Post by batngat on Sept 26, 2021 11:15:12 GMT 10
from
www.minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf
The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus
A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike
Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish & Andres Susrud
Immunor & St Georges University of London
ABSTRACT
To discover exactly how to attack SARS-CoV-2 safely and efficiently, our vaccine candidate Biovacc-19 was designed by first
carefully analysing the biochemistry of the Spike. We ascertained that it is highly unusual in several respects, unlike any
other CoV in its clade. The SARS-CoV-2 general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. But data shows
that simultaneously it is capable of binding to ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain. In short, SARS-CoV-2 is
possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is
very small. The spike has six inserts which are unique fingerprints with five salient features indicative of purposive
manipulation. We then add to the bio-chemistry a diachronic dimension by analysing a sequence of four linked published
research projects which, we suggest, show by deduction how, where, when and by whom the SARS-CoV-2 Spike acquired
its special characteristics. This reconstructed historical aetiology meets the criteria of means, timing, agent and place to
produce sufficient confidence to reverse the burden of proof. Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19
pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before
asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we also show, there are puzzling errors in their use of
evidence.
Introduction: Why does this matter?
No-one has ever produced a safe and effective vaccine against a coronavirus. In the context of a forthcoming paper
addressing contingency actions cognizant of this fact, the potentialities for 'trained immunity' from 'new old friends' in the
form of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), Microbacillus vaccae (IMM-102) and most especially Microbacillus obuense (IMM101) by stimulating the innate immune system and especially Delta Gamma T cells are explored; and a salutary review of
failed vaccine programmes is included (Kleen et al., 2020). On 28th April 2020, Nature published a graphical guide to eight
conceptual approaches featuring in current explorations of around 90 vaccine development programmes intended to
counter SARS-CoV-2 (Callaway, 2020).
We have just (2nd June 2020) published Biovacc-19 in QRB-Discovery: a candidate vaccine for this daunting task (Sørensen
et al., 2020). Its mode of action is unique and therefore is not included in the Nature review. In our paper we gave reasons
why the virus vector or RNA vector based approaches that are the basis of the eight methodologies reviewed in Nature are
unlikely to prove immunogenic and why either, but especially RNA vectored models, may carry significant risk of Antibody
Dependent Enhancement (ADE). As we have detailed in QRB-D, we have seen such a story before over thirty years in the
failure of all three mainstream vaccine approaches to HIV, which we predicted but were disbelieved.
As with our HIV vaccine, the methodology underpinning Biovacc-19 first analysed fully the virus target. In this case we
published the general mode of action for infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. Doing this took us into a fundamental exploration of
the biochemistry and structure of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike which is highly singular, possessed of features that we have not
seen before and which are not present in other SARS viruses of that clade. We posited that the SARS-CoV-2 general mode
of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. But unusually, simultaneously, data shows that it is capable of binding
to ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain. In short, SARS- CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. How do we
think this was made possible? That is the subject of this paper. We shall argue from evidence below that the likelihood of
this being the result of natural processes is very small.
....
www.minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf
The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus
A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike
Birger Sørensen, Angus Dalgleish & Andres Susrud
Immunor & St Georges University of London
ABSTRACT
To discover exactly how to attack SARS-CoV-2 safely and efficiently, our vaccine candidate Biovacc-19 was designed by first
carefully analysing the biochemistry of the Spike. We ascertained that it is highly unusual in several respects, unlike any
other CoV in its clade. The SARS-CoV-2 general mode of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. But data shows
that simultaneously it is capable of binding to ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain. In short, SARS-CoV-2 is
possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is
very small. The spike has six inserts which are unique fingerprints with five salient features indicative of purposive
manipulation. We then add to the bio-chemistry a diachronic dimension by analysing a sequence of four linked published
research projects which, we suggest, show by deduction how, where, when and by whom the SARS-CoV-2 Spike acquired
its special characteristics. This reconstructed historical aetiology meets the criteria of means, timing, agent and place to
produce sufficient confidence to reverse the burden of proof. Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19
pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before
asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we also show, there are puzzling errors in their use of
evidence.
Introduction: Why does this matter?
No-one has ever produced a safe and effective vaccine against a coronavirus. In the context of a forthcoming paper
addressing contingency actions cognizant of this fact, the potentialities for 'trained immunity' from 'new old friends' in the
form of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), Microbacillus vaccae (IMM-102) and most especially Microbacillus obuense (IMM101) by stimulating the innate immune system and especially Delta Gamma T cells are explored; and a salutary review of
failed vaccine programmes is included (Kleen et al., 2020). On 28th April 2020, Nature published a graphical guide to eight
conceptual approaches featuring in current explorations of around 90 vaccine development programmes intended to
counter SARS-CoV-2 (Callaway, 2020).
We have just (2nd June 2020) published Biovacc-19 in QRB-Discovery: a candidate vaccine for this daunting task (Sørensen
et al., 2020). Its mode of action is unique and therefore is not included in the Nature review. In our paper we gave reasons
why the virus vector or RNA vector based approaches that are the basis of the eight methodologies reviewed in Nature are
unlikely to prove immunogenic and why either, but especially RNA vectored models, may carry significant risk of Antibody
Dependent Enhancement (ADE). As we have detailed in QRB-D, we have seen such a story before over thirty years in the
failure of all three mainstream vaccine approaches to HIV, which we predicted but were disbelieved.
As with our HIV vaccine, the methodology underpinning Biovacc-19 first analysed fully the virus target. In this case we
published the general mode of action for infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. Doing this took us into a fundamental exploration of
the biochemistry and structure of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike which is highly singular, possessed of features that we have not
seen before and which are not present in other SARS viruses of that clade. We posited that the SARS-CoV-2 general mode
of action is as a co-receptor dependent phagocyte. But unusually, simultaneously, data shows that it is capable of binding
to ACE2 receptors in its receptor binding domain. In short, SARS- CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. How do we
think this was made possible? That is the subject of this paper. We shall argue from evidence below that the likelihood of
this being the result of natural processes is very small.
....