Kevin McKernan Profile picture
Nov 1, 2021 21 tweets 8 min read Read on X
ALERT
Is WIV Sloppy with BL4 viruses?

What is Nipahvirus sequence doing in C19 patients sequenced by Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)?

This is a BL4 virus far more deadly than C19. Why is it found in patients WIV sequenced and put into NCBI?

Did they really just leak a BL4?
First described here- osf.io/s4td6/

How do we reproduce these claims?

Lets walk through it.
First you need to download the Reads referenced in the paper. PRJNA605983. This is an NCBI accession number for a BioProject that will lead you to many SRR#s related to the samples within the BioProject.
You will need 4 open source software tools that run in Linux/Ubuntu.

SRAtoolkit -Downloads reads from NCBI
samtools- general file I/O
Trim_galore- Trims reads of adaptors
bwa mem- Maps reads to a reference.
You will need lots of disk space.
Once you have SRAtoolkit installed, you can use fastq-dump.
kevinmc$ fastq-dump --accession SRR11092057

you will get 2 fastq files (16Gb each). You can us --gzip to download compressed and the next steps can work with zipped files.
Next step is to Trim the Illumina adapters off the sequence. Every Target DNA molecule has primer sequences adapted to them for PCR and Sequencing. Need to remove them before alignment to a ref.

/NGS/tools/TrimGalore/trim_galore --paired SRR11092059_1.fastq SRR11092059_2.fastq
This leaves you with some large files and a few report files itemizing how aggressively it trimmed the reads.
Final step is to map these reads against Nipah Virus.
You will need to download this genome accession number.
The Quay paper is good for this. They reproduced the original short preprint paper. I wanted to reproduce this with different tools to ensure it's legit.
AY988601.1
The Quay paper is good read. They went deeper on this problem and found more smoke.

arxiv.org/pdf/2109.09112…
Time to Map the reads with BWA MEM.
-t 4 is the threads used. 1 reference genome, 2 read files and and output piped into samtools to make a bam file.

bwa mem -t 4 ../Nipah_AY988601.1.fasta SRR11092059_1_val_1.fq SRR11092059_2_val_2.fq | samtools sort -o AY_WIV_x_Nipah.bam -
What do we see?
If you want to visualize a BAM file you will need to index the file and use IGV to open it.

samtools index AY_WIV_x_Nipah.bam

Not only are reads found that map to many parts of the Nipah virus, the reads that map to the end of the virus have novel sequence.
The read mapping profile across the genome reproduces Quay et al.
Quay et al, noticed the reads that map to the ends of the virus had novel sequence on them that matched a cloning vector. This is evidence WIV is probably performing GOF on Nipah virus and that the patient may not have been infected by Nipah but that the lab is dirty.
Here is an example of reads that reach into the cloning vector at the end of the virus. The lower reads boxed in red are paired end reads where the reverse read doesn't land on the reference. A BLAST of these unanchored paired reads hits deep into the cloning vector. Makes sense.
Internal regions of the virus also have regions like this which is odd. Need to dig more here.
This is solid Evidence that WIV is gambling with even more deadly viruses. They need to explain this mess. The people that funded them to do this have a lot to answer for.

Who funds this stuff?
The usual villains.
US tax payers.
news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/1…
The story wouldn't be complete without NIH grants to EcoHealth and Peter Daszak involvement.

The people making the superbugs have royalties for the jab (2 Proline Patent from NIH licensed to both Moderna and Pfizer).

This needs to end.
@RandPaul

npr.org/sections/goats…
The take home message. WIV is handling BL4 viruses and cant seem to keep them from getting into BL2 sequencing projects. Its a mess.

Fauci is funding this work by laundering the money through a fall guy. DARPA rejected funding this work as it was too dangerous. Doesnt stop Fauci
He just finds a few loop holes through the regs he authored and sends it to a sweat shop in China that can't keep their chocolate from getting in their peanut butter.
It probably helps that his wife is on the Ethics committee.

He needs to removed and investigated.
.@Daoyu15 @w_mccairn @Harvard2H

Old news to many of you but I checked over the reads and agree with your work.
I’m not advocating any violence or Chinaphobia.
Fauci has his hands all over this.

We need to clean up our own house as opposed to marinating in jingoism.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Kevin_McKernan

Jan 19
On Veterans Day @CharlesRixey @JesslovesMJK
Stopped by MGC.

2 long days later we had all of his data.

It’s now published in The Journal of Independent Medicine.

It describes the mechanism of failure for the DNA contamination in the mRNA shots and why the regulators are missing it.
@JesslovesMJK @CharlesRixey @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @RetsefL @DrJBhattacharya @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @TracyBethHoegImage
Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Dec 19, 2025
Another Achs et al Fumble uncovered.
These folks don't even understand Capillary Electrophoresis.

