Yes, @JocelynnPearl, please rescore, as it was previously rejected only because Paul gave it a zero for being a retweet of my original submission (see attached).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fauci is lying. What did the NIH-funded 2017 WIV paper describe? They took 8 different bat SARS-like viruses, cut out their receptor binding domains, and pasted them into the WIV1 backbone (progenitor of the first SARS virus) to check if the new chimeras would infect human cells.
Let me reiterate. They took the WIV1 backbone, which is derived from Rs3367, the virus Shi Zhengli discovered in Yunnan in 2011, which is the closest known relative of the human SARS virus: 96% close.
They then replaced the RBD in WIV1 by RBDs from 8 other SARS-like CoVs.
Is this potential gain-of-function research? You bet. Even before they checked actual infectivity, there is a reasonable expectation that inserting those new RBDs could increase WIV1 tropism to human ACE2.
Humanity is extremely lucky that Delta's single nucleotide mutation in the furin cleavage site which has overclocked SARS2's transmissibility by an order of magnitude only got traction in May 2021, rather than May 2020.
If original SARS2's furin cleavage site would have been as efficient, its R0 would have been around 6, which means by now we would have probably had ~40M dead and ~1B infected.
Thankfully, we now have vaccines that greatly reduce death and severe Covid risks even from Delta.
The furin cleavage site is also a great example how sometimes there are aspects of the virus that our immune system just can't adequately defend against. And it is then just a matter of did we get lucky or unlucky with a particular strain of a virus.
Even the 5000 VAERS reports of potential deaths at the time of the podcast were yet unconfirmed to be caused by vaccines.
And the 1% estimate for underreported events cannot be extrapolated to underreported deaths, as that estimate comes from a 2011 report based on ALL possible adverse events after vaccinations, the overwhelming majority of which are benign:
[00:39:49] Heather: Yes. So somewhere in its lower down in the- in the written part of-- So here we go. This is just a para-- just one paragraph from their-- the Quillette piece:
[start quote from Quillette article]
"How does the evidence for the prophylactic efficacy of ivermectin stack up against the vaccines? It's not even close. Remember, we don't yet know that the drug provides any significant benefit.
No, there is no evidence that the spike protein alone is "very dangerous and cytotoxic" in concentrations even orders of magnitude higher than what is ever observed in vaccinated people.
[00:17:30] the fact that the drug in question, Ivermectin, comes from, uh, soil bacteria, it's not a completely synthetic molecule, means that that it is likely to be similar to the things that one's ancestors have encountered before,
and there's, therefore, a good chance that the body has a reasonably elegant way of dealing with it rather than uh, using some mechanism that's-that's not so great."
There is no evidence that a molecule extracted from soil bacteria has any safety of efficacy advantage. There are plenty of counterexamples of toxic molecules found in soil bacteria: