brilliant bro, didn't know about Hensley being on that 2003 Baric/Detrick paper. But we disagree on Murphy, who didn't leak Defuse until after the Intercept published (early September 2021) the R01 & U01 NIAID grants that funded it. He said as much in his cover letter.
Funny that you can be working in DARPA and leak that sort of stuff at exactly the right time and not even be disciplined for it. Would have thought there would be a press office for that?
you claimed Murphy leaked Defuse to DRASTIC by July, but it was September 2021:
"The DEFUSE proposal was released by DRASTIC (it had been leaked to them in July by a DARPA employee, Major Joseph Murphy, who asked that they not release it until he had legal clearance)."
I've been told by various members of DRASTIC they received the DEFUSE document in July. They took some time to write their report and waited for Murphy to get clearance from his lawyers.
I have receipts but would prefer DRASTIC themselves explained the timeline, in detail.
Not accusing them of dishonesty, but with DEFUSE they ceased being an information clearinghouse and became active participants shaping the narrative - or at least the alt-narrative.
Lots of talk and data, and lots of strategic silence that feels more like resolve as time goes on, and not the type of resolve that results in inaction…more preparation for the other shoe to drop.
read 'Friends' -- it is nothing special, but i had such a time figuring out why every mRNA vaccinated country lined up waiting for the FDA/CDC to run the pandemic response for the whole (well half) the planet. as the vaccine damages piled up, it was weird to see NOBODY getting off the bus.
it's not 5 eyes - it is 14 for lower level operations
The directions of the BioStrategic Domain and the AI&Robotics domain are very disheartening. Capital is being lured by the dystopian fair-weather thinking of authoritarian states such as PRC...even as they send chilling warnings of all out war with the free world without end.There is some Hope.Excellent work here from Stanford etc.
Biosensor direction, especially when deployed in a BioStrategically significant setting such as a conference that is shaping best practice biosecurity, creates a powerful opportunity for collective accountability. The stated target diagnostic band, with only three viruses, is currently narrow, but broadening this window towards collection of airborne traces of bio fragments linked to novel and dangerous Dual Use <<Trust but Verify>> research of concern can help forensically triangulate bioinformatic traces found retrospectively in raw reads from available databases.When deployed in a preemptive and realtime way this is more in line with the expectations from other ontological extinction level weapons grade research such as in the nuclear weapons domain.
Grad Cert in National Security Policy at National Security College ANU.
It is a hard slog so far.
So much ingrained relativism and nihilism.
Form over substance everywhere.
Also the Cosmopolitan high point has been reached, thankfully, but any national security literature that places Australian National interests at its centre is a long way off.
Still now if you argue for Aussie’s knowing their strategic strengths and weaknesses you are treated as repugnantly as Schmitt.
It’s an international issue involving multiple countries. The US provided funding, Israeli-linked corporations and media were involved in funding and promotion
They knew what they were doing.
lab-related origin and vaccines based on GoF injected into billions. The worst part no safety studies or even quality control
Interesting story, but SARS1 showed no signs of engineering, and emerged in Guangzhou, the city with the biggest wildlife trade in the world, with about 1000 civets per day sold in 2002 versus 1 raccoon dog per day in Wuhan in 2019. Furthermore, US scientists would not plausibly have had access to precursor viruses, and it came to light that the outbreak started in November 2002 and was covered up by China for three months. Given the face-saving imperative in Confucian culture, there is no way China would have admitted to the coverup, and note that WHO scientists were allowed to roam the markets of Guangzhou and do their own testing, independently corroborating that the wildlife trade was the source.
One thing that is certainly correct is that China had the US and EU “by the balls” in 2020. The west could not afford the huge public backlash against China that would inevitably have occurred, had the true source been known, as it had just spent the past thirty years outsourcing production and supply chains to China, and a rapid decoupling would have caused an enormous recession. Thus explains why the German government never published its intelligence service’s 90% likely lab leak conclusion, and why the CIA, which it seems in hindsight clearly knew the origin right from the start, vacillated.
You claim SARS-1 "showed no signs of engineering" - but when did anyone look for signs of engineering? It was written off as natural before it was even sequenced. That's quite bizarre. I've found signs of engineering - but 20 years after the fact when no-one is interested any more.
"furthermore US scientists would not plausibly have had access to precursor viruses"
I discuss this in the article - thanks for noticing.
"and it came to light that the outbreak started in November 2002 and was covered up by China for three months"
How do you know it started in November 2002 when that information is from the same source that "covered it up"? Please try to be consistent about who you trust.
