February 4, 2021March 19, 2021 Evolve to Ecology

World Renowned Scientist used Bayesian analysis on SARS-CoV-2 to find it is of Lab Origin

We are arriving at the anniversary of the COVID-19 global pandemic, so far records are at 2.1 million deaths, over 100 million confirmed cases, and trillions of dollars of economic damage, let alone the irreversible damage and life long scars of personal losses, depression, grief, the trauma of not being able to hold the hands of dying loved ones in hospital. The trauma of not being able to go to a funeral, the trauma of discovering a loved one who committed sucide, and other traumas such as victims of domestic violence and child abuse, drug addiction and other stressful situations caused by government lockdowns.

Although there is universal agreement that a coronavirus identified as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 (abbreviated CoV-2 henceforth) causes the disease COVID-19, there is no understanding or consensus on the origin of the disease.

Many people who are not doctors or scientists have already suspected SARS-CoV-2 was originally of Petri dish origin, especially after various news articles exposing Fauci’s funding of 7.4 million of the Wuhan Lab . Now, this is getting some serious traction.

Wuhan Institute of Virology Research in December 2019 shows evidence of Adenovirus Vaccine Experiments in Patients with COVID-19. Adeno viruses have been used continuously by scientists as early 1950s these are used in laboratory environments for vaccine production and for general ”medical research” using various animal hosts. The adenoviruses have been suspected in inducing human cancers.

A recently published science article by Steven Carl Quay, MD, PhD, consists of a 193 page scientific paper, which Dr. Quay has dedicated to the victims of Covid-19. Dr Quay intended to determin the origin of SARS-CoV-2 . Dr Quay also wants to draw more public awareness about the ”gain-of-function” pathogen research and its risks and benefits. There needs to be a public tribunal and serious campaign a renewed debate on the benefits and risks of this research in the context of world health.

Dr. Quay set out to determin the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 using a Bayesian analysis. Beginning with his analysis, he set a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic source that came from nature and the Lab origin possibility was set at only a 1.2% chance. His research involved twenty-six different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically.

To assist in finding the truth and to get feedback on the methodologies used and conclusions reached in his paper, a pre-publication copy was sent to twenty-six scientists worldwide, including the WHO investigators currently in Wuhan, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists, as well as other prominent virologists.

Dr. Quay’s findings-

More media attention has been given to the possibility that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located near the Wuhan city center and with a population of over 11 million inhabitants, may have been the source of the field specimen collection effort, laboratory genetic
manipulation, and subsequent leak. On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement requesting the WHO investigation of the origin of COVID-19 include specific assertions related to a laboratory origin of the pandemic.

The initial state was biased as much as possible towards a zoonotic origin, with the starting point selected as the upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for the mean and standard deviation of three independent estimates, including one by Daszak and colleagues. Each piece of new evidence for or against each hypothesis was then used to adjust the probabilities. If evidence favored a natural
origin the math adjusts upward the probability of a natural origin, and so on.

The most significant evidence provided herein is the finding from RNA-Seq performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) of lavage patient samples collected on December 30, 2019.3 These ICU patients were the subject of the seminal paper, entitled, “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin,” from Dr. Zhengli Shi and colleagues that first characterized SARS-CoV-2.4 This author has confirmed that the RNA-Seq of all five patients contained SARS-CoV-2 sequences. Surprisingly the specimens also contained the adenovirus “pShuttle” vector, developed by Chinese scientists in 2005 for SARS-CoV-1.5 Two immunogens were identified, the Spike Protein gene of SARS-CoV-2 and the synthetic construct H7N9 HA gene.6 Hundreds of perfectly homologous (150/150) raw reads suggest this is not an artefact. Reads that cross the vector-immunogen junction are identified. An example of the read contigs for CoV-2 is shown in this figure:

source- A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived . Quay, MD PhD, Steven Carl

While adenovirus is a common infection, the wildtype viruses have low homology to the vaccine vector sequence, by design, to avoid rejection of the vaccine due to prior exposure to wildtype adenoviruses.

Two patients from the same hospital who had bronchial lavage on the same day but had their specimens sent to the Hubei CDC did not have adenovirus vaccine sequences.

Three explanations come to mind from this evidence:

1. These represent sample preparation artifacts at the WIV, such as sample spillover
on the sequencer.

2. These patients were admitted with an unknown infection, were not responding to
the treatment protocols for a infection of unknown origin, and they were vaccinated
with an experimental vaccine in a desperate but compassionate therapeutic “Hail
Mary.”

3. A clinical trial of a combination influenza/SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was being conducted and an accidental release into Wuhan occurred.

Obviously if a vaccine containing the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 was being administered to patients in Wuhan in December 2019, the question of laboratory origin is a settled matter.

Only WIV scientists and Chinese authorities can answer these questions. Until the evidence of the adenovirus sequences has been confirmed by other scientists, this author (Dr Quay), will not include this evidence in the Bayesian analysis.

The remaining analysis is being conducted without the adenovirus vaccine evidence unless and until it is corroborated. The outcome of this report is the conclusion that the probability of a laboratory origin for CoV-2 is 99.8% with a corresponding probability of a zoonotic origin of 0.2%. This exceeds most academic law school discussions of how to quantify ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the threshold for finding guilt in a criminal case. The report contains the detailed analysis and quantitative basis for the statistics and conclusion. It should be noted that because of the commutative property of the collected adjustments to the probabilities, the order
in which they are used in the overall calculation is immaterial and the same end likelihoods will be reached regardless of the order of input.”

