget about that. You can easily imagine that the evolution from 33 teeth to 32 teeth was part of a natural evolutionary process. Same as black feathers evolving into brown feathers, same as a whole lot of other things. But this new organism that they found was a unicorn. But instead of the 33 or 34 teeth, it actually had the mouth of a flesh eating dodo bird. Now every virologist, every scientist who looks at this new genome says to himself something like holy shit, how did this mouth of the aggressive flesh eating dodo bird get attached to the unicorn? That can’t possibly be natural evolution.

Got it? That can’t possibly be natural evolution. Somebody must have engineered this. In other words, to the unicorn genome grafted on somehow the genome of the flesh eating dodo bird and made this chimeric monster, which is now you have a unicorn with a flesh eating dodo bird mouth and that’s going to devour us all. So similarly they look at this genome and say holy crap, this can’t be a normal coronavirus.

This was engineered because they stuck in the urine cleavage site and in the spike protein alleged genome site, they stuck some HIV sequences and they stuck some really scary sequences like the flesh eating dodo bird mouth and this is horrible. This virus is going to kill us all. And that became the origin of the lab leak story. Now, the important point I want to make here is this fan Wu paper essentially embedded the gain of function story into its index genome so that anybody from then on looking at this genome would come to the inevitable.

Conclusion that this had to be lab created, because no possible evolutionary process of a genome could stick a flesh eating dodo bird beak on a unicorn. It had to be lab created. And so that became the origin of the story and it was, by the way, guaranteed to be found. In other words, they knew that everybody looking at this would say this cannot be. This must be lab created.

They created this chimeric monster. And there we go. That is the origin of the story. Now, here’s where it gets very interesting, because there is another possibility for the origin of this genome. In other words, so far we have one possibility. This was the man made, lab created gain of function chimeric of some HIV pieces stuck onto a previous coronavirus genome to make this monstrous virus that’s going to kill us all.

There is, however, another very plausible explanation, which is they made the whole thing up. Let me say that again. They made this whole 30,000 genome up and specifically embedded into parts, which would guarantee that there would be a gain of function lab created chimeric narrative that any fool would see. This cannot be according to the normal evolutionary processes that we believe in about these viruses. So if the fan wu people made this whole 30,000 string nucleotide up and they specifically put in parts that would guarantee that there would be this lab leak story, then that is the origin of the story.

Now, here’s the question how can we sort out which of these is true? How do we know whether this 30,000 index genome, 30,000 base pair genome, was the actual genome that they found? Forgetting about the fact there’s no reason why they should have picked this one as opposed to any other one, or the fact that it doesn’t compare to any previous coronavirus because no coronavirus was ever found, or forgetting about the fact that they had no since they never even looked for a particle in this guy’s lung fluid.

So they never were able to say this genome came from a virus. Let’s forget about all that for a minute and ask a simple question. With those 56 million plus pieces, can you actually assemble this 30,000 base pair genome or did they simply make it up from scratch or not from scratch? They took what they got and then manually. In other words, these fan wu group put on the dodo bird part deliberately and specifically, and it was not actually in the original reads.

Now, this goes to the core of what we mean by science, because every virologist, including this dog leash guy, as far as I can see, never did. And nobody calls for doing the very simple procedure that would sort these two possibilities out. It’s very simple. All you have to do is take those original 56 million reads in other words, the 56 million puzzle pieces, the 56 million short sequences.

Put it through the Mega hit program and see if you can get that 30,000 base pair sequence that would tell you that that was assembled by the computer, not by the investigators, not by Fan Wu. Now, here’s what’s interesting and tells you that none of these virologists, or just to say here is a list of people who believe in this narrative. In other words, they believe that this is a lab created virus and it’s basically the whole cast of the Freedom Doctors.

So here you have Steve Kirch lab leak, hammond lab origin, malone lab Leak, made, in, created, accidentally released, del, bigtree man made, mercola bioweapon, made by humans. Kennedy it’s an engineered Laboratory created, generated with technology by Ralph Barrick, on and on and on. They all bought this. Now, how many of them, how many virologists, so called Freedom Scientists or conventional scientists said, wait a minute, I’m going to take those 56 million pieces and assemble them myself, or fund the assembly by some independent assembly person with the Mega Hit program and see if they come up with that 30,000 nucleotide genome.

I’m going to see if this is a repeatable experiment. And the answer to how many did that is exactly zero. This is one of the things we called for in our viral challenge. So not only should they have done a whole bunch of controls, so here are the controls that should have been done that nobody has asked them or called on this Fanwu group to do. So they should have done a patient with who is well and done the bronchial fluid and see if they can get the same sequences.

They should have done somebody with breast lung cancer. They should have done somebody with strep pneumonia, so called. They should have done five or six other people with different conditions as controls to see if they could generate the same genome. If they could, that proves that the genome was coming from some inflamed lung tissue, not from some novel virus. But they didn’t do that. They did no controls, and nobody has asked them to do controls.

They should have also taken that 56 million pieces and using templates such as measles genome, HIV genome, hepatitis B genome, and many other RNA, quote, viral genomes, see if they could assemble those using that as a template. In fact, they did none of that and none of those people have asked them to do that or called on them or suggested the funding of that independent study to see if you could get any other genome.

So there is no controls in this. But getting back to the question, can you even find that genome out of those 56 million pieces? Nobody has repeated that. And nobody has even been enough of a scientist to say, we need to repeat this and take those 56 million sequences and see if we can get that exact genome. Because this is a goofy looking genome, and I’m not so sure I’m willing to accept that they stuck a flesh eating dodo bird beak on a unicorn until I can get it myself.

But nobody has asked them to do that except us. So us, meaning Stefan and our group that helped fund this hired a mathematician who could do the sequencing and said, here, take these 56 million reads and see if you can get this 30,000 base pair genome. And surprise, surprise, he can’t that genome doesn’t exist out of that raw data, which can only mean, and I mean only mean that the Fan Wu group made that genome up based on they took some 26, 28,000, 25,000, we don’t know and then actually added on manually pieces and specifically made them look like flesh eating dodo bird beaks.

In other words, they put, quote, scary spike protein and cleavage site sequences from other published sequences like HIV and put those not into a particle, not into a virus that can be released, but into the computer database that is the only place that genome exists not in the real world. And the reason they did that was to embed this lab leak theory into the world so that all these people that I mentioned and others could say, oh my God, look at what they created.

They didn’t create anything. You can’t even find that genome in their data and nobody bothered to see if you could repeat their experiment until we did. Now, it wasn’t just this one mathematician who did it. I was contacted by somebody else who knows how to sequence and said on my own, I decided to sequence to take those 56 million pieces and see if I could get that 30,000 base pair genome and Tom, I couldn’t get it.

That doesn’t exist in their data. They made that up on their own and obviously they made it up specifically to embed the lab leak theory, origin theory, into that original genome to end up having there’s two sides of this coin. One, it’s a natural origin, which is ridiculous based on that genome, or two, the obvious one, which they made sure that everybody would catch, right? So this was incredibly obvious that everybody would catch it because they don’t want to do science, they don’t want to repeat it, they don’t want to investigate the obvious thing that they simply made that genome up and they made it up specifically to be caught so that we would have the two sides of the argument.

The natural origin, the lab leak. Those are the only two sides. They are the Freedom Group says it’s the lab leak. The regular virologists say they don’t know, even though they can see it’s obvious. You can’t get a flesh eating dodo bird out of a unicorn. But anyways, maybe there was some huge evolutionary gain or whatever, so they make up stories, but the obvious answer, which is they made the whole thing up from start.

You cannot get that genome from that data that is not able to be spoken about and nobody has the sense or the integrity to say I’m going to either run the data myself or pay for somebody to do it. Probably wouldn’t cost much, they don’t do that. And so we ended up with this turkey of a story which has its own legs and becomes the only alternative. And so you got to have an alternative or people will.

Get suspicious of the whole thing. And that’s how this system works. And hopefully now everybody knows what the origin of this lab leak story is. It was embedded into this scam from day one, from the original Fan Wu genome, guaranteed to be caught, guaranteed to be the story. And it’s all just a wild goose chase because there ain’t no unicorns and there ain’t no flesh eating dodo birds.

And so you can’t put a flesh eating dodo bird beak on an imaginary unicorn, nor can you put a scary HIV furin cleavage site or spike protein sequence into an imaginary coronavirus. The only way you can do that is make up the code in a computer. And that’s exactly what they did to fool all the people who are not willing to think about this. So I hope that’s clear.

So I think with that, I’m going to stop here. I did have some questions, but maybe I can get to those next time. Again, I hope everybody can go to the Weston Price conference or at least catch it on the live stream. And if you do, come up and say hello. And thanks everybody, for listening. And I’m not sure about next week, but we’ll let you know. So thanks everybody, and have a great week.

Bye. .