"and note that WHO scientists were allowed to roam the markets of Guangzhou and do their own testing, independently corroborating that the wildlife trade was the source."
No they were not - they were denied entry for weeks, and when eventually allowed in they were closely chaperoned . Two HKU scientists were allowed in - both mainlanders. This is also discussed in my previous article:
Thanks for your follow-up comments. In any case, your article only sets out how a BW origin of SARS could have been possible. This is not at all the same as showing it to be likely: such a conclusion would be equivalent to zoonosis proponents of SARS2 thinking that just because it turned out that China lied and there were indeed raccoon dogs at the market, this means SARS2 must have come from racoon dogs.
I have more detailed analysis of SARS structure in this pre-print here. I'll admit this isn't quite "proof", just some interesting features (this needs an update, I have learned some more since this).
And this is to undermine the "proof" that SARS is natural - these viruses from WIV - WIV1/Rs3367/RsSHC014 are almost certainly chimeras - not natural. This is not how viruses "evolve".
The most unnatural feature of SARS is the epidemiology, rather than the sequence itself. I'll also update this again soon. I've discovered a lot more to add to this.
Good analysis and I agree that it’s always good to be suspicious of information provided by governments with conflicts of interest, but it’s important to note that Guangzhou is the city with the largest exotic wildlife trade in the whole world, so is exactly the place you’d expect a natural outbreak to occur and find enough hosts to spread.
Contrast this with Wuhan, which is the city with labs hosting the largest collections of rare Sarbecoviruses in the whole world, but with hardly any wildlife trade. Only about 1 raccoon dog was sold in Wuhan per day, compared to 1000+ civets in Guangzhou, along with numerous other species such as pangolins, with the potential for recombination events scaling exponentially with the number of animals, rather than linearly.
Note further that SARS had no obviously engineered features in the genome, whereas SARS2 had the FCS and even restriction sites. So although your analysis shows plausibility, engineering doesn’t seem likely compared to the natural case. The superspreader events such as room 911 and the WTC Guangzhou are intriguing, but independent of a natural or artificial origin.
"Note further that SARS had no obviously engineered features in the genome"
The genomic feature that's most likely engineered in SARS is the extended RBM loop that allows ACE2 binding. Ofc that looks normal after subsequent "discoveries" from 2013 onwards - including SARS-CoV-2 but was unique for many years, and only "solved" after WIV fraud.
"Only about 1 raccoon dog was sold in Wuhan per day, compared to 1000+ civets in Guangzhou"
The origin of SARS is *purportedly* a single cave in remote Yunnan province - not Guangdong.
Regarding the genome, I don’t know the details, but there were certainly no smoking guns like there were for SARS2.
Regarding the origin, the proximal origin was said to be the civets. Since, unlike Wuhan, Guangzhou is the global centre of the wildlife trade, it imports many farmed animals from Yunnan and SE Asia, whereas Hubei exports these to Guangdong, so the animal source was never likely. Note that the China/WHO report contained a line for hoary bamboo rats supposedly sourced from a farm quite close to Tongguan, Mojiang, Yunnan, of RATG13 fame, the only animals supposedly sourced from Yunnan. I always wondered if they put that in to make the animal origin plausible, but was surprised that none of the zoonosis proponents picked up on it.
brilliant bro, didn't know about Hensley being on that 2003 Baric/Detrick paper. But we disagree on Murphy, who didn't leak Defuse until after the Intercept published (early September 2021) the R01 & U01 NIAID grants that funded it. He said as much in his cover letter.
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/chapter-7-an-american-hero
Disagree about what?
Funny that you can be working in DARPA and leak that sort of stuff at exactly the right time and not even be disciplined for it. Would have thought there would be a press office for that?
you claimed Murphy leaked Defuse to DRASTIC by July, but it was September 2021:
"The DEFUSE proposal was released by DRASTIC (it had been leaked to them in July by a DARPA employee, Major Joseph Murphy, who asked that they not release it until he had legal clearance)."
And there was a press release by US Senator, asking why the hell the document was in a top secret folder: https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024.11.14-Marshall-LTR-to-IC-OIG-1.pdf
I've been told by various members of DRASTIC they received the DEFUSE document in July. They took some time to write their report and waited for Murphy to get clearance from his lawyers.
I find that hard to believe, since Charles Rixey was bashing Murphy
I have receipts but would prefer DRASTIC themselves explained the timeline, in detail.
