French state media recently broadcast a documentary which seems to support the possibility of an artificial origin of Covid. This is a watershed in European coverage. How sincere is this new openness?
I've added your Eloit email response to mine; he somehow claimed the 2017 and 2021 projects weren’t connected because he used different funding in the Materials and Methods section.
I haven't been able to read the book yet, but feeling a bit disappointed already. Most of his points are just part of the now conventional "lab-leak"/DEFUSE theory. Obviously, that the FCS is artificial I agree with, but that's old news.
Where it could get interesting is in the RBD. Quay claims it is "humanized". This was a claim made by scientists like Nikolai Petrovsky early in the piece, and seems quite intuitive. However most of those critics went silent once Institut Pasteur produced the BANAL viruses - because they purport to show that same "humanized RBD" exist in bats in Laos.
Quay needs to explain how the "humanized" virus somehow evolved in bats too. I've got an answer: the Banal sequences are fraud. Sadly few have had the courage to support me on this. I was hoping Quay would.
They are interesting issues that this case study raises…
Epistemically important tasks at many levels depending on your particular methodology.
The bio-informatic approach is much closer to cybersecurity attribution and looks at data flows of what is…and what really really should be in the public domain.
The Bio-Strategic angle looks at the ways to sustain investment, research and innovation despite these ongoing questions and challenges:
Getting the balance right between courageous search for new knowledge, prudent action informed by reason & wisdom, self-contol such that our appetite for new knowledge in pure science fields does not outstrip regulation & other institutional factors and Justice as a means to return balance to this field when programs outstrip societal norms or fall into the banality of censorship and silencing of debate.
Both of these are important and I think where Quay has left much unsaid this work opens the door to further discussion and development of policy in a way that is already situated and supported by the establishment that needs to examine this direction.
His final chapter where he very specifically points to dual use directions linked to biological warfare programs is the place where your work and much of the work that is similar starts off.
See this book as a primer to help general public get up to speed on the risks of this brave new world.
I respect Steven Quay, he has actually done some real and useful scientific investigation (unlike blowhards like Ebright). But also I think there's some groupthink set in the lab-leak camp coalescing around the idea DEFUSE is the "blueprint". Now that has become an acceptable alternative hypothesis - you can choose one or the other. But BW remains taboo.
Yes, sorry if I missed any links. I've become used to writing for Twitter/X and linking to source sites is discouraged (a ridiculous policy).
Are there any in particular you are interested in that I missed?
I've added your Eloit email response to mine; he somehow claimed the 2017 and 2021 projects weren’t connected because he used different funding in the Materials and Methods section.
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/lets-be-blunt-the-us-government-collected
I really appreciate your analyses on this issue. Thanks for sharing
Dr Steven Quay's new book
<<The Code as Witness: COVID Origins, Scientific Accountability, and Preventing the Next Pandemic>>
An important step in COVID Origin research and the PostCOVID task of healing science and our institutions... such that they are fit for purpose again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alz26Z5-e_o
I haven't been able to read the book yet, but feeling a bit disappointed already. Most of his points are just part of the now conventional "lab-leak"/DEFUSE theory. Obviously, that the FCS is artificial I agree with, but that's old news.
Where it could get interesting is in the RBD. Quay claims it is "humanized". This was a claim made by scientists like Nikolai Petrovsky early in the piece, and seems quite intuitive. However most of those critics went silent once Institut Pasteur produced the BANAL viruses - because they purport to show that same "humanized RBD" exist in bats in Laos.
Quay needs to explain how the "humanized" virus somehow evolved in bats too. I've got an answer: the Banal sequences are fraud. Sadly few have had the courage to support me on this. I was hoping Quay would.
https://www.sarsisterrorism.org/p/the-batshit-evolution-of-sars-cov
Dr Steven Quay's new book
<<The Code as Witness: COVID Origins, Scientific Accountability, and Preventing the Next Pandemic>>
An important step in COVID Origin research and the PostCOVID task of healing science and our institutions such that they are fit for purpose again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alz26Z5-e_o
They are interesting issues that this case study raises…
Epistemically important tasks at many levels depending on your particular methodology.
The bio-informatic approach is much closer to cybersecurity attribution and looks at data flows of what is…and what really really should be in the public domain.
The Bio-Strategic angle looks at the ways to sustain investment, research and innovation despite these ongoing questions and challenges:
Getting the balance right between courageous search for new knowledge, prudent action informed by reason & wisdom, self-contol such that our appetite for new knowledge in pure science fields does not outstrip regulation & other institutional factors and Justice as a means to return balance to this field when programs outstrip societal norms or fall into the banality of censorship and silencing of debate.
https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/bio-strategies-and-leadership
Both of these are important and I think where Quay has left much unsaid this work opens the door to further discussion and development of policy in a way that is already situated and supported by the establishment that needs to examine this direction.
His final chapter where he very specifically points to dual use directions linked to biological warfare programs is the place where your work and much of the work that is similar starts off.
See this book as a primer to help general public get up to speed on the risks of this brave new world.
Ofc. I will read this book.
I respect Steven Quay, he has actually done some real and useful scientific investigation (unlike blowhards like Ebright). But also I think there's some groupthink set in the lab-leak camp coalescing around the idea DEFUSE is the "blueprint". Now that has become an acceptable alternative hypothesis - you can choose one or the other. But BW remains taboo.
That's why I wrote this article!
Excellent
I look forward to hearing any feedback you have on the book.
Especially Chapter 10
Preventing the Proliferation of Bioweapons
And of course the Appendix
The Origin of SARS-CoV-2 A Structured Scientific Analysis
Where Quay welcomes and in fact invites critique.
Just checked - Delivery to Australia has been delayed another week. Can't even buy for Kindle?
Chapter One of Quay’s
<<Code as Witness>> can be found here;
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/book-excerpt-the-code-as-witness/