Tag Archives: Scientist

Did scientists confirm link between Autism and COVID vaccines?!

Did scientists just confirm a link between autism and COVID-19 vaccines?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Scientists Confirm Link Between Autism And COVID Vaccines!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that scientists just confirm a link between autism and COVID-19 vaccines!

Here is an excerpt of the long and (intentionally?) confusing article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Scientists Confirm Link Between Autism and COVID Jabs

Scientists have confirmed the shocking link between taking the COVID-19 vaccine and developing Autism.

Recommended : Was shocking Autism-COVID vaccine connection just confirmed?!

 

Truth : Scientists Did Not Confirm Link Between Autism And COVID Vaccines!

This is yet another example of fake news created / promoted by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Scientists Did Not Confirm Any Link Between Autism + COVID Vaccines

Let me start by quickly pointing out no scientist has confirmed any link between autism and the COVID-19 vaccines.

In fact, The People’s Voice never actually provided any evidence to back up its claim, or provide the names of the scientists, or the study that apparently confirmed the link between autism and the COVID-19 vaccines.

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Contain Thimerosal / Mercury!

Let me start by pointing out that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain thimerosal or mercury! On top of that, most vaccines do not use thimerosal as a preservative.

In the United States, thimerosal – a mercury-based preservative was used in multi-dose medicines and vaccines. However, it was removed from most vaccines out of an abundance of caution in 1999, and all childhood vaccines in 2001.

Many vaccines which people claimed contained thimerosal, never used that preservative (CDC):

  • the mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) vaccine never used thimerosal,
  • the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine never used thimerosal,
  • the inactivated polio vaccine never used thimerosal,
  • the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine never used thimerosal,
  • and of course – the COVID-19 vaccines never used thimerosal!

The only vaccine that currently uses thimerosal is the influenza (flu) vaccine in the multi-dose vial. The single-dose influenza vaccine does not use thimerosal as a preservative.

So why would anyone claim or suggest that thimerosal or mercury is still used in many vaccines???

Recommended : Are autism rates in Australia surging due to COVID-19 vaccines?!

Fact #3 : Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism

On top of that, both thimerosal and aluminium adjuvants were never linked to autism. Many thorough studies have concluded that thimerosal did not contribute to the development of autism.

Even after thimerosal was removed from almost all childhood vaccines, autism rates continued to increase – demonstrating that it has no bearing on the development of autism in children.

Fact #4 : Vaccines Do Not Cause Cell Damage Response

Cell Danger Response (CDR) is a (relatively) new hypothesis proposed by Professor Dr. Robert K. Naviaux, MD PhD – a professor of medicine, pediatrics and pathology at the University of California San Diego (UCSD).

From what I understand, Professor Naviaux first wrote about its metabolic features in August 2013, and conducted a small Phase 1/2 randomised clinical trial in 2015-2016, with some promising results.

As he explained in his autism research subset, the CDR hypothesis proposes that autism is a “treatable metabolic syndrome” that is caused by abnormalities in ATP (purinergic) signalling that can be caused by:

  • a mutant gene
  • environmental threats like air and water pollution, pesticides,
  • infections,
  • other early life stressors encountered during pregnancy, or in the first 2-3 years of life

Notably, Professor Naviaux never claimed or suggested that any vaccine was responsible for Cell Damage Response, or causing autism. So why would anyone suggest otherwise???

In fact, Professor Naviaux proposed treating autism with anti-purinergic therapy, which is why his 2017 clinical trial involved the use of an old anti-purinergic drug called suramin.

If he believed that vaccines cause Cell Damage Response, he would have advocated for a stop to childhood vaccines. He never did that, because vaccines do not cause CDR.

Recommended : Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Cause CDR / Autism

Just to be clear – COVID-19 vaccines do not cause Cell Danger Response (CDR), or autism.

In fact, the The People’s Voice article does not even offer any evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine has been linked to CDR or autism!

All it appears to do is just make that claim, and expect everyone to just believe them. Nuts!

Fact #6 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News

The People’s Voice is the current name for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.

Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.

Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should never share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice.  Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Do emails show Ralph Baric created COVID-19 spike protein?!

Did emails released under FOIA show that Ralph Baric created the COVID-19 spike protein in 2018?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Emails Show Ralph Baric Created COVID-19 Spike Protein!

Conspiracists and anti-vaccine activists are excitedly sharing FOIA-released emails, which purportedly shows that Ralph Baric created the COVID-19 spike protein in 2018!

Kim Dotcom : American scientist Ralph Baric developed the spike protein that was inserted into Covid-19 and he worked with the Wuhan lab where the virus was created. Covid-19 was made in America and funded by the US Govt. Where’s the media? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the criminal tribunal?

Recommended : Did CDC redact all 148 pages of its mRNA myocarditis study?!

 

Truth : Emails Do Not Show Ralph Baric Created COVID-19 Spike Protein!

This appears to be yet another example of fake news circulating on X (formerly Twitter), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Emails Were Referring To SARS Virus

Let me start by pointing out that the March 2018 emails released under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) were only referring to the SARS virus (now known as SARS-CoV-1).

The SARS-CoV-1 was the virus that caused the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, and is different from SARS-CoV-2, which caused the COVID-19 pandemic more than 15 years later!

