Funeral director says 25% of bodies now have ‘fibrous clots’ in arteries after COVID shots

Despite attempts to alert authorities to the novel clotting, no action has been taken, with government policy seemingly avoiding investigation.

Reports have persisted following the rollout of the so-called mRNA “vaccines” of the incidence of white fibrous clots in the bodies of the deceased.

Despite repeated attempts to “debunk” the sudden and widespread appearance of these clots, evidence is mounting that they are not only present, but that the reason this novel pathology has attracted hardly any attention from the medical profession is that the dead in whose bodies they are found have one thing in common:

They have all been vaccinated.

Two recent video interviews featuring whistleblowers from the U.K. and the U.S. have now been published, in which each present evidence of the presence of white fibrous “calamari-like” clots in the corpses of the COVID vaccinated.

The claim that they occur in those who have received the mRNA injections is advanced by both men. One, John O’Looney, is a funeral director from Milton Keynes in England. He is the source of the shocking quote above, made in a recent interview with nurse instructor Dr. John Campbell.

Published on February 9, the video details how O’Looney began to notice the incidence of these novel fibrous white clots “around six months after the [COVID] vaccines were introduced.”

He states that midway through 2021 he noticed the first incidence of the white fibrous clots – six months after the introduction of the so called “vaccines.”

O’Looney says that around “25 percent” of all bodies he sees now have these clots present.

He showed a recent sample of these “arterial obstructions”: “They grow inside the arteries and veins and take the shape of them” – until those who develop them die, claims O’Looney.

The clots we are seeing are different – traditionally clots are like jelly – you can wash them down the sink.

These clots are very tough – like calamari.

I have never seen anything like this. It is very tough, very rubbery.

I can’t see how this can be removed without invasive surgery.

We follow government policy

O’Looney says he has repeatedly attempted to alert the authorities, with no action taken as a result.

He related the recent postmortem of a young man who “died suddenly,” having discovered a “bright white” clot the “full length” of the leg of the deceased.

O’Looney claims he documented the strange clot with the local coroner by email. A later response from the pathologist said that these clots normally form and “there was nothing to report,” directing him to effectively “dispose of the evidence,” said O’Looney.

He added that the BIE – the national embalmer’s organization – has warned its members not to speak to him personally. The chief coroner has refused to investigate.

“When I emailed the chief coroner of England I did not get a reply,” O’Looney said. On a second attempt he received a “four word reply” from the secretary, simply stating “We follow government policy.”

O’Looney concluded that it is therefore government policy to refuse to investigate. “We have record numbers of excess deaths. We are trying to raise the alarm and nobody is listening.” Instead, O’Looney claims the authorities “are actively gaslighting people.” Deaths involving the presence of these anomalous clots are attributed to “thrombosis,” with no mention of any relation to the so-called “vaccines.”

Not alone

O’Looney claims he has had “60 or 70 other funeral directors contact” him in support, saying “mortuary managers have told me thrombosis deaths have gone up 600 percent.”

Why have they not spoken out? “These people are frightened” O’Looney says, “I am just not frightened. I have a moral compass which will not allow me to be complicit.”

Against the debunkers’ charge that there is no evidence of any connection to the mRNA injections, O’Looney says he has asked “the loved ones of the deceased” whether they had received a COVID jab.

“They are all vaccinated.”

Nurse John Campbell, Ph.D., points out that this “new pathology” is something doctors would normally be motivated to investigate. O’Looney explains why this is not happening:

Where do the families go with it? The coroners won’t entertain it. I reported this to Thames Valley Police on April 28 of last year, incident number 1068.

I said I really need to speak to someone about [these deaths].

They would not even speak to me.

This has left him with “no faith in the police or in the system at all.”

Measures on suspicious deaths ‘diluted’

O’Looney says measures to monitor and record unlawful deaths may be removed.

“It’s a great time to do a murder,” he notes, as the measures to prevent corpses being cremated under suspicious circumstances have been “diluted – as a result of COVID, so they said.”

Formerly, he claims, two doctors would have to certify a cremation – this has now been reduced to one.

“I won’t stop telling the truth” says O’Looney, citing a report from a hospice nurse showing “turbo cancers” which kill within weeks of having no symptoms, dying of aggressive cancer “before they can receive a single treatment.”

“These people have one thing in common. They have all been vaccinated.”

Whilst Campbell says “This can’t be hidden much longer,” O’Looney warns of the “future these genocidal maniacs have for us.”

He says he has lost friends and even relatives over allegations he is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Yet far from being a lone voice, his data is “completely consistent with that collected by Major Tom Havilland,” as Campbell says.