Not accusing them of dishonesty, but with DEFUSE they ceased being an information clearinghouse and became active participants shaping the narrative - or at least the alt-narrative.
You don't have shit, b/c DRASTIC schoolgirls can't keep a secret for months, but maybe weeks.
Five Eyes is also a reason for network system failure here; common in fair weather systems where responsibility is shared between agencies.
UK and AUS exposure is a risk US doesn’t want to take?
I don't know, with the way some Australian government agencies have been behaving, I suspect something has been shared with them.
Yep
Lots of talk and data, and lots of strategic silence that feels more like resolve as time goes on, and not the type of resolve that results in inaction…more preparation for the other shoe to drop.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Defence
That the ADF classes the COVID vax as a counterbiological warfare measure says a lot?
read 'Friends' -- it is nothing special, but i had such a time figuring out why every mRNA vaccinated country lined up waiting for the FDA/CDC to run the pandemic response for the whole (well half) the planet. as the vaccine damages piled up, it was weird to see NOBODY getting off the bus.
it's not 5 eyes - it is 14 for lower level operations
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/friends
you know all the genetics, but the probabilites from the AI make entertaining reading
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/infinite-improbability
you know all this, but getting the AI to agree was nice
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/parsimony
The directions of the BioStrategic Domain and the AI&Robotics domain are very disheartening. Capital is being lured by the dystopian fair-weather thinking of authoritarian states such as PRC...even as they send chilling warnings of all out war with the free world without end.There is some Hope.Excellent work here from Stanford etc.
https://www.hoover.org/research/seeing-through-molecular-curtain/
https://www.hoover.org/research/seeing-through-molecular-curtain/
Biosensor direction, especially when deployed in a BioStrategically significant setting such as a conference that is shaping best practice biosecurity, creates a powerful opportunity for collective accountability. The stated target diagnostic band, with only three viruses, is currently narrow, but broadening this window towards collection of airborne traces of bio fragments linked to novel and dangerous Dual Use <<Trust but Verify>> research of concern can help forensically triangulate bioinformatic traces found retrospectively in raw reads from available databases.When deployed in a preemptive and realtime way this is more in line with the expectations from other ontological extinction level weapons grade research such as in the nuclear weapons domain.
https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/the-code-as-witness/?srsltid=AfmBOoonD9n5peEgkQzLAUI8hbr8dRcISqkPyKf4IYJmLtwST37uTRZy
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7458577596436619264/?dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287461174077022474241%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7458577596436619264%29
Thanks Tommy - but the link is broken.
Hmm
Edited
Try again?
Thanks, working.
What are you studying at ANU btw? In this field?
Grad Cert in National Security Policy at National Security College ANU.
It is a hard slog so far.
So much ingrained relativism and nihilism.
Form over substance everywhere.
Also the Cosmopolitan high point has been reached, thankfully, but any national security literature that places Australian National interests at its centre is a long way off.
Still now if you argue for Aussie’s knowing their strategic strengths and weaknesses you are treated as repugnantly as Schmitt.
One day at a time.
I did my undergraduate study at ANU. Had some great profs, a great campus and social life. Different time and space though!
It’s an international issue involving multiple countries. The US provided funding, Israeli-linked corporations and media were involved in funding and promotion
They knew what they were doing.
lab-related origin and vaccines based on GoF injected into billions. The worst part no safety studies or even quality control
Interesting story, but SARS1 showed no signs of engineering, and emerged in Guangzhou, the city with the biggest wildlife trade in the world, with about 1000 civets per day sold in 2002 versus 1 raccoon dog per day in Wuhan in 2019. Furthermore, US scientists would not plausibly have had access to precursor viruses, and it came to light that the outbreak started in November 2002 and was covered up by China for three months. Given the face-saving imperative in Confucian culture, there is no way China would have admitted to the coverup, and note that WHO scientists were allowed to roam the markets of Guangzhou and do their own testing, independently corroborating that the wildlife trade was the source.
One thing that is certainly correct is that China had the US and EU “by the balls” in 2020. The west could not afford the huge public backlash against China that would inevitably have occurred, had the true source been known, as it had just spent the past thirty years outsourcing production and supply chains to China, and a rapid decoupling would have caused an enormous recession. Thus explains why the German government never published its intelligence service’s 90% likely lab leak conclusion, and why the CIA, which it seems in hindsight clearly knew the origin right from the start, vacillated.