They are related but different coronaviruses, just like how a Tesla Model S and a BMW Z4 are both cars, but they are different cars, with different designs, engines and performance.

Fact #2 : All Coronaviruses Have Spike Proteins

I should point out that the spike protein isn’t a special feature of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Such spike proteins are actually a feature of all coronaviruses!

In fact, the name “coronavirus” is derived from the Latin word, corona, which means “crown” or “wreath” – a reference to its “crown” of spike proteins. To be clear – all coronaviruses have spike proteins on their cell surfaces.

So scientists doing research on coronaviruses would inevitably be working with spike proteins. It doesn’t mean that they were working to create the SARS-CoV-2.

Recommended : Does FDA Document Prove COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real?!

Fact #3 : SARS Spike Protein Different From COVID-19 Spike Protein

I should also point out that the SARS spike protein is different from the COVID-19 spike protein. Not only are they physically different, they utilise different mechanisms to bind with the human ACE2 receptor.

This was extensively elucidated in a Chinese research paper by Yixin Xie et. al., that was published in the journal Frontiers in Molecular Bioscience on 9 December 2020.

The results demonstrate that SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 S proteins are both attractive to ACE2 by electrostatic forces even at different distances. However, the residues contributing to the electrostatic features are quite different due to the mutations between SARS-CoV S protein and SARS-CoV-2 S protein.

Such differences are analyzed comprehensively. Compared to SARS-CoV, the SARS-CoV-2 binds with ACE2 using a more robust strategy:

  • The electric field line related residues are distributed quite differently, which results in a more robust binding strategy of SARS-CoV-2.
  • Also, SARS-CoV-2 has a higher electric field line density than that of SARS-CoV, which indicates stronger interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2, compared to that of SARS-CoV.
  • Key residues involved in salt bridges and hydrogen bonds are identified in this study, which may help the future drug design against COVID-19.

In short – the COVID-19 coronavirus does not use the same spike protein as the SARS coronavirus that Ralph Baric was working on.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Structural differences in salt bridge residues of spike proteins Left (A) : SARS coronavirus Right (B) : COVID-19 coronavirus

Fact #3 : There Is Nothing Nefarious In March 2018 Emails

If you go through the emails, you will notice that there is nothing nefarious. Certainly, they do not show Ralph Baric saying or suggesting that he created the COVID-19 spike protein.

To make it easier for you to understand, I rearranged the emails in the right order, and highlighted the key parts in bold. The emails involve four people – Ralph Baric, Toni Baric, Peter Daszak, and Tonie Rocke, and you can read the originals here (PDF):

Peter Daszak : Toni – this is info from Ralph Baric on the nanoparticle work he’s been involved in…

Tonie Rocke : Hi Ralph: I have a couple of questions about the SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins you are developing with respect to the DARPA grant we are collaborating on.

Do you have time for a call sometime tomorrow? I have unfortunately contracted the flu so I am working from home for a few days. I’d be happy to call you if you can provide me a time and number.

Many thanks! – Tonie

As you can see, the emails basically show Tonie Rocke asking to speak to Ralph Baric about his work on the SARS virus spike protein.

At no point did it show them discussing how to insert the SARS spike protein into the COVID-19 coronavirus, or anything along those lines.

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

Fact #4 : Ralph Baric Did Not Test Spike Protein On Bats

The March 2018 emails show Tonie Rocke asking about how those proteins can be “delivered to bats”, and what had been attempted so far.

There was no indication from those emails that Ralph Baric actually successfully “delivered” those spike proteins to bats. In fact, a March 15, 2018 email show Ralph Baric stating that he has no bat colony, and no way to actually conduct the experiment.

Hi Tonie, I was definitely planning on testing whatever I could in mice, nanoparticles no problem but my understanding was that RCN doesn’t work well in mice. I have no bat colony, no way for me to do the experiment – which I definitely think needs to be done or we have no credibility. My understanding [is that] another bat colony exists in China, but not sure who is doing what.

As you can see, the emails clearly show that Ralph Baric was not testing the SARS (not COVID-19) spike protein on bats, he hadn’t even started testing it on mice!

Fact #5 : Ralph Baric Called For COVID-19 Origins Investigation

It is somewhat ironic to claim that Ralph Baric might be responsible for creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus, because he joined other scientists in signing a 2021 open letter demanding a thorough investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

While he remains sure whether SARS-CoV-2 was created by a spillover event, or a lab leak, he found fault with a joint investigation by the WHO and the Chinese government, which dismissed the chance of a lab leak as “extremely unlikely”.

Ralph Baric felt that such a conclusion was premature, given the lack of conclusive data and China’s more relaxed laboratory standards.

He pointed out to TIME in a July 2023 article that while the US restricts gain-of-function (GoF) work with dangerous pathogens to labs that are rated at a minimum of BSL-3 (like his lab), “the regulations in China are such that you can work with SARS-like bat coronaviruses in BSL-2 [Biosafety level 2] labs,” which require fewer safety features.

So Ralph Baric himself believes that a laboratory leak could still be a possibility. Would someone who purportedly created SARS-CoV-2 be so eager to call for greater scrutiny of that possibility???

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

Did scientists call for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article claiming that scientists have called for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries!

Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive) with my emphasis in bold.

Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium : My Fact Check

The CHD story appears to suggest that scientists are calling for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine because it’s dangerous. However, it’s really more like the same bunch of anti-vaccine activists repeating long-debunked claims about the mRNA vaccine, and calling (yet again) for a moratorium.

Here are the reasons why the vast majority of scientists and health authorities are ignoring them, and why you too should ignore their repeated calls for an mRNA vaccine moratorium:

Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article repeatedly points out that the paper was “peer-reviewed”, probably to suggest that it should be taken seriously. That’s not exactly accurate.

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast” at just a few days. That’s because the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

Yes, Cureus has an unusually fast review process, which is an important part of the journal’s philosophy. We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth.

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

The paper in question is a literature review called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. (archive), which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It certainly offers no evidence to back up their claim for a vaccine moratorium. Let’s just take a look at a few:

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

The paper claimed that no vaccine was permitted for market release without a testing period of at least four years, using the mumps vaccine by Merck as example. That’s not true.

The Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) vaccine was developed and approved in a record four years, but its testing did not last four years. The mumps vaccine clinical trial in 1966 (abstract) only lasted 6 months.

This paper gives the results of a large field trial of the vaccine conducted among schoolchildren in North Carolina.

Vaccination was carried out in November 1966, every tenth child receiving a placebo preparation. Serum specimens were obtained at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later from 556 children representing a cross-section of the total group of participants.

During the 180 days of post-vaccination surveillance, 56 cases of mumps were reported among the study population and 69 cases among non-participants.

There is no requirement by health authorities that testing or assessing any vaccine should last 10 years. The typical vaccine development time of 10-15 years is not a reflection of how much time a clinical trial needs to run, but rather the time it “generally” takes to create a vaccine, gather resources, get approvals, run clinical trials, process the data, file for approval, etc.

COVID-19 vaccines were so quickly developed because scientists all over the world collaborated on the effort, while governments funded their development, and fast-tracked their clinical trials and manufacturing preparations.

The speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines was also enabled by new vaccine platforms using mRNA or DNA technologies, in which genetic information from the new virus only needed to be “plugged in” to produce a new vaccine.

More importantly – the paper provided no evidence that the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines has actually resulted in unsafe vaccines.

Recommended : Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Were Not Proven Safe / Effective?

The Mead et. al. paper claimed or suggested that the clinical trials did not show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe or effective because too few people in the unvaccinated (placebo) group died from COVID-19.

Well, not only is that a “misunderstanding” of the clinical trial results (see the next section), many studies have been conducted into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 since they were deployed.

Those real world studies (example, example, example) consistently showed that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective.

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

The Mead et. al. paper repeats the old trope that the low absolute risk (AR) seen in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials mean there is no need for anyone to get vaccinated. That’s simply not true, and is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of statistical calculations.

The Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) will “always appear low” because it depends very much on the “event rate”. As the Meedan Health Desk explained:

Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick.

Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).

For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).

Hence, the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is used instead to determine a vaccine’s efficacy, because it tells us how much risk is reduced in the vaccinated group, compared to the unvaccinated control group.

To be clear – the clinical trials and post-vaccination monitoring and studies have clearly shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.

Recommended : Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that the CDC said that “COVID-19 products would stop transmission”, but in the end “COVID-19 mRNA products do not prevent transmission or infection”. Well, that’s not really true.

For one thing – the CDC never said that COVID-19 vaccines would stop transmission. In fact, the CDC article the paper linked to only said that the vaccines appear to reduce (not stop) transmission:

… a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission.

To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to reduce or prevent severe disease and death, which is why transmission for not an endpoint for their clinical trials. It would have been a nice bonus to block transmission completely, but partially reducing transmission is not too bad.

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

The Mead et. al. paper warns us about the many Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported after COVID-19 vaccinations. The problem is – those AESI are not actual vaccine side effects!

The AESI list for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for example has 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events, but that is not a list of the mRNA vaccine side effects. It is a list of “adverse events” that Pfizer must look for during the post-vaccination monitoring period. Not only are these “adverse events” not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, they include:

  • diseases like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, and other “communicable disease”,
  • exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
  • manufacturing and lab test issues, and even…
  • product availability and supply issues!

Needless to say – those adverse events are not vaccine side effects, or are any indication of vaccine performance or safety in any way.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID?!

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

The Mead et. al. paper also claimed that two large drug safety reporting systems in the US and Europe have over 7.8 million reports of adverse events, with “death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions”. It is probably referring to VAERS and EudraVigilance.

The thing is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that “autopsy studies” showed that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”.

The problem is – the study it referred to was a preprint by one of its own authors – Peter McCullough, that was removed by The Lancet for violating its “screening criteria”.

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.

Not only was that study just a “review” of autopsy reports, many of the cases had other far more likely causes of death.

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

The paper suggested that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA “orders of magnitude higher than the EMA’s limit”.

The truth is – residual DNA is found in all biological products manufactured using cells, and has not shown any health risk after being studied for many decades.

In any case, the amount of residual DNA in mRNA vaccines were found to be far below regulatory limits.

Pfizer Vaccine Has DNA From SV40 Virus That Causes Cancer?!