A survey conducted by retired U.S. Air Force Major Thomas Haviland found that “70 percent of embalmers reported finding strange blood clots beginning in mid-2021.”

Haviland carried out a second survey in 2023, with over twice the number of participating embalmers from across the U.S.

His study showed that over 75 percent of respondents were still seeing the anomalous fibrous white clots.

Evidence from US investigations

Alex Jones has published a video featuring U.S. funeral director Richard Hirschman showing vials containing clots identical to those displayed by O’Looney.

One of four funeral directors on the show, Hirschman is shown extracting one such clot from the jugular vein of a deceased and vaccinated individual.

“These are the strange white fibrous materials we are seeing.” One was “27 inches long,” he said.

“We used to never see clots in arteries – they are typically in veins. They are abnormal – rubbery – like a rubber band.”

In a second show, Jones interviewed Haviland himself, who said his interest in the issue was provoked by the controversial Stew Peters documentary, “Died Suddenly.”

“I watched that the night it premiered, the week of thanksgiving of 2022,” Haviland said. “I know there are some problems with the film, but at the thirteenth minute an amazing statement was made.”

Haviland refers to seeing the embalmer from the state of Indiana, Wallace Hooker, who on October 26, 2022, was briefing “about a hundred embalmers” at an Ohio Embalmers’ Association lecture.

“He showed them photographs of these white fibrous clots… and asked – “by a show of hands, how many of you are seeing these?”

Haviland says:

Almost the entire room of 100 embalmers raised their hands – yes.

He continues, saying the embalmers “all agreed it was in the middle of 2021” that the clots first began to be noticed – “after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

Haviland decided to investigate himself. The next day he called the president, vice president, and secretary of the Ohio Embalmers’ Association.

“The vice president corroborated” the claims, saying he had “seen the clots himself.”

In the video, Haviland goes on to present evidence from his two surveys in a presentation.

The surveys, conducted in 2022 and 2023, show details of admitted clotting side effects from the COVID shots, and that two thirds of embalmers he contacted in his first survey had witnessed the novel fibrous white clots in “up to 50 percent or more of their corpses.”

His studies, to which international embalmers also responded, show that the higher incidence of clotting is not restricted to the novel pathology of these white fibrous clots, but also shows a sharp increase in “traditional ‘grape jelly’ blood clots.”

Haviland was keen to corroborate the testimony of John O’Looney. When asked why more did not participate in the study or speak out, he too cited fear as one reason, with the reluctance of funeral directors to admit such side effects in vaccines they are likely to have compelled their own employees to take.

“Embalmers want to tell you what they are seeing only if they think they have permission” – from the authorities, says Haviland.

A lot of these [embalmers’] association presidents are directors themselves of funeral homes.

Would you want to participate in a survey showing these clots if you have mandated your employees to get the vaccine?

Fact check?

Haviland’s, Jones’, and O’Looney’s findings have been repeatedly dismissed and “debunked.”

The Poynter Institute is one leading self-appointed authority which claims to have disproven O’Looney’s reports. It says there is “no scientific evidence” for any connection between the clots and the mRNA injections.

Its purported rebuttal reads as a template for the maintenance of the COVID narrative.

The rebuttal –such as it is – immediately pivots from discussion of the evidence to warning people to take more of the so called “vaccines.” The strategy relies on attributing any alleged adverse effects of the “vaccine” to COVID-19 itself.

On February 10, 2022, the Poynter Institute “debunking” said, “Experts we talked to say there’s something to the claim about a greater incidence of blood clots, but they dismiss the idea that it’s linked to the vaccines.”

“What embalmers are noticing, they say, could well be the effects of COVID-19 infection itself, and those effects are occurring in people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.”

Why is there no evidence presented by the Poynter Institute for its own claims? There is no attempt to investigate the abnormally high incidence of all types of clotting in the deceased in the period immediately following mass “vaccination.” Similarly, no attempt has been made to investigate the international incidence of vaccine side effects being reported by people like Haviland and O’Looney.

“It’s only anecdotal evidence, and there’s no scientific evidence to draw any conclusions,” said Jessica Koth, director of public relations for the U.S.-based National Funeral Directors Association in the Poynter article.

Why is there no “scientific evidence”? No scientists seem willing to study the case at all. As Campbell pointed out, it is unusual that there is so little interest in a “novel pathology.”

Unevidenced claims

Poynter’s supposed rebuttal itself makes an unevidenced claim which, through repetition alone, appears to be held up as the truth by those who still believe that the “vaccines” are “100% safe and effective.”

“Generally, the vaccines available in the U.S. have been shown to sharply reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” their February 2022 article states.