You claim SARS-1 "showed no signs of engineering" - but when did anyone look for signs of engineering? It was written off as natural before it was even sequenced. That's quite bizarre. I've found signs of engineering - but 20 years after the fact when no-one is interested any more.
https://www.sarsisterrorism.org/p/how-did-the-experts-get-sars-so-wrong
"furthermore US scientists would not plausibly have had access to precursor viruses"
I discuss this in the article - thanks for noticing.
"and it came to light that the outbreak started in November 2002 and was covered up by China for three months"
How do you know it started in November 2002 when that information is from the same source that "covered it up"? Please try to be consistent about who you trust.
"and note that WHO scientists were allowed to roam the markets of Guangzhou and do their own testing, independently corroborating that the wildlife trade was the source."
No they were not - they were denied entry for weeks, and when eventually allowed in they were closely chaperoned . Two HKU scientists were allowed in - both mainlanders. This is also discussed in my previous article:
https://www.sarsisterrorism.org/p/how-did-the-experts-get-sars-so-wrong
Thanks for your follow-up comments. In any case, your article only sets out how a BW origin of SARS could have been possible. This is not at all the same as showing it to be likely: such a conclusion would be equivalent to zoonosis proponents of SARS2 thinking that just because it turned out that China lied and there were indeed raccoon dogs at the market, this means SARS2 must have come from racoon dogs.
I have more detailed analysis of SARS structure in this pre-print here. I'll admit this isn't quite "proof", just some interesting features (this needs an update, I have learned some more since this).
https://zenodo.org/records/13937517
And this is to undermine the "proof" that SARS is natural - these viruses from WIV - WIV1/Rs3367/RsSHC014 are almost certainly chimeras - not natural. This is not how viruses "evolve".
https://zenodo.org/records/13476370
The most unnatural feature of SARS is the epidemiology, rather than the sequence itself. I'll also update this again soon. I've discovered a lot more to add to this.
https://www.sarsisterrorism.org/p/can-terrorism-explain-the-bizarre
Good analysis and I agree that it’s always good to be suspicious of information provided by governments with conflicts of interest, but it’s important to note that Guangzhou is the city with the largest exotic wildlife trade in the whole world, so is exactly the place you’d expect a natural outbreak to occur and find enough hosts to spread.
Contrast this with Wuhan, which is the city with labs hosting the largest collections of rare Sarbecoviruses in the whole world, but with hardly any wildlife trade. Only about 1 raccoon dog was sold in Wuhan per day, compared to 1000+ civets in Guangzhou, along with numerous other species such as pangolins, with the potential for recombination events scaling exponentially with the number of animals, rather than linearly.
Note further that SARS had no obviously engineered features in the genome, whereas SARS2 had the FCS and even restriction sites. So although your analysis shows plausibility, engineering doesn’t seem likely compared to the natural case. The superspreader events such as room 911 and the WTC Guangzhou are intriguing, but independent of a natural or artificial origin.
"Note further that SARS had no obviously engineered features in the genome"
The genomic feature that's most likely engineered in SARS is the extended RBM loop that allows ACE2 binding. Ofc that looks normal after subsequent "discoveries" from 2013 onwards - including SARS-CoV-2 but was unique for many years, and only "solved" after WIV fraud.
"Only about 1 raccoon dog was sold in Wuhan per day, compared to 1000+ civets in Guangzhou"
The origin of SARS is *purportedly* a single cave in remote Yunnan province - not Guangdong.
Regarding the genome, I don’t know the details, but there were certainly no smoking guns like there were for SARS2.
Regarding the origin, the proximal origin was said to be the civets. Since, unlike Wuhan, Guangzhou is the global centre of the wildlife trade, it imports many farmed animals from Yunnan and SE Asia, whereas Hubei exports these to Guangdong, so the animal source was never likely. Note that the China/WHO report contained a line for hoary bamboo rats supposedly sourced from a farm quite close to Tongguan, Mojiang, Yunnan, of RATG13 fame, the only animals supposedly sourced from Yunnan. I always wondered if they put that in to make the animal origin plausible, but was surprised that none of the zoonosis proponents picked up on it.
The original SARS virus in 2002 never had a natural reservoir either and may have been a chimeric lab creation.
Source: https://journals.lww.com/cmj/fulltext/2014/07050/sars_coronavirus_without_reservoir_originated_from.24.aspx
I agree. I wrote more about Xu Dezhong's ideas in the previous article.
https://www.sarsisterrorism.org/p/how-did-the-experts-get-sars-so-wrong