The paper also warned about the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter found in samples of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why? Because it warns – the SV40 virus “induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals”.

First of all – after decades of studies, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.

In any case, the SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that is often used to manufacture mRNA, and is not dangerous. It certainly poses no cancer risk, because the part of the SV40 that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen, is not present in the SV40 promoter, or the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did China Just Develop 100% Lethal COVID Virus?!

Did scientists in China just develop a new COVID virus that is 100% lethal to “humanised” mice?!

Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : China Just Developed 100% Lethal COVID Virus!

People are sharing articles with alarming headlines that claim or suggest that scientists in China just developed a new COVID virus that is 100% lethal to “humanised” mice!

China Develops New Covid Strain With 100% Mortality In Humanised Mice

Chinese lab crafts mutant COVID-19 strain with 100% kill rate in ‘humanized’ mice

Chinese scientists ‘create’ a mutant coronavirus strain that attacks the BRAIN and has a 100% kill rate in mice

China continues experiments with ‘lethal’ COVID strain

China toys with deadly new COVID strain: When will the madness end?

As such, some people are claiming on social media that Chinese scientists were creating bioweapons or Disease X through Gain-of-Function experiments:

DiedSuddenly : New study shows that a new lab created disease out of China (Disease X) has a 100% fatality rate in humanized mice by infecting the nervous system.

Recommended : New DARPA Docs Confirm COVID-19 Was Created In China?!

 

Truth : China Did Not Develop New COVID Virus!

Let’s take a look at the study, and find out why scientists in China did not actually developed a new lethal COVID strain!

Fact #1 : Chinese Study Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed

First, I should also point out that the Chinese study, which was conducted by Lai Wei et. al. has not been peer-reviewed – the first step or many in the scientific review process.

Hence, it has not been published in a journal, but in bioRxiv – a preprint server operated by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). You can read the paper in full here.

While that does not mean its findings are wrong, such preprint papers should “not be considered for clinical application, nor relied upon for news reporting as established information“, as per CSHL.

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Means Coronavirus Disease 2019

I should also point out that COVID-19 is short for Coronavirus Disease 2019, and it refers to the disease, not the virus. COVID-19 is not the name of the virus, which is called SARS-CoV-2.

Even though there are many diseases caused by coronaviruses, there is only one disease named under this convention, which is COVID-19, and it is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So it would be wrong to refer to other coronaviruses, or the diseases that they cause, as COVID.

Fact #3 : Chinese Study Was Done On GX_P2V Virus

The Chinese study did not perform any research on the COVID-19 coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Instead, it was conducted on a mutated variant of GX_P2V, which is a pangolin coronavirus.

As they had never studied this GX_P2V mutant variant, the Chinese scientists decided to clone and test its pathogenicity in hACE2 mice.

Recommended : Jeffrey Epstein List : Watch Out For Fake Lists!

Fact #4 : The GX_P2V Virus Mutated In Cell Culture

Right at the beginning, the study authors pointed out that they did not “create” the GX_P2V virus. Instead, it spontaneously mutated when the original GX/2017 virus was cultured in 2017.

  • A coronavirus related to SARS-CoV-2 was identified prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2017. Hence, it was called GX/2017.
  • The virus was cultured in 2017, and the isolate was called GX_P2V.
  • The GX_P2V virus isolate was found to infect both golden hamsters and hACE2 mice (transgenic mice that express the human ACE2 receptor), although it did not appear to cause disease.
  • It was later discovered that the virus mutated while it was cultured into a mutant that had 104 nucleotides deleted at the 3′-UTR site. This mutated variant was named as GX_P2V(short_3UTR).

From what was written in the paper, the Chinese scientists were not conducting Gain-of-Function (GoF) experiments. The GX_P2V coronavirus mutated on its own while being cultured.

The scientists even pointed out in their paper that coronaviruses have a “propensity” to “undergo rapid adaptive mutation in cell culture”. They were merely testing this mutant that was discovered earlier, but they did not test before.

Fact #5 : Type Of hACE2 Mice Used May Affect Results

hACE2 mice are transgenic mice that were developed to express the human ACE2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) receptor. Multiple hACE2 mice models have been created (example), expressing the human ACE2 in different tissues.

The Lai Wei et. al. study used the hACE2 mouse model from Beijing SpePharm Biotechnology Company, which was created using the random integration technology.

As the authors noted, the company has not published any papers on its mouse model, but their results suggest that the human ACE2 may be “highly expressed” in the brain of this particular hACE2 mouse model. If so, that could explain why the infection caused death through brain infection.

The authors also noted that these hACE2 mice had “abnormal physiology”, with “relatively reduced serum triglyceride, cholesterol, and lipase levels”.

Recommended : Did US Biolabs In Ukraine Create COVID-19 Virus?!

Fact #6 : An Earlier Study Contradicted Their Findings

The study authors pointed out that their report was the “first” to show that a pangolin coronavirus can cause 100% mortality in hACE2 mice. They also pointed out that their results were “inconsistent” with that of the earlier Zhengli Shi et. al. study.

The Zhengli Shi et. al. study (source), which tested the GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant variant, found that it caused lung infections without severe disease in two different hACE2 mouse models.

