1. Wuhan Institute of Virology and REMDESIVIR
(Patent and Paper)
Second analysis by Jian Kang, New York Medical College Associate Professor @jkssdk0907
The first analysis was posted yesterday here:
The National Natural Science Foundation of China
2. On February 4, 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology announced on its official website whiov.cas.cn/kyjz_105338/20… (now deleted) that on January 21, 2020, it had declared a Chinese invention patent on the "use of anti-2019 novel coronavirus" Remdesivir. archive.ph/88ecC
3. The experimental data that the application relied on was sent to Cell Research on January 25, 2020, and published as a Letter to the Editor on February 4th 2020 in the journal, Nature. (nature.com/articles/s4142…)
4. The content of this paper (see attached figure) includes:
A. the culture of SARS-COV-2 virus in a Vero E6 cell line
B. the use of anti-bat SARS-like virus antibodies to identify SARS-COV-2 virus
C. the test of seven compounds on the growth of SARS-COV-2 virus
5. The experiments include the simultaneous addition of viruses and compounds, the early or delayed addition of compounds.
Each compound was tested at 6-7 concentrations, with three samples for each concentration, and a control group for each concentration.
6. The degree of virus infection was analyzed by anti-bat SARS-like virus antibody, qRT-PCR and Western Blot.
7. Using anti-bat-like SARS virus antibodies to identify SARS-COV-2 here requires a lot of preliminary experiments to determine why anti-bat-like SARS virus antibodies instead of others such as anti-human SARS virus antibodies, anti-bat RaTG13 virus & anti-human SARS-2 antibodies
8. In addition to statistical analysis of data, writing papers, and English corrections, the general laboratory may need half a year to a year, and the fastest and most powerful laboratory may also need at least 2-3 months to complete this experimental study!
9. Yet..The Letter to the Editor was Published:
04 February 2020
The letter discussed the Institute’s evaluation of ribavirin, penciclovir, nitazoxanide, nafamostat, chloroquine and two well-known broad-spectrum antiviral drugs remdesivir (GS-5734) and favipiravir (T-705)
10. Conclusion
If the Wuhan Institute of Virology completed this paper in 2 months, then the time for the isolation of the SARS-COV-2 virus strain would be before November 21, 2019, instead of the officially announced January 5, 2020
11. The Wuhan Institute of Virology - Time Lords?
A similar miraculous feat was noted by Bernd Kaina in:
"On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans?"
Critical Examination of 3 Related Studies on SARS-CoV-2 Origins
My latest paper, a pleasantly vicious critique, reveals exactly how the zoonati clique try to bamboozle gullible journalists and scientists to drive their biased narrative of natural originresearchgate.net/publication/40…
2. This core interpretive move by the authors, from failure to detect a shift in selection pressure to claiming strong evidence of “no adaptation being required”, exemplifies the pernicious absence of evidence-based reasoning so characteristic of their tedious papers.
3. Yet, a small cluster of publications from a recurring group of agenda driven authors continues to exert disproportionate and malign influence on the debate over the origins of SARS-COV-2.
1. A truly stunning example of what is called an "ad hoc hypothesis", i.e. a secondary hypothesis added to a theory specifically to save it from being falsified when evidence for its original version is missing or contradictory.
2. They used a modeling framework called RELAX to claim that viruses like SARSCoV2 may already have the ability to infect humans whilst in their natural reservoir, meaning an intermediate host or long-term adaptation wouldn't leave the evolutionary footprints previously expected.
3. A classic post hoc justification for the absence of physical evidence by grant stuffed criminals, in short:
I couldn't find the evidence I said was required, so I've invented a theory that explains why the evidence I failed to find was never actually needed in the first place
1. The long awaited 293 questions for Dr. Ralph Baric have finally been completed and shared! Long live the quest for truth! You are hereby invited to read the sharpest, most lethal 293-question dossier ever built.
1. "These tiny fragments were far smaller than cells and even smaller than many viruses. Some were close to the size of DNA strands. Under high magnification, she noticed small hooked shapes with sharp points.
✴️2. OVERLOOKED
"She realized that the plastic in human brains was not only present, but surprisingly small. The fragments were so tiny that common diagnostic tools could not detect them. Pathologists had likely been overlooking them for years."
"The two original samples showed a strong link between plastic particles and dementia. As Bearer expanded her work to ten more donated brains, she found plastic in every single one. None were free of synthetic fragments."
Unfortunately, there is no direct proof provided by Redfield in this new interview, but he cites engineering features, early data, and classified information.
🧵3. Summary of Redfield's Statements
(on SARS-CoV-2 Origins & Cover-Up)
He claims SARS-CoV-2 originated from GOF research in a lab and emphasizes a significant US role alongside China.
He views this as a major biosecurity failure with ongoing suppression of transparency.