15 Comments
Apr 22Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

I confirm what it written here when it involves the COVID work. I trust the rest.

Expand full comment
Apr 22Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Congratulations on getting the recognition for your 2020 paper, it seems facts are moving in your direction, and opinion will surely follow. Best wishes

Expand full comment
author

Sure hope so, lots of corpses laying around waiting for the truth to get out.

Expand full comment
May 13Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

In case you haven't seen this article yet, here's more circumstantial evidence to support the lab origin of SARS-COV-2. Best wishes. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the tip, and yeah decent summary of the broad picture!

Expand full comment
Apr 21Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

nice

Expand full comment
May 14Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Dan, have you seen the transcript of the interview of Ralph Baric to the US congress subcommittee on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic? Would appreciate your comments on Baric's testimony: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Baric-TI-Transcript.pdf?

Expand full comment
author

It's kinda long so I haven't actually read it, but from what I skimmed: Baric's a good liar. Let me know if there are any particular exchanges you're curious about, but yeah - he's lying. DEFUSE is a distraction, and the idea that COVID "leaked" is too - it's a reverting LAV, and Baric is well aware, and the government seems to be either complicit in hiding that, or too stupid for the line of questioning.

As far as I can tell, all the investigations going are are just a dog and pony show. They are aren't addressing why the DNI forbid discussions of "serial passage" nor anything else that would get them to the truth.

Expand full comment
May 14Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

It is long and difficult to get thru, but yes I have a few questions about the testimony that I would like your opinion about, and am working to summarize those points succinctly and will forward shortly.

Expand full comment
May 14Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Dan, here are some issues raised in Baric's testimony which I wanted to share in hopes of gaining your insight into his claims, plus some casual comments with suggest a whole lot more going on than was talked about in this deposition.

p 27 lines 637-

Baric is asked if he knows Dr. Shi Zhengli. He answers "I've known her mostly by email. I think we have met at a couple of meetings". Is that true? Then he continues by revealing he sent "transgenic mice" to her lab in Wuhan which I think are the humanized mice used in her experiments like the one published in Nature Medicine in 2015. Is that correct?

p 49 lines 1189

Baric states that he never had anyone from Dr Shi's lab or any of the Wuhan Institute staff come to his lab and train. "We never taught them." True?

p. 52 lines 1264-

Baric is asked about the 2015 paper from NatureMedicine (which he and Shengli appear as senior authors) if he found that "the SHC014 spike on a mouse-adapted backbone showed reduced pathogenicity compared to a full length mouse-adapted SARS backbone. Does that sound right?"

He answers, "That's correct." He goes on to say the research resulted in a "loss of function" of the original virus.

Do you agree with that characterization?

p 52 lines 1272-

Baric alludes to serial passage experiments done by Kanta Subbarao of NIH with the original SARS-COV. These experiments may support your thesis about serial passage and the development of a LAV.

Incidentally, the 2015 paper in Nature Medicine mentions an attempt to "vaccinate" mice to SARS COV with the hybrid, chimeric creation described in the paper. Quote from the article p. 8/26: "...the use of SHC014-MA15 as a live, attenuated vaccine showed potential cross-protection against challenge with SARS-CoV, but the results have important caveats. We infected young mice with 10 p.f.u. of SHC014-MA15 and observed them for 28 d. We then challenged the mice with SARS-MA15 at day 29 (Supplementary Fig. 6a). The prior infection​ of the mice with the high dose of SHC014-MA15 conferred protection against challenge with a​ lethal dose of SARS-MA15​..."

Baric goes on to justify this research by explaining his approach to finding antidotes to natural diseases. I'll stop here and wait for any reaction you may have to what I have already written as I continue to review the deposition.

Always appreciate your comments. best wishes, John

Expand full comment
author

p 27 lines 637-

Baric is asked if he knows Dr. Shi Zhengli. He answers "I've known her mostly by email. I think we have met at a couple of meetings". Is that true? Then he continues by revealing he sent "transgenic mice" to her lab in Wuhan which I think are the humanized mice used in her experiments like the one published in Nature Medicine in 2015. Is that correct?

---------

No idea if they've met in person, don't think it matters, they've clearly been close collaborators since 2015 which is one of the first things I outlined back in January 2020: https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/logistical-and-technical-exploration

p 49 lines 1189

Baric states that he never had anyone from Dr Shi's lab or any of the Wuhan Institute staff come to his lab and train. "We never taught them." True?

-----------------------

Seems unlikely to me.

p. 52 lines 1264-

Baric is asked about the 2015 paper from NatureMedicine (which he and Shengli appear as senior authors) if he found that "the SHC014 spike on a mouse-adapted backbone showed reduced pathogenicity compared to a full length mouse-adapted SARS backbone. Does that sound right?"

He answers, "That's correct." He goes on to say the research resulted in a "loss of function" of the original virus.

Do you agree with that characterization?

---------------

Yeah that sounds right, serial passage can either strengthen or weaken a virus depending on what exactly it's being passaged through.

p 52 lines 1272-

Baric alludes to serial passage experiments done by Kanta Subbarao of NIH with the original SARS-COV. These experiments may support your thesis about serial passage and the development of a LAV.

--------

UNC is the only place on earth working on a LAV for SARS-like viruses, that's already established, so not sure if this adds much.

Expand full comment
May 15Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Thank you, that helps me understand what’s going on.

Expand full comment
author

Sure thing, not sure how much time you've had to read around, but in addition to this virus definitely coming from a lab, the other point I've been making since January 2020 is that there's clearly a massive and coordinated cover-up going on, these articles should hit the main points:

https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/dr-karl-sirotkins-letter-to-the-select

https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/first-come-the-warnings-then-comes

Expand full comment
May 7Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Finally had a chance to read through this. At least someone is referencing your work albeit secretively! Proof you and your dad's work is correct when it takes a FOIA to uncover people at the 3 letter agencies confirming your theory. And yet crickets..... fucking unbelievable.

Expand full comment
author

I KNOW RITE?! MAYBE THEY'RE HIDING SOMETHING!!

Expand full comment