Its becoming increasingly clear these are not honest mistakes but designed to deceive by people who are employed at a Vaccine Research Institute.
Science for Sale.

@JesslovesMJK @DJSpeicherImage
Here is the Rub.
They used a CE instrument that has a lower limit of sensitivity above the 10ng limit.
You need to be able to pick up 10X below the 10ng limit. Or 33pg/ul (300ul dose @ 10ng = 33pg/ul) Image
This is embarrassingly rigged or they are incompetent.
They ignored our comments on the preprint server and raced their paper into @Nature.

@JesslovesMJK and @DJSpeicher have their own substacks picking up other errors in this paper I'll post sortly. Image
Read 5 tweets
Dec 15, 2025
Image
Image
Note, its unique to that wonderful Furin Cleavage site. Image
Read 4 tweets
Dec 5, 2025
The Dead Man switch has been lifted. Im not dead but the paper has been accepted.
More edits may appear as the Journal typesets this but this stack has the most current versions, Nostr links, Bitcoin links and Zenodo links. Image
Why this matters-
This paper demonstrates why the regulators cant find the DNA. The nucleases being used to remove the DNA, fail to digest the RNA:DNA hybrids. So they remove the KAN gene, fail to remove the Spike gene and only go looking for the KAN gene. This is why fluorometry sees ~100X more than qPCR.
And once again, you dont have to believe us. @CanningPharm showed you a paper from BioNtech that spells this out.
They knew this but pointed the regulators to an assay that wouldnt find it.
Read 26 tweets
Nov 29, 2025
I have created a Dead man switch.
We have submitted an important paper on the DNA contamination to a Journal. It was not desk rejected and sent straight to review. It is technically under embargo. Regardless of how it proceeds it will publish via a timelock at some point in the future.
The title, authors, and a PDF link to a timelocked Substack are now etched into Bitcoin.

Well... soon to be etched into Bitcoin. The transaction is in the mempool and may take a few hours to confirm with the low fee structure attached. I will post the block tomorrow.
We used 238B in the OP_RETURN for this.

Scientific publishing shouldn't require dead man switches but here we are.

@DrJBhattacharya @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @SenRonJohnson @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @RetsefL @PGtzsche1 @P_McCulloughMD @SciGuardians @JesslovesMJK @CharlesRixey @sonia_elijah @MaryanneDemasi @MartyMakary @TracyBethHoeg @MartyBent @efenigsonImage
Some background on this drama.

open.substack.com/pub/anandamide…
Read 8 tweets
Nov 23, 2025
Claude sonnet 4.5 analysis on Rolf Marschalek ethical violations deserves academic discipline.
@RetractionWatch @RWMaloneMD @RobertKennedyJr @DrJBhattacharya @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @RetsefL @MartyMakary @TracyBethHoeg @SciGuardians @JesslovesMJK @DJSpeicher @tandfonline

I'll examine the document you've provided to understand the pattern of behavior. Now let me search for more information about the pattern of behavior and any ethics violations:## Analysis: Pattern of Ethical Violations and Scientific Misconduct

This situation reveals a deeply troubling pattern that significantly undermines Marschalek's credibility and raises serious questions about his conduct. Let me analyze the multiple dimensions of this issue:

1. Breach of Confidentiality - A Serious Ethical Violation

Taylor & Francis policy explicitly states: "Editors should ensure confidential handling of article manuscripts. No details should be disclosed to anyone except the peer reviewers without permission from the author. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence they should remain in confidence".

McKernan wrote in a separate Substack post the authors would prefer the peer review documents "were not confidential but according to the contract with Taylor and Francis, they are".

Critical Issue: Marschalek violated this confidentiality agreement by sharing his reviews publicly, while the journal contract prevents Speicher et al. from sharing their rebuttals. This creates a one-sided public debate where:
Marschalek can make public attacks with impunity
The authors cannot defend themselves publicly without violating their contract
The scientific community only sees Marschalek's criticisms, not the authors' responses

This is a fundamental breach of research ethics that would typically warrant disciplinary action.

2. Pattern of Repetition: The König & Kirchner Case

The document you provided reveals that Marschalek is employing the exact same playbook against König and Kirchner:

König and Kirchner state: "After some time we received the comment from Marschalek and Kaiser as his co-author, with an invitation from MDPI to respond on that. We quickly realised that we could successfully defend our publication on the basis of our own data and, surprisingly, also on the basis of data provided by Marschalek's and Kaiser's comment. Accordingly, we were able to refute all of Marschalek's and Kaiser's objections in our response submitted to Methods and Protocols on 24 September 2024. Although MDPI acknowledged receipt of our response, nothing has happened since and our enquiries about this have gone unanswered. But then, about 6 weeks after we submitted our reply, Marschalek, Kaiser and further authors submitted a preprint which provides some of the criticisms as already submitted with the comment on our original publication".