There is no way of distinguishing between “vaccine” and viral harm as no effort was made to do so, which itself is a suspicious measure when promoting a novel treatment whose manufacturers are permanently indemnified from any resulting claims of injury or death.

It is noteworthy that the so-called “vaccines” were not initially advertised on television as they had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This, claim the debunkers, is a fact unrelated to the requirement to include warnings of known adverse effects.

Motivated reasoning

The motives of those defending the “vaccines” from any connection to the emergence of these fibrous clots, other thromboses, and the many horrendous conditions noted by doctors such as Britain’s Dr. David Cartland is at one with “following government policy.”

What then is the motive of people like John O’Looney?

O’Looney claimed in his interview with Campbell that he is motivated only by “truth and honesty, and the desire to protect others.”

“We are raising concerns – but no one is listening.”

He is also determined to see those responsible brought to justice, as he said in May 2023:

I’ll be totally honest, I live now only to give my testimony in Nuremberg and see these people sentenced appropriately for their crimes against humanity and shame on those who took the money and went along with it.

They will fill the prisons they built for us.

Up Next

Proposed legislation seeks to suppress speech about climate change and fossil fuels

Don't Miss

DeSantis, medical experts review first Florida grand jury findings on COVID-19 policies

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Crime / 5 hours ago

Former UK MP says ‘nothing was done’ with child trafficking information given to police, MI5

National / 8 hours ago

Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau

Brownstone Institute

The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci

Published on January 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Brownstone Institute

By Alex Washburne

Anthony “I represent science” Fauci can now stand beside Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon in the history books as someone who received the poison pill of a preemptive pardon.

While Nixon was pardoned for specific charges related to Watergate, the exact crimes for which Fauci was pardoned are not specified. Rather, the pardon specifies:

Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong – and in fact have done the right things – and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated and prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

In other words, the dying breath of the Biden administration appears to be pardoning Fauci for crimes he didn’t commit, which would seem to make a pardon null and void. The pardon goes further than simply granting clemency for crimes. Clemency usually alleviates the punishment associated with a crime, but here Biden attempts to alleviate the burden of investigations and prosecutions, the likes of which our justice system uses to uncover crimes.

It’s one thing to pardon someone who has been subjected to a fair trial and convicted, to say they have already paid their dues. Gerald Ford, in his pardon of Richard Nixon, admitted that Nixon had already paid the high cost of resigning from the highest office in the land. Nixon’s resignation came as the final chapter of prolonged investigations into his illegal and unpresidential conduct during Watergate, and those investigations provided us the truth we needed to know that Nixon was a crook and move on content that his ignominious reputation was carve d into stone for all of history.

Fauci, meanwhile, has evaded investigations on matters far more serious than Watergate. In 2017, DARPA organized a grant call – the PREEMPT call – aiming to preempt pathogen spillover from wildlife to people. In 2018 a newly formed collaborative group of scientists from the US, Singapore, and Wuhan wrote a grant – the DEFUSE grant – proposing to modify a bat sarbecovirus in Wuhan in a very unusual way. DARPA did not fund the team because their work was too risky for the Department of Defense, but in 2019 Fauci’s NIAID funded this exact set of scientists who never wrote a paper together prior or since. In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan with the precise modifications proposed in the DEFUSE grant submitted to PREEMPT.

It’s reasonable to be concerned that this line of research funded by Fauci’s NIAID may have caused the pandemic. In fact, if we’re sharp-penciled and honest with our probabilities, it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a consequence of research proposed in DEFUSE. What we don’t know, however, is whether the research proceeded with US involvement or not.

Congress used its constitutionally-granted investigation and oversight responsibilities to investigate and oversee NIAID in search of answers. In the process of these investigations, they found endless pages of emails with unjustified redactions, evidence that Fauci’s FOIA lady could “make emails disappear,” Fauci’s right-hand-man David Morens aided the DEFUSE authors as they navigated disciplinary measures at NIH and NIAID, and there were significant concerns that NIAID sought to obstruct investigations and destroy federal records.

Such obstructive actions did not inspire confidence in the innocence of Anthony Fauci or the US scientists he funded in 2019. On the contrary, Fauci testified twice under oath saying NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research of concern in Wuhan…but then we discovered a 2018 progress report of research NIAID funded in Wuhan revealing research they funded had enhanced the transmissibility of a bat SARS-related coronavirus 10,000 times higher than the wild virus. That is, indisputably, gain-of-function research of concern. Fauci thus lied to the American public and perjured himself in his testimony to Congress, and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has referred Fauci’s perjury charges to the Department of Justice.