Our findings are evidently inconsistent with those of Zhengli Shi et al. (5), who tested the virulence of GX_P2V in two different hACE2 mouse models.

The authors cautioned that there may be differences between their GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant variants as they may have mutated further during their respective laboratory cultures.

Again, this does not mean that both teams were conducting Gain-of-Function (GoF) modification of the pangolin coronaviruses. They were testing a variant of the GX_P2V pangolin coronavirus that spontaneously mutated through cell culture adaptation.

But these contradictory findings of the GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant means there is more work to be done. For certain, the Lai Wei et. al. study would need to be peer-reviewed, and verified through replication.

In short – more research is needed, and no, Chinese scientists did not just create a bioweapon…

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did mRNA Vaccine Creator Develop Bell’s Palsy?!

Did mRNA vaccine creator, Ozlem Tureci, just develop Bell’s palsy after getting vaccinated against COVID-19?! Find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-01-12 : Added more information on Bell’s palsy and Justin Bieber
Originally posted @ 2024-01-11

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Bell’s Palsy!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch) and The Daily Sceptic (archive), claiming or suggesting that the co-creator of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine creator, Ozlem Tureci, is suffering from Bell’s palsy after getting vaccinated against COVID-19.

The People’s Voice even alleges in its article that there was a media blackout. Here’s an excerpt:

mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Developed Full-Blown Facial Paralysis – Media Blackout

Here is an excerpt from The Daily Sceptic. Please skip to the next section for the facts.

BioNTech-Pfizer Vaccine Creator Obviously Suffers From Bell’s Palsy – But No One Talks About It

Recommended : Were COVID-19 Vaccines Recalled After 40K Deaths?!

BioNTech founders – Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Bell’s Palsy!

This appears to be yet another example of FAKE NEWS, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Bell’s Palsy Not Commonly Seen With COVID-19 Vaccines

Bell’s palsy is not commonly seen with COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, it is not even officially listed as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect.

Studies (example) have shown that the post-vaccination incidence of Bell’s palsy is about the same as that of the baseline incidence.

  • Baseline : 25 cases per 100,000 population per year
  • Post-vaccination : 25.3 cases per 100,000 population per year

When people point out that four people in the Pfizer clinical trial developed Bell’s palsy, they conveniently leave out the fact that with the large sample size, roughly four people were expected to develop Bell’s palsy even without vaccination. So the incidence of Bell’s palsy in the Pfizer clinical trial was within normal incidence.

Fact #2 : Ozlem Tureci Does Not Appear To Have Bell’s Palsy!

Frankly, it is a terrible idea to remotely diagnose any medical condition. But as far as I can see, Dr. Ozlem Tureci does not appear to have Bell’s palsy.

Bell’s palsy presents as the sudden muscle weakness or paralysis on one side of the face. If Ozlem has Bell’s palsy, she won’t just have a drooping eyelid. She will have facial paralysis on the left side of her face – the left side of her mouth would also droop with a loss of the nasolabial fold, and she would not be able to close her eyes.

If you watch the videos which show her with a drooping eyelid, you can see that she’s speaking normally, and the corner of her mouth isn’t drooping to the left. There is also a visible nasolabial fold on the left side. All indications that she does not have Bell’s palsy.

Instead, Ozlem Tureci just appears to have ptosis – the drooping of her left eyelid. This is common in older people.

Fact #3 : Ozlem Had Drooping Eyelid Before mRNA Vaccine Approval

Dr. Ozlem Tureci was seen sporting a ptosis before the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was ever approved for use in December 2020.

When The New York Times published its story on Dr. Özlem and her partner-husband, Dr. Uğur Şahin, on 10 November 2020, the marquee photo showed her with a pronounced ptosis – drooping of her left eyelid.

Yet, you can clearly see that her mouth was not drooping on the left side, and she still had a prominent nasolabial fold on the left side of her face.

Recommended : Did COVID-19 Vaccines Cause 17 Million Deaths?!

Fact #4 : Ozlem Had Drooping Eyelid As Early As 2016

Just in case you are wondering if she might have secretly tested the BioNTech mRNA vaccine on herself, she already had that ptosis more than 3 years before the COVID-19 pandemic started, and more than 4 years before the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was approved.

On 29 August 2016, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper published a video on Dr. Özlem Türeci and Dr. Uğur Şahin developing customised cancer treatments.

In that video, you can clearly see that Dr. Ozlem already had a visible ptosis. But again, she was able to speak clearly, her mouth did not droop on the left side, and she had a visible nasolabial fold on the left.

Fact #5 : Bell’s Palsy Is Temporary

While the symptoms of Bell’s palsy are similar to that of a stroke, it isn’t a serious condition. Neither is it debilitating as some have suggested or claimed.

Bell’s palsy is also temporary – most people recover within 3 weeks, even without treatment. A small percentage will take 3-6 months to recover. Patients are generally treated with corticosteroids to speed recovery.

Even if Dr. Ozlem had Bell’s palsy at any point in time, it would have resolved by itself or with treatment, within a few months. As she appears to have a drooping left eyelid for at least 7.5 years now, her ptosis is most definitely not from Bell’s palsy.