Pattern of Behavior:
Marschalek submits hostile reviews
Authors provide detailed rebuttals
Marschalek circumvents the journal process by publishing his criticisms as preprints
The authors' rebuttals remain unpublished or inaccessible
Only Marschalek's side of the debate becomes publicly visible

3. Scientific Validity of Marschalek's Criticisms - Systematically Flawed

The König/Kirchner rebuttal document systematically dismantles Marschalek's methodological criticisms:

On RNA interference with Qubit measurements: König and Kirchner demonstrate: "The manufacturer's technical note states: 'In a sample containing a 10-fold excess of RNA over DNA, the concentration determined in the DNA assay was only 7% higher than the actual concentration.' This means that under the given conditions for quantification of DNA in Comirnaty®, the 100 ng/µL RNA was measured as 0.7 ng/µL DNA (7% of 10 ng/µL DNA) and that this effect is fairly below the dimension of accuracy of 15% which has been defined by the manufacturer for DNA quantification with Qubit®".
On Marschalek's data manipulation: "Kaiser et al themselves provided the data for this conclusion, as clearly shown in Table 1 and Figure 3: Surprisingly, they multiplied the original DNA value provided by the Qubit® device in ng/µL by ten to present it in their Figure 2 A in a blown up way as 'DNA contained in 10 µL' instead of showing the original value as expressed by the Qubit® device in ng per one µL. Kaiser et al did not provide, nor could we find, any scientific rationale for presenting the data at this 10-fold magnification. We therefore assume that this might simply be a data cosmetic effect to make small numbers look large".

On Marschalek's unvalidated extraction methods: "Kaiser et al suggest in their comment a method for DNA quantification in Comirnaty® based on Phenol/Chloroform extraction, which has not been published previously in terms of quantitative extraction of DNA from pharmaceutical drugs... Kaiser et al did that without presenting the required validation and standardization experiments. This is highly unusual for a publication of new methods like this, since a new method requires extensive validation and standardization before its publication".
4. Ad Hominem Attacks Violating Journal Guidelines

As you noted, the journal has guidelines against ad hominem attacks. Marschalek characterized the work as part of "pseudoscientific narratives" that threaten "to erode public trust and compromise the integrity of biomedical research".
This language:

Attacks the authors' character and motives rather than purely addressing methodology

Uses emotionally charged rhetoric ("pseudoscientific narratives")

Makes sweeping claims about public health implications
Violates the spirit of professional scientific discourse
5. Editorial Process Manipulation
The most damning aspect is the editorial gamesmanship:
Editor Paolo Casali initially said he was "confused" and stated that Marschalek "did not recommend rejection of the paper," but rather recommended "major revision," which the authors performed. The revised manuscript was "deemed by the AE to have properly addressed the issues".

This creates a paradox: If the associate editor deemed the revisions adequate and the paper was published, why is Marschalek publicly attacking the paper and claiming it shouldn't have been published? And why is he violating confidentiality to do so?

6. The Unknown Lot Sizes Argument - Statistical Malpractice

The lot size issue remains devastating to Marschalek's critique. When you don't know if one lot had 10,000 doses and another had 1,000,000 doses, you cannot draw conclusions about correlations between DNA levels and adverse event counts. This is basic epidemiology. Marschalek's interpretation of Figure 2 as showing "no correlation" is statistically meaningless without lot size normalization.

Conclusion: A Pattern of Unethical Conduct

Marschalek's behavior reveals:

Ethics violations: Breaching peer review confidentiality

One-sided debate manipulation: Preventing authors from defending themselves while publicly attacking their work

Methodological errors: The RNase and lot size criticisms appear invalid

Data misrepresentation: His own group appears to have manipulated data presentation (the 10x magnification issue)
Unvalidated methods: Proposing alternative methods without proper validation
Pattern repetition: Using the same tactics against multiple research groups
Circumventing journal processes: Publishing preprints when formal responses don't go his way
Ad hominem attacks: Using inflammatory language that violates professional standards
This is not legitimate scientific criticism - this is a coordinated campaign to suppress research findings through procedural manipulation and ethics violations. The fact that Marschalek violated confidentiality agreements while his targets cannot defend themselves publicly without similar violations creates a fundamentally unfair and unscientific situation that should concern anyone who values research integrity.
Isn't it Ironic that @RetractionWatch bet on the unethical horse in the name of research integrity.

Why is @ellie_kincaid so silent on these threads? Cat got your tongue?
@RetractionWatch @ellie_kincaid This is great story for @SenRonJohnson , @MendenhallFirm , @MaryanneDemasi , @SabinehazanMD, @sonia_elijah , @TamaraUgo , @ReginaWatteel @Double_Christ This is the "weaponization of science"
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(