What was NIAID trying to preempt with their obstruction of Congressional investigations? What is Biden trying to preempt with his pardon of Fauci? Why do we not have the 2019 NIAID progress report from the PI’s who submitted DEFUSE to PREEMPT and later received funding from NIAID?

It is deplorable for Biden to preemptively pardon Fauci on his last day in office, with so little known about the research NIAID funded in 2019 and voters so clearly eager to learn more. With Nixon’s preemptive pardon, the truth of his wrongdoing was known and all that was left was punishment. With Fauci’s preemptive pardon, the truth is not yet known, NIAID officials in Fauci’s orbit violated federal records laws in their effort to avoid the truth from being known, and Biden didn’t preemptively pardon Fauci to grant clemency and alleviate punishment, but to stop investigations and prosecutions the likes of which could uncover the truth.

I’m not a Constitutional scholar prepared to argue the legality of this maneuver, but I am an ethical human being, a scientist who contributed another grant to the PREEMPT call, and a scientist who helped uncover some of the evidence consistent with a lab origin and quantify the likelihood of a lab origin from research proposed in the DEFUSE grant. Any ethical human being knows that we need to know what caused the pandemic, and to deprive the citizenry of such information from open investigations of NIAID research in 2019 would be to deprive us of critical information we need to self-govern and elect people who manage scientific risks in ways we see fit. As a scientist, there are critical questions about bioattribution that require testing, and the way to test our hypotheses is to uncover the redacted and withheld documents from Fauci’s NIAID in 2019.

The Biden administration’s dying breath was to pardon Anthony Fauci not for the convictions for crimes he didn’t commit (?) but to avoid investigations that could be a reputational and financial burden for Anthony Fauci. A pardon to preempt an investigation is not a pardon; it is obstruction. The Biden administration’s dying breath is to obstruct our pursuit of truth and reconciliation on the ultimate cause of 1 million Americans’ dying breaths.

To remind everyone what we still need to know, it helps to look through the peephole of what we’ve already found to inspire curiosity about what else we’d find if only the peephole could be widened. Below is one of the precious few emails investigative journalists pursuing FOIAs against NIAID have managed to obtain from the critical period when SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have emerged. The email connects DEFUSE PI’s Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Ralph Baric (UNC), Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS), Ben Hu (Wuhan Institute of Virology), Shi ZhengLi (Wuhan Institute of Virology) and others in October 2019. The subject line “NIAID SARS-CoV Call – October 30/31” connects these authors to NIAID.

It is approximately in that time range – October/November 2019 – when SARS-CoV-2 is hypothesized to have entered the human population in Wuhan. When it emerged, SARS-CoV-2 was unique among sarbecoviruses in having a furin cleavage site, as proposed by these authors in their 2019 DEFUSE grant. Of all the places the furin cleavage site could be, the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was in the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, precisely as proposed by these authors.

In order to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV, however, the researchers would’ve needed to build a reverse genetic system, i.e. a DNA copy of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is unique among coronaviruses in having exactly the fingerprint we would expect from reverse genetic systems. There is an unusual even spacing in the cutting/pasting sites for the enzymes BsaI and BsmBI and an anomalous hot-spot of silent mutations in precisely these sites, exactly as researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have done for other coronavirus reverse genetic systems. The odds of such an extreme synthetic-looking pattern occurring in nature are, conservatively, about 1 in 50 billion.

The virus did not emerge in Bangkok, Hanoi, Bago, Kunming, Guangdong, or any of the myriad other places with similar animal trade networks and greater contact rates between people and sarbecovirus reservoirs. No. The virus emerged in Wuhan, the exact place and time one would expect from DEFUSE.

With all the evidence pointing the hounds towards NIAID, it is essential for global health security that we further investigate the research NIAID funded in 2019. It is imperative for our constitutional democracy, for our ability to self-govern, that we learn the truth. The only way to learn the truth is to investigate NIAID, the agency Fauci led for 38 years, the agency that funded gain-of-function research of concern, the agency named in the October 2019 call by DEFUSE PI’s, the agency that funded this exact group in 2019.

A preemptive pardon prior to the discovery of truth is a fancy name for obstruction of justice. The Biden administration’s dying breath must be challenged, and we must allow Congress and the incoming administration to investigate the possibility that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID-supported research caused the Covid-19 pandemic.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Alex Washburne

Alex Washburne is a mathematical biologist and the founder and chief scientist at Selva Analytics. He studies competition in ecological, epidemiological, and economic systems research, with research on covid epidemiology, the economic impacts of pandemic policy, and stock market response to epidemiological news.