Fact #6 : Justin Bieber Did Not Have Bell’s Palsy

Some people appear to be (intentionally?) conflating Ramsay Hunt Syndrome with Bell’s palsy. They have suggested or claimed that Justin Bieber was another victim of Bell’s palsy from COVID-19 vaccination. That’s simply not true.

Justin Bieber had Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, not Bell’s palsy. On top of that, he explained in June 2022 that his facial paralysis was caused by a viral infection.

I have this syndrome called Ramsay Hunt syndrome and it is from this virus that attacks the nerve in my ear and my facial nerves and has caused my face to have paralysis.

As you can see this eye is not blinking. I can’t smile on this side of my face; this nostril will not move. So there’s full paralysis on this side of my face.

Recommended : Did Justin Bieber Get Facial Paralysis From COVID Vaccine?!

Fact #7 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Publishing Fake News

The People’s Voice is the current name for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.

Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.

Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should NEVER share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice.  Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:

The Daily Sceptic is also known for publishing misinformation. You should never share anything they post, until you have verified them to be true and accurate.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Can Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Cause Liver Damage?!

Did an Australian study show that Bak Kut Teh herbal soup can cause liver damage?!

Take a look at what the study showed, and what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2023-11-24 : Refreshed after claims went viral again
Originally posted @ 2022-07-15

 

Study : Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Can Cause Liver Damage!

Australian scientists caused a ruckus in 2022 when their study alleged that the Asian herbal soup called Bak Kut Teh can cause liver damage.

The media excitedly jumped on it, with alarming titles to draw attention (and drive traffic?) :

Adelaide Now : Adelaide forensic expert issues safety warning over liver failure soup

ABC : Bak kut teh herbal soup may cause liver damage and interact with medication, study finds

Medical Xpress : Popular Malaysian soup can cause liver damage when mixed with medication

The Epoch Times : University Professor Warns of Risks Caused by Popular Chinese Soup

Says : Australian Researchers Find Bak Kut Teh Can Cause Liver Damage When Taken With Medicine

Recommended : Viral Video Proves Japanese Food Is Radioactive?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage!

Despite the alarming titles, there is no need to panic… because the study does NOT show the herbal soup causing any liver damage.

Here is a quick summary for those who just need to know the basics :

  1. It was a laboratory study, which means the results may not translate into actual effect in a living human being.
  2. What we eat is digested and broken down, so our body absorbs the nutrients and not the actual food. Hence, the study does not accurately replicate what happens in our body.
  3. They didn’t test bak kut teh… they only tested four soup bases used to make bak kut teh.
  4. The soup concentrations were unspecified, so it is unknown if the doses are equivalent to what our livers are subjected to after a meal.
  5. They did not test drug interactions, so it is amazing how so many media outlets claimed that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication!

In short, this study does not show that bak kut teh causes liver damage. Neither does it show bak kut teh causing drug interactions of any kind.

I understand Professor Byard’s concerns about the “unknown” contents of these soup base preparations. Certain traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) have been associated with acute liver failure.

However, that isn’t so much a “bak kut teh” problem, but rather a problem with traditional Chinese medicine or Chinese herbal medicine.

For those who are interested in the details, please scroll down to the next section.

 

Why Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage

Let’s start with the basics, and work our way through the Australian study.

Fact #1 : Study Was Conducted By Australian Scientists

First, the study was conducted by University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne scientists – Susan M. Britza, Rachael Farrington, Ian F. Musgrave, Craig Aboltins and Roger W. Byard.

It was published in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, and you can read the study here.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

It is important to note that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, in-vitro studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what happens in a test tube, may not happen in an actual human being.

Read more : Did Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours?!

Fact #3 : What We Eat Is Not What Our Body Absorbs

There is one big problem with doing in-vitro tests on food – what we eat is not what our body absorbs.

Food gets digested, and broken down into nutrients that are absorbed in our intestines. Even simple sugar gets broken down into glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, sucrose, etc.

So soaking liver cells in a bak kut teh soup would most definitely not reflect what our liver cells actually experience after a bak kut teh meal.

In short, this study does not replicate what happens in our liver when we eat bak kut teh.

Fact #4 : There Are Many Types Of Bak Kut Teh

Bak Kut Teh is not so much a “herbal soup” as it is a pork soup dish. The name “bak kut teh” literally means “meat bone tea” in the Hokkien dialect, but there is no tea in it.

It is usually just a dish of pork ribs simmered for hours in a broth of common herbs and spices like star anise, cinnamon, cloves, dong quai, fennel seeds and garlic.

But there are many variants of bak kut teh. In Malaysia and Singapore where bak kut teh is most popular, there are at least four main “styles” :

  • Teochew style : light in colour, with more pepper and garlic
  • Hokkien style : darker and more fragrant, thanks to a variety of herbs and soy sauce
  • Cantonese style : includes medicinal herbs for a stronger flavoured soup
  • Klang style : a thick and sticky gravy, like a stew

On top of that, there are also chicken and beef versions of bak kut teh. Muslims, for example, love the chicken version, which is colloquially called chi kut teh, chi being short for chicken.

And the Malaysian town of Melaka serves a delicious beef bak kut teh, which is based on a unique black pepper soup with red fermented bean curd.

Fact #5 : They Tested Four Soup Bases

The Australian team were somewhat aware of the wide variety of bak kut teh soup bases. They tested four varieties :

  • Formulation 1 : Dried hawthorn
  • Formulation 2 : Goji berries, ginseng, bark, and dried mushrooms
  • Formulation 3 : Polygonatum odoratum, ligusticum chuanxiong, codonopsis pilosula, cinnamomum cassia, angelica sinensis, illicium verum, piper nigrum, and Eugenia caryophyllata
  • Formulation 4 : Spices, pepper and salt

It is important to note that instead of preparing bak kut teh like you and I would – with meat, vegetables, bean curd slices, etc., the researchers tested soups that were created only using the ingredients listed above.

In short, they did not actually test bak kut teh… they tested soups made from the ingredients above.

Fact #6 : Soup Concentration Was Unspecified

To prepare the four soups for testing, researchers added a sachet of each soup mix to boiling water (of unspecified quantity) for 5 minutes.

The concentration of each soup base was unspecified. They only listed the dilution factor. As such, it is quite impossible to draw any sort of conclusion from the results.

As any toxicologist will tell you – the dose makes the poison. This is why the concentration of any substance is critical in any study. Even water and oxygen – essential to human life to be sure – is toxic at high doses.

Fact #7 : Soups Were Prepared In 5 Minutes

It is important to point out that the soups the researchers used were prepared in just 5 minutes. Bak kut teh is usually prepared by simmering the meat in the soup for hours.

It would have been a good idea to prepare the soup bases like real bak kut teh soup, because boiling the soup for several hours could potentially break down toxins present in its ingredients.

In fact, it would have been better for the researchers to just buy real bak kut teh, instead of resorting to their soup bases prepared in just 5 minutes.

Fact #8 : They Tested Using HepG2 Liver Cancer Cells

It is also important to note that the researchers tested the soup bases by adding them to HepG2 cell cultures, not normal liver cells.

HepG2 is a hepatoblastoma (a type of liver cancer) cell line that was obtained from a 15 year-old boy suffering from liver cancer in 1975.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that – HepG2 is commonly used to test cytotoxicity of substances. Still, it must still be pointed out that HepG2 is not the same thing as normal liver cells.

In-vitro studies based on these cells should not be used to draw any conclusion, only used to drive further research.

Differences HepG2 Cells Normal Liver Cells
Cell Size 12-19 µm 15 µm
Cell Shape Polygonal Cube
Nuclei Single large nuclei
with 3-7 nucleoli
Two or more nuclei
Mitochondrial Content Low High
Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum Poorly Developed High
No. of Chromosomes 50-60 46
DNA Content 7.5 pg ~6 pg
Genome Stability Unstable Stable

Fact #9 : Spices, Pepper + Salt Did Worst In Their Tests

What I found most interesting in their results was the fact that the most “toxic” soup was Formulation 4, which consisted of nothing more than spices, pepper and salt.

Formulation 4 showed the most significant toxicity to the HepG2 cell line with approximately 83% cell death before dilution (p < 0.0001) and persistent toxicity even with dilution 1:10 (15% ± 3.7, p = 0.023) and 1:1000 (14% ± 3.8, p = 0.024)

Well, that’s gonna worry fans of Kentucky Fried Chicken, which boasts 11 herbs and spices, including pepper and salt!

Jokes aside, this result suggest that common spices, pepper and salt are more toxic to HepG2 liver cells than the more fanciful bak kut teh preparations!

Fact #10 : They Did Not Test Drug Interactions

I’m not sure how this study touches on drug interaction, since they didn’t test the soup bases with common hepatotoxic drugs like paracetamol to see if there is a synergistic effect.

No matter how you slice and dice this study’s results, they tell us nothing about any possible interaction with other herbs / drugs.

Yet so many media outlets made the startling claim that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication! Nowhere in the study does it say that!

It appears that most of these journalists probably did not even bother to read the study, and perhaps only paraphrased what other people were writing.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did US + UK Create COVID-19 As Bioweapon?!

Did the US and UK governments create COVID-19 as part of a coronavirus bioweapon project since 1965?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : US + UK Created COVID-19 As Bioweapon!

People are sharing TikTok, YouTube and Rumble videos of David E. Martin at International COVID Summit III, explaining how the US and UK governments allegedly developed the coronavirus as a bioweapon since discovering it in 1965.

Some are sharing it as evidence that COVID-19 was created as a bioweapon, while pro-CCP netizens and the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛) are sharing it as evidence that the COVID-19 was created by the West, not China!

“This [covid] is an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race” Dr David Martin International Covid Summit, European Parliament:

COVID was First Isolated in 1965. Pfizer’s First Spike Protein Patent was filed in 1990. That’s Also When They Found Out That Vaccines For COVID Can’t Work. – Dr David Martin International COVID Summit III – European Parliament, Brussels 05.04.2023

Folks – listen to this to understand where covid came from.

Finally, we know the true culprit that created and caused the Covid-19 pandemic which killed millions, so who is the evil of the world today…..China or the USA?

Recommended : COVID vaccines have 1000X death rate than safe limit?!

 

No Evidence US + UK Created COVID-19 As Bio-Weapon!

This appears to be yet another example of FAKE NEWS circulating on WhatsApp and social media platforms like TikTok and Twitter, and here are the reasons why!

