Jan 25, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Wonderful essay. My personal favorite is:

I absolutely LOVE THIS:

sustained COVID-19 infections that overtime more protection was produced against HCoV-OC43’s spike that its own, in an apparent expression of Original Antigenic Sin, that should’ve defined SARS-CoV-2’s infective family and provided clues to its origins – not a paradox.

Paradoxical because HCoV-OC43 is a coronavirus that’s been endemic to humans for at least 100 years, possibly originally jumping into humans during a bovine-based pandemic in the late 19th century, and traces its origins through cows and back to mice.

Expand full comment

Also, China seems to be very extreme on lockdowns.

It also does things that we do not do, like spraying surfaces and using flame throwers. What does China know that "we" do not know? Specifically about how it spreads?

Do you think they know what the virus wants to revert to?


Expand full comment
Jan 13, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

I understand that viruses may possibly cause cancers, which also deattenuate in nature. Every cancer can revert/deattenuate back into the the histology of the basic tissue of origin. My postulate is that viruses effect these tissues and swarm into cancers of the host tissue substrates, as well as other strains of the virus. This cancer effect on tissues by viruses may be caused from vaccines as well, which is not well proven only theorized in both accounts. But if it proves to be a possibility that viruses/vaccines create cancers, then how much new cancer is being created with COVID-19 and it's multiple vaccines?

The organ systems that manifest the virus, may not only allow it to develop into various strains of virus for the particular organ in a swarm, but also may develop many types of cancer for host tissues in a viral swarm: cancer on a quantum mathematical scale.

Expand full comment
Nov 23, 2022·edited Nov 23, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Outstanding work Dan, thank you. You got serious flak for this, going public took real courage. Three (perhaps borderline helpful) points, next post three questions.

(1) Can't believe that these questions, especially the implications of quasispecies swarm behavior, are not widely addressed by the scientific community. This goes beyond SARS-CoV-2.

(2) Yet I understand: it took me more than a year to start & finish some (most?) of your essays after first seeing them, because they are at odds with the wider literature that so many keep churning out. Same dynamics as we see in climate science, where the essential - and challenging detail - is easily buried in a mass of ill-understood mainstream trivialities. No easy way out but to laserfocus on what matters most.

(3) Confronting the masses with complexity they cannot possibly solve is a conscious choice (=flooding the zone) for both the pandemic and climate breakdown - call it schismogenesis, bodyguard manipulation or "gamification" of public policy, to take some of the twitter hashtags we've been attributing to it -, because public discourse could easily be reorganized if people wanted. Key question: what now?

[edit: inserted second part here for context; I first thought it's too long]

Three questions that would help me to see clarified:

(4) You mention "unproven" mRNA vaccine technology: is it? - "The basic formulation for the current mRNA vaccine was submitted for patent in 2010. A MERS adoption was field tested for 10 years on every military member vacationing with a gun to the hostile parts of Middle East." (https://twitter.com/RealCheckMarker/status/1585284107331899394) - The level of public discourse is poor especially among many anti-vaccine conspiracy folks and pandemic youtube doctors, who misled their audience. After global Let 'er R.I.P policy, outside China there is no good way anymore to separate experiment and control groups, as any experimental setup may be contaminated from past infections. Hence the history of the vaccine may merit more serious analysis.

(5) You mention that a vaccine targeting the full genome may be preferrable to the first-gen spike-focused ones. How does this fit with one of the possible pathogenesis theories, whereby a nucleocapsid (N protein)-heavy response contributes to organ damage, and a spike-heavy response may be preferred? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01133-5

This is no rhetorical question; many of you will have looked into the complement-mediated damage in SARS-CoV-2. I'm probably just overlooking some simple mechanisms that connects the complement cascade to the vast majority of ongoing research.

Let me quote one abstract, as this may help readers get the context (preprint from 2020, published 2022): "Excessive inflammatory responses contribute to the pathogenesis and lethality of highly pathogenic human coronaviruses, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. In this study, the N proteins of highly pathogenic human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), were found to bind MASP-2, a key serine protease in the lectin pathway of complement activation, resulting in excessive complement activation by potentiating MBL-dependent MASP-2 activation, and the deposition of MASP-2, C4b, activated C3 and C5b-9. Aggravated inflammatory lung injury was observed in mice infected with adenovirus expressing the N protein. Complement hyperactivation was also observed in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Either blocking the N protein:MASP-2 interaction, MASP-2 depletion or suppressing complement activation can significantly alleviate N protein-induced complement hyperactivation and lung injury in vitro and in vivo. Altogether, these data suggested that complement suppression may represent a novel therapeutic approach for pneumonia induced by these highly pathogenic coronaviruses."