COVID-19

BREAKING: Days before Trump Inauguration HHS fires doctor in charge of gain of function research project

Published on January 19, 2025

Todayville

Dr. Daszak will likely be protected by the DoD & CIA from additional penalties.

By John Leake

HHS Formally Debars EcoHealth Alliance, President Peter Daszak Fired.

On January 17, 2025—just three days before President Trump is to be sworn in—Congress issued a press release with the following statement:

Today, after an eight-month investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut off all funding and formally debarred EcoHealth Alliance Inc. (EcoHealth) and its former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, for five years based on evidence uncovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

As far as I can tell, the New York Times did not report this story, though the New York Post did.

More interesting than the superficial news reporting is the HHS ACTION REFERRAL MEMORANDUM recommending that Dr. Peter Daszak be barred from participating in United States Federal Government procurement and nonprocurement programs.

The Memorandum also states:

Dr. Peter Daszak was the President and Chief Executive Officer of EHA from 2009 until his termination, effective January 6, 2025. Dr. Daszak was the Project Director (PD)/Principal Investigator (PI) for Grant Number 1R01AI110964-01.

I am not sure what to make of this document, which is written in such an arcane and convoluted style that it challenges the attention span of even the most focused reader.

I have been researching this story for four years, and I found the following paragraphs the most intriguing:

9. In a letter dated May 28, 2016, the NIAID contacted EHA concerning possible GoF research based on information submitted in its most recent Year 2 RPPR. The NIAID notified EHA that GoF research conducted under Grant Number 5R01AI110964-03 would be subject to the October 17, 2014, United States Federal Government funding pause, and that per the funding pause announcement, new United States Federal Government funding would not be released for GoF research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. In the letter, the NIAID requested that EHA provide a determination within 15 days of the date of the letter as to whether EHA’s research under Grant Number 5R01AI110964-03 did or did not include GoF work subject to the funding pause.

10. In a letter dated June 8, 2016, EHA provided a response to the NIAID’s May 28, 2016 letter. EHA explained that the goal of its proposed work was to construct MERS and MERS-like chimeric CoVs in order to understand the potential origins of MERSCoV in bats by studying bat MERS-like CoVs in detail. EHA stated that it believed it was highly unlikely that the proposed work would have any pathogenic potential, but that should any of these recombinants show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than certain specified benchmarks involving log growth increases, or grow more efficiently in human airway epithelial cells, EHA would immediately: (1) stop all experiments with the mutant, (2) inform the NIAID Program Officer of these results, and (3) participate in decision-making trees to decide appropriate paths forward.

11. Based on the information provided by EHA, the NIAID concluded that the proposed work was not subject to the GoF research pause. In a letter dated July 7, 2016, however, the NIAID informed EHA that should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under the grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain, EHA must stop all experiments with these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and WIV Institutional Biosafety Committee, with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes.

Note that various statements in the above paragraphs are inconsistent with what Baric et al. state in their 2015 paper A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus shows potential for human emergence—a research paper funded by the NIAID EcoHealth Grant “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

As the authors state in the section on Biosafety and biosecurity:

Reported studies were initiated after the University of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee approved the experimental protocol (Project Title: Generating infectious clones of bat SARS-like CoVs; Lab Safety Plan ID: 20145741; Schedule G ID: 12279). These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses (http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf). This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.

As I noted in my series of essays titled The Great SARS-CoV-2 Charade, one of the silliest lies told by Dr. Anthony Fauci has been his insistence that NIAID did not approve Gain-of-Function work by EcoHealth.

Fauci has repeatedly asserted this in a loud and vexed tone, as though he is outraged by the mere proposition. And yet, Ralph Baric and his colleagues—including Zhengli-Li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—plainly state in their 2015 paper that their Gain-of-Function experiments, performed in Baric’s UNC lab and Zhengli-Li Shi’s lab in Wuhan, were grandfathered in, given that they were funded before the 2014 Pause.

Another statement (in paragraph 11 of the recent HHS Action Referral Memo) that deserves special scrutiny is the following:

In a letter dated July 7, 2016, however, the NIAID informed EHA that should any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under the grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain, EHA must stop all experiments with these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and WIV Institutional Biosafety Committee, with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes.

Again, it’s tough to interpret this statement, given that Baric et al. had, by the own admission, already generated chimeras that “replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”

Let’s review what Baric et al. state in their Abstract about the functionality of the chimeric virus (named SHCOI4-MA15) they claimed to have generated. Using humanized mice (genetically modified to have primary human airway cells) as their experimental animals, the authors state:

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system², we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.

The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis.

To this day, no legal authority that I am aware of has investigated the question: What became of the the chimeras SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15? The latