They also planned to create chimeric viruses, genetically enhanced to infect humans more easily, and requested $14million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) to fund the work.
Papers, confirmed as genuine by a former member of the Trump administration, show they were hoping to introduce “human-specific cleavage sites” to bat coronaviruses which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells.
When Covid-19 was first genetically sequenced, scientists were puzzled about how the virus had evolved such a human-specific adaptation at the cleavage site on the spike protein, which is the reason it is so infectious.
The documents were released by Drastic, the web-based investigations team set up by scientists from across the world to look into the origins of Covid-19.
In a statement, Drastic said: “Given that we find in this proposal a discussion of the planned introduction of human-specific cleavage sites, a review by the wider scientific community of the plausibility of artificial insertion is warranted.”
The proposal also included plans to mix high-risk natural coronavirus strains with more infectious but less dangerous varieties.
The bid was submitted by British zoologist Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, the US-based organisation, which has worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researching bat coronaviruses. Team members included Dr Shi Zhengli, the WIV researcher dubbed “bat woman”, pictured below, as well as US researchers from the University of North Carolina and the United States Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Centre.Dr Shi ZhengliDarpa refused to fund the work, saying: “It is clear that the proposed project led by Peter Daszak could have put local communities at risk”, and warned that the team had not properly considered the dangers of enhancing the virus (gain of function research) or releasing a vaccine by air.
Grant documents show that the team also had some concerns about the vaccine programme and said they would “conduct educational outreach … so that there is a public understanding of what we are doing and why we are doing it, particularly because of the practice of bat-consumption in the region”.
Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St Georges, University of London, who struggled to get work published showing that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been carrying out “gain of function” work for years before the pandemic, said the research may have gone ahead even without the funding.
“This is clearly a gain of function, engineering the cleavage site and polishing the new viruses to enhance human cell infectibility in more than one cell line,” he said.
Daszak was also behind a letter published in The Lancet last year which effectively shut down scientific debate into the origins of Covid-19.
Viscount Ridley, who has co-authored a book on the origin of Covid-19, due for release in November, and who has frequently called for a further investigation into what caused the pandemic in the House of Lords, said: “For more than a year I tried repeatedly to ask questions of Peter Daszak with no response.Advertisement
“Now it turns out he had authored this vital piece of information about virus work in Wuhan but refused to share it with the world. I am furious. So should the world be.
“Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and ‘batified’ mice, and much, much more.”
A Covid-19 researcher from the World Health Organisation (WHO), who wished to remain anonymous, said it was alarming that the grant proposal included plans to enhance the more deadly disease of Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome (Mers).
“The scary part is they were making infectious chimeric Mers viruses,” the source said.
“These viruses have a fatality rate over 30 per cent, which is at least an order of magnitude more deadly than Sars-CoV-2.
“If one of their receptor replacements made Mers spread similarly, while maintaining its lethality, this pandemic would be nearly apocalyptic.”
EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology have been aproached for comment.
How to check AstraZeneca batch number: Covid vaccine numbers made in India – and how it affects travel The jabs – up to five millions of which have been administered in the UK – were manufactured by the Serum Institute of India https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/travel/astrazeneca-batch-number-check-how-covid-vaccine-numbers-made-india-uk-eu-travel-1083092
COVID-19: UK will work to ensure travel to Europe after fears three batches of vaccine won’t be accepted by EU It is feared millions won’t qualify for the EU’s vaccine passport scheme because they received shots manufactured in India. By Greg Heffer, Political reporter @GregHeffer Friday 2 July 2021 14:41, UK https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-britons-reassured-over-fears-those-who-received-india-made-covishield-jabs-cant-travel-to-eu-12347013
https://www.howbadismybatch.com/ Batch codes and associated deaths, disabilities and illnesses for Covid 19 Vaccines
“How Bad is my Batch”
The story of my vaccine injury
I actually do have a personal life. In fact, my wife of of 42 years and I are actually pretty private. Sharing personal history is not something I do everyday. However, as many of you know – I was vaccinated with Moderna twice and had a pretty significant vaccine injury. This was pretty early in the roll-out of the vaccines. It was long before the FOIA Japanese pre-clinical trial data that had so many red-flags and irregularities, long before we learned of all the issues with the clinical trials, and long before the VAERs and adverse events began to be known.
To write it, I have never been an “anti-vax” person. I have spent my career working with vaccines. I also know that some vaccines are “hot,” and are less safe. Usually these types of vaccines are reserved for extremely dangerous viruses like Ebola or Yellow fever. Where the goal is to make the vaccine 100% effective. Other vaccines, that are distributed widely, like the flu vaccines need to be very safe. The trade-off being that they are less effective. There is a whole science and art to crafting vaccines to appropriately respond to the “threat.” So, I know to read the literature, do my own due- diligence, etc before taking an experimental product or any vaccine. That is what I thought I did. The government assured us that these vaccines were very safe. I could never imagine that clinical data would be corrupted and even falsified – as we now know it was.