(6) Most important. What now?

(6a) SARS 2003/2004 was eradicated through simple international surveillance and quarantining a few international travellers, as WHO member states cooperated with WHO and then implemented the legally binding IHR 2005 (https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations and national Pandemic Playbooks). MERS 2006 and H1N1 2009 likewise. In contrast, there was no cooperation as SARS-CoV-2 in 2019/2020 was allowed to rip, forcing the global population to deal with unmanageable consequences. This led to "gamification" of public policy, with constantly changing mandates, bad public health communications, and the current state we all now. Understandably, most people worldwide are lost, including journalists and MPs who could hold nation states accountable to act on their existing legal obligations under the IHR 2005. No one is explaining this other than a few of us on twitter - a stunning institutional dysfunction that should have far higher priority than most other COVID questions and even the origins. This is where you come in:

(6b) What does this legal framework imply for quasispecies mutant swarm dynamics? What are best and worst case scenarios in your view? I speculate that there could be significant progress from focusing on international surveillance and cooperation under WHO mechanisms, but that is hard to quantify as long as only China pursues some - arguably highly dysfunctional - version of suppression or elimination strategy. We now use the term ZeroCovid policy, but it was not needed to eradicate SARS. With the original Wuhan 2019 strain effectively eradicated, and otherwise unmitigated evolution, it could be promising to integrate your analysis with the existing, legally binding institutional framework (6a). Most ignore this perspective, but if anyone can end this pandemic, it is lawyers, not pharmaceutical companies. Would be good to lay the ground.

Great essays & questions here, thanks all!

Expand full comment
Mar 27, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Hello Dan,

I pray that you are doing well. Great essay!

Do you have a working link for the paper that you linked in this paragraph?

"And in a different region of the genome called ORF6, the proteins “produced more efficient antagonists of innate immunity than their orthologs from SARS-CoV lineages,” another effect that you’d want from a live-attenuated vaccine - but wouldn’t be expected to evolve in nature unless a bat colony was planning on putting on a production of Rent."

Was it about interferon suppression?

Thank you in advance for your help with this.



Expand full comment
Feb 5, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Dan, in reading your articles you refer to the "original fully-virulent V-1000 form" of the virus. I'm trying to understand this information and seem to be getting lost. Would you mind describing this? Thanks

Expand full comment
Jan 20, 2022·edited Jan 20, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

If Covid was a poorly prepared live attenuated vaccine for something else, as you allude to, then perhaps the people who had Covid, have in a poor way inoculated themselves for "what is to come", for that "something else"?

I cannot shake off the thought that "something else" is Omicron, and Covid-19 was a vaccine against Omicron. In this hypothesis, Omicron is a bioweapon, which spreads fast, is unstoppable, and conveniently has a mysterious delayed effect, for example killing immune system or being a prion or whatever.

Is there something that you know, that makes the above supposition contrary to known facts?

Expand full comment

Also do you think that "Omicron" is a result of natural course of event or is a lab product? I cannot explain lack of synonymous mutation by anything natural, but I am not a geneticist.

Expand full comment
Jan 4, 2022·edited Jan 4, 2022Liked by Harvard2TheBigHouse

Thanks. I finished reading Part II. Perhaps I did not get some things but I understood most paragraphs. I do understand that it is complicated and I am a scrap man, formerly computer science and business major. Thank you

Expand full comment

What are you let views on masks? Surely if the swarm is around your body as you breath a mask makes no difference expect for the angle of departure from the face?

What about vaccination. Is it better to have some protection than none at all if we will all be in the same position eventually?

As you seem to be an expert in this field, what would you predict we will see next in terms of gatekeeping mutations etc?

In your research what kind of chimera could we be looking at? IFR etc

And going forwards what would concern you the most? ADE,OAS, some type of mareks disease. If you had to pick a side in a better position would it be vaxxed or unvaxed?

Expand full comment