Conclusion

The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature. By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory. The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions.”

About Steven Quay, M.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Steven Quay has 360+ published contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide. He holds 87 US patents and has invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals which have helped over 80 million people. He is the author of the best-selling book on surviving the pandemic, Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus. He is the CEO of Atossa Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: ATOS), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for treating breast cancer and COVID-19.

He received his M.D. and Ph.D. from The University of Michigan, was a postdoctoral fellow in the Chemistry Department at MIT with Nobel Laureate H. Gobind Khorana, a resident at the Harvard-MGH Hospital, and spent almost a decade on the faculty of Stanford University School of Medicine. A TEDx talk he delivered on breast cancer prevention has been viewed over 220,000 times. For more information, visit

www.DrQuay.com

Dr Quay’s Paper 193 page report can be downloaded and read here

Gain of Function

Gain-of-Function is used in the political arena to justify microbiology research for making viruses and bioweapons. However, gain-of -function is something that wouldn’t happen in nature, according to thousands of doctors, microbiologists and zoologists. Therefore, its a mute argument. There is no reason to continue keeping these microbiology labs funded for bioweaponary for gain-of-function.

Humans have evolved for 6 million years with other species, zoonosis and species to species cross transmission is rare, since an animal virus rarely naturally pass to humans. Major human infectious diseases, including some now confined to humans and absent from animals, are ‘new’ ones that arose only after the origins of agriculture, vaccine production and animal experimentation. It requires, a great deal of time, financial resources, virus entrainment, biotechnology research experiments and petri dish cell, bacteria cultures, gene mutation, and animal experimentation to make this happen, such as xmrvs, mouse and monkey viruses from laboratories. This process in itself takes many years of research and funding and that is without natural evolution being involved, the human hand cultivating such experiments in microbiology laboratories should be deemed as dangerous and classed as governments investing in biological weapons manufacturing.

This means COVID-19 virus had to be entrained for seven years or more in a laboratory environment, possibly in the Virology laboratory in Wuhan which received research grants of 3.7 million funding from the United States NIH. Dr Fauci was at that time involved in the NIH, these funds were invested into gain-of-function entraining the bat COVID-19 cells to grow chimera cells in mice to then transfer and evolve to (gain-of-function ) human tissue in a petri dish in a laboratory environment.

Nature published an article on this stating ”Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population².”

According to Newsweek funding for the WIV occurred in two phases. The first took place from 2014 to 2019, through a $3.7 million project for collecting and studying bat corona viruses. This work was largely led by Dr. Zhengli Shi, known to many as “batwoman” for her years investigating caves in search of new bat viruses.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan which were funded by a 3.7 million grant from the US government. Sequencing of the COVID-19 genome has traced it back to bats found in Yunnan caves but it was first thought to have transferred to humans at an animal market in Wuhan. The revelation that the Wuhan Institute was experimenting on bats from the area already known to be the source of COVID-19 – and doing so with American money – has sparked further fears that the lab, and not the market, is the original outbreak source.

The second phase began shortly after, with another $3.7 million. Unlike the first, this project appears to have included work on “gain-of-function”: research that investigates how a virus can gain the ability to infect a new type of animal.

”The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency”, said Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study.

”The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium.”- Nature, Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research

SARS, H1N1 and Swine flu are also possibly products of Gain-to-Function research that are also part of COVID-19 genome, SARS 1.0 backbone, and contains MERs which is evidence of the mechanisms of gain of entry-

”it is possible that the insertion of a furin cleavage site allowed a bat CoV to gain the ability to infect humans. The furin cleavage site might have been acquired by recombination with another virus possessing that site, H5N1 : HA glycoprotein via Furin, including SCH004 Bat to Human entry” Dr Wong, A Recipe for Next Generation Warfare

Gain-to-function research in microbiology is highly controversial since the risks it carries outweigh any benefits in research goals, it needs to be banned.

It is debatable species to species transmission is not very common but human interference for gain-to function research is making it more common, some say MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV were originally bat viruses that spread to an intermediate animal (camel and civet cat), however Dr. Quay has shown very clearly the origin of Covid-19. Govenment funding and human involvement in growing these laboratory zoonotic chimeras is what makes this more dangerous. This is when it becomes biowarfare, one that we are currently suffering the consequences of, with the leverage it has given politicians and those at the seat of power to impose severe lockdowns of our lives and of the economy, the consequences of which are losses of lives, livelihoods, and life long traumas that far out way the alleged official statistics of COVID-19 mortality. We need a focused campaign to stop this type of government funded research, since we have suffered and are still suffering the results of this Covid-19 pandemic at multiple levels, emotionally, financially, materially, mentally, and spiritually and physically, this has been a great trauma for humanity globally in so many ways and its still not over.

by CS

Related Articles

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

Lockdowns and Business Closure Found to be Scientifically Proven Ineffective

A Recipe for Next Generation Warfare

22 Scientists Debunked the Science behind PCR test accuracy

Dr Kory recommends Ivermectin, a powerful anti-viral drug for early treatment for COVID Patients

Hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid-19 patients

Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy funds $7.4 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research

COVID-19 and Animals

Nature- Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research