Anyway, back to my story. I knew in the beginning of April, 2021, that I had to travel overseas and the word on the street was that the European Union was going to require full vaccination before entering any EU country by summer (that actually never happened BTW). I knew that a full vaccination protocol was a process of weeks – and that i had better get started! Furthermore, there was a lot of buzz around the idea that vaccination would help with “long-COVID.” I had already had COVID, and just couldn’t shake a number of chronic issues that I had developed after getting the disease. Frankly, I should have done more homework on that one- because this idea really didn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Be that as it may, in April, 2021, I got vaccinated. It was early enough in the cycle, that I had no choice but to take the Moderna vaccine, as that was available in my area The vaccine was distributed at a local college, with the Army reserves administering the program.
The first shot was fine. No issues.
The second shot almost did me in. As in I almost died.
After the injection, I had the usual fatigue, muscle-ache and then the palpitations started, as well as shortness of breath. Within a couple days, it got worse – I am not someone who goes to the doctor easily, but luckily for me, I happened to have a routine appointment with my physician. She cuffed me and my systolic blood pressure was through the roof. As she is also a cardiologist, she had more tests run, started me on high blood pressure meds and we got it under control. I kind of feel like I owe her my life. A call out to the fantastic Dr. C. Bove.
Fast forward to today.
One of the people who comments on my Substack articles, pointed me to this website:
https://www.howbadismybatch.com/
This site matches up vaccine batch codes with information from the VAERS system, which is the event reporting system run by the CDC. This site matches the vaccine batches to adverse drug reactions, death, disability and life threatening illnesses from the VAERS system
According to the website above, the data reported in VAERS, reproduced on the site, show that adverse events triggered by Moderna batches have varied widely.
- 5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions
- Some Moderna batches are associated with 50 x the number of deaths and disabilities compared to other batches.
⬇️⬇️Read more⬇️⬇️
⬆️⬆️Read the beginning of the article⬆️⬆️
With that knowledge, I entered my batch code in the search box. The first injection had almost no significant adverse events associated with it. The second jab, frankly shocked me
Here are the results:???
Now, I don’t know how many doses are in each batch. But I do know my batch was most definitely in the top 5%. So, not really a surprise in retrospect that I had such a serious adverse event profile.
I always felt I was lucky that I happened to be going to my physician that day, who is also a cardiologist (she is my internist – so I wasn’t seeing her for that specialty).
But just think- our government had this data way back when in the VAERs system -even last summer. This data is so compelling and yet…crickets. How many people could they have helped by releasing this data? People like me, who if I wasn’t a physician and hadn’t gone to my physician could have easily dropped dead.
What is wrong with our government that a site like this are not available from the CDC or the FDA?
If anyone has any doubts about adverse events from these vaccines, take a look at some of the peer reviewed research or look at the VAERS data for deaths in young adults and children.
People have the right to be given informed consent of risks and benefits of a medical procedure. Informed consent is not given, if the risks are hidden.
WHERE THERE IS RISK, THERE MUST BE CHOICE
Deep dive into the association between vaccine lot and death/adverse events, courtesy of VAERS expert Dr. Jessica Rose https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-vax-lot-saga-continues ?? @RWMaloneMD
The Vax Lot saga continues…
Answers to questions like: are 5% of VAX LOTs causing 100% of deaths? Are the expiration date profiles the same between manufacturers? And more!
| Jessica Rose 9 hr ago4530 |
I thought people might be interested in some updates on the VAX LOT data in VAERS. I recently received some manufacturing and expiration date data with regards to the three COVID-19 injectable products being pumped into Americans for the past year. I am still waiting for Janet and Rochelle to get back about the VAX_LOT nomenclatures and other data on how many doses comprise each VAX_LOT, etc… (hardy har har), but in the meantime, while I wait for hell to freeze over, this manufacturing and expiration date data can be put to use, thanks to Craig.
So I would like to address the 5% claim thing using the new clean data set. (I have also addressed this with the original VAERS data set.) If you look for information online relating to the claim that “100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced according to official Government data”, you will find it easily. However, this claim is false. Here’s how and why.
The distribution of the percentage of deaths reported to VAERS is relatively uniform among VAX LOTs, irrespective of manufacturer, as can be seen in the pie chart figure below. Pfizer is on the left, Moderna in the center and Janssen on the right. But, this observation could be deceiving our eyes. Notice how many VAX LOTs contribute just a little to the death count? Perhaps there is a very long tail that would result in the above claimed distribution of 5% causing 100% of deaths? Let’s examine more closely.