Fact #1 : It Was From International COVID Summit III

The viral video clip above is from the International COVID Summit III, which appears to be a private conference organised by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccination activists:

Held in the Anna Lindh room of the European Parliament, it was not an official EU or European Parliament event, and had only 5 MEPs attend as “co-hosting members” of the event.

You can read all about the ICS3 in my earlier article, Why International COVID Summit III Criticised Vaccine!

Fact #2 : Coronavirus Was First Isolated In 1930s

David Martin said that the first coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965. Well, I have no idea what he meant by “as a model of a pathogen”, but that’s wrong on several counts.

  • first coronavirus sample (IBV) was isolated in 1930s
  • second coronavirus sample (MHV) was isolated in 1947
  • third coronavirus sample (B814) was isolated in 1961
  • fourth coronavirus sample (229-E) was isolated in 1966
  • all four virus samples were determined to be from same group, and named “coronavirus” in 1967

The first known sample of a coronavirus was isolated and identified as a virus in 1933. That virus was called infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) in 1936, but later renamed as Avian coronavirus.

The second sample of a coronavirus was discovered in 1947. At that time, it was also not known as a coronavirus, but called mouse hepatitis virus (MHV). It would later be renamed as Murine coronavirus.

In 1961, a sample was isolated from a British schoolboy who was suffering from the common cold. That sample, designated as B814, was later confirmed to be a novel (new) virus in 1965. However, it was not called a coronavirus in 1965 either.

In 1966, new samples of a different virus – designated 229-E, were collected from University of Chicago medical students suffering from the common cold. Even then, that virus was not known as a coronavirus.

Recommended : Did CDC Say COVID Vaccines Cause AIDS + Cancer?!

Fact #3 : Coronavirus Was Identified + Named In 1967

In the video, David Martin appears to say that the “coronavirus was identified in 1965 as one of the first infectious, replicatable viral models that could be used to modify a series of to her experiences of human conditions“.

I have no idea what most of the word salad meant, including the word “replicatable”, but I can tell you that the coronavirus was only identified as a new group of viruses in 1967, not 1965.

Remember the four coronavirus samples that were collected earlier? They were new viruses, but were not known as coronavirus at that time. It was only in 1967 that an electron microscope analysis of those four different viral samples showed that all four viruses belong to the same group.

It was only in 1967, that June Almeida and David Terrell made that discovery, and called the new group of viruses “coronavirus”, based on the characteristic spikes on their surfaces that make them look like the sun’s corona.

Fact #4 : 1967 Experiment Did Not Involve Human Manipulation

In the video, David Martin appears to say that “in 1966, the very first CoV coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation“.

He would later repeat this saying “in 1967 – the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus“.

He listed his source as the 1967 study called Effects of a “New” Human Respiratory Virus in Volunteers (PDF download). He may have mixed up his dates a little. In any case, his claim is wrong on multiple levels:

  • that was the fourth and most recent coronavirus sample – 229-E
  • the virus was not known to be a coronavirus at that time
  • the study did not involve human manipulation

What the British scientists did was give the 229-E virus to volunteers to determine :

  • if it causes colds, and
  • the serum neutralising antibody when infected with viruses of this type

There was no manipulation and no modification of the 229-E virus sample before it was given to volunteers.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk?!

Fact #5 : Biological Weapons Convention Only Began In 1975

In the video, David Martin appears to wonder, “Where were we when we actually allowed, in violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties? Where were we, as a human civilisation, when we thought it was an acceptable thing to do to take a pathogen from the United States and infect the world with it? Where was that conversation and what should have been that conversation in 1967? “.

Well, for one thing – the 1967 experiment happened long before the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) came into effect on 26 March 1975. There was no conversation to be had.

In addition, the BWC does not limit scientific experiments on viruses, so even if it had been in effect, the 1967 experiment on volunteers would not have breached its rules as it was not being developed as a bioweapon! Again, there was no conversation to be had.

Fact #6 : There Are Many Coronavirus Species

The coronavirus family consists of a multitude of different viruses, with completely different characteristics. Think of them as car models – they are all cars, but every model has a different look and different characteristics.

Hence, it is wrong to associate past coronaviruses with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Any genetic link has to be determined by its genetic code, not by when a virus was discovered!

By 2020, scientists have discovered at least 45 coronavirus species, which were classified into four different genera – Alphacoronavirus, Betacoronavirus, Deltacoronavirus, and Gammacoronavirus.

SARS-CoV-2 is a Betacoronavirus that is most closely related to SARS-CoV-1 – the virus that caused the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004. However, it was a novel (new) coronavirus when it was discovered, and was not derived / engineered / developed from SARS-CoV-1.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon from the SARS-CoV-1, or any other coronavirus species.

Recommended : Did US Intentionally Release COVID Virus In Wuhan?!

Fact #7 : No Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Was Engineered

What David Martin said at the International COVID Summit sounds startling, but if you analyse his word salad and sources carefully, you will realise that he has not actually offered any evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in any way, much less developed as a bioweapon!

It is plausible that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and accidentally released in a leak of some sort, but that has never proven one way or another. It is just as plausible that it was brought into Wuhan by some yet-to-be-identified animal host.

There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and released as a bioweapon.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!