I did some calculating and found that the top 5% of VAX LOTs for each manufacturer indeed account for a percentage of total deaths, but certainly not 100%.
The top 5% of VAX LOTs associated with deaths as per Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen manufacturers do not represent 100% of deaths. The reason it might have appeared that just 5% of the batches were causing 100% of deaths was based on erroneous counting of the dud VAX LOTs which comprise a large percentage of the VAX LOT fields – the so-called tail of 1s. I am in the process of officially cleaning up the VAX LOT data to calculate this percentage precisely, but in the meantime, I am leaving a plot of the long tail and an guesstimate of 95% duds in the VAX LOT column. Seriously, it’s that bad.
Yes. It IS that bad. As an example, there are hundreds of missed VAX LOTs not counted due to the fact that if they simply have 1 alphanumeric value in lowercase form, they are not counted appropriately. Hundreds of missed data points can switch non-significance to significance and vice-versa. If an “O” is in the place of a ‘0’: not counted. Space between letters and numbers: not counted. Number sign in front of number: not counted. So this seems a simple feat to fix right? It’s not. By the way, as an aside, there are also hundreds of cases when the manufacturer is listed as Moderna but a Pfizer VAX LOT is written in there. The three manufacturers have distinct nomenclatures so it’s easy to tell when they’re mixed up. To fix this, will take time. If I decide to put myself through the hellish exercise. As I have been saying for a year now, the VAX LOT data in VAERS is lamentable and not really useful for backing up big claims.
Certainly, there are VAX LOTs that contribute more to the deaths and other adverse events, granted, but their contribution to the death toll are not substantially higher when compared to their ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ lots in the top 5%. For example, Pfizer’s VAX LOT EN6201 is associated with 3.7% of the deaths which is comparable to the next two largest contributors EL9262 (3.16%) and EL3248 (3.06%). Moderna’s VAX LOT 039K20A is associated with 3.2% of the deaths which actually is a bit different from the next highest contributor 012L20A (2.67%) and Janssen’s VAX LOT 1805031 is associated with 7.73% of the deaths which is pretty similar to the next highest contributor 043A21A (7.19%). But again, the top 5% do not contribute to even close to 100% of all of the deaths. That’s the take home message.
On the subject of Manufacturing and Expiration date data
Why would batches of product made by Pfizer that were made on different days have the same expiration dates? Shouldn’t that viability time frame be equal between VAX LOT production? Even batches of VAX LOTs made on almost the same day should have different expiration dates? Shouldn’t they? Let’s look at the adverse events associated with each manufacturer where the manufacturing date is plotted against the expiration date
Janssen is weird as well and shares this ‘different manufacturing date but same expiration date’ phenomena with Moderna. There appear to be 2 main batches that expire on the same dates (~mid August and September) that were all made on different days – batches made from the 9th of November 2020 to the 18th of January 2021 all expire on August 23, 2021 so there’s a 2 month difference in viability there. You get the idea.
The interesting thing here (to me anyway) is that there is variability in the viability time frames for different VAX LOTs for the Pfizer and Janssen products. Does this also imply variability in good manufacturing practices both between and among these products. Perhaps variability is to be expected considering the lots are different. But why and how are they different? Why is there variability within the manufacturer?
Why do some VAX LOT batches have shorter best-before dates than others?
As per our letter to Rochie and J-bird, I would like to know/have:
1. A definitive list of all Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen VAX LOTs by manufacturer.
- The identity of all the VAX LOTs that have been discarded, are no longer administered or are under investigation.
- How many doses are in each COVID-19 vaccine lot?
4. If vaccine lots contain different numbers of doses, what is the range of doses across all vaccine lots?
5. How many FDA audits have been conducted at each COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing site since the vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization.
- Were all COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing sites found to be in full FDA and Current Good Manufacturing Practice compliance?
7. What specific quality control checks are performed on each vaccine lot?
8. What is the statistical sampling criteria for each quality check on each vaccine lot?
9. What quality control information is provided to your agency by the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers?
- What do the numbers and alpha characters represent in your lot numbering system?
More specifically: a) Can the manufacturing location be identified by the lot number? How? b) Can the manufacturing date be identified by the lot number? How”? c) What other manufacturing information is captured in the lot number?
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-vax-lot-saga-continues
Jessica RoseProtein Biologist/Biochemist/Surfer/Molecular Biologist/Computational Biologist/Photographer/Earth Activist/WRITERThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem Technion – Israel Institute of TechnologyIsrae https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-rose-85702519?trk=public-profile-join-page
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail3215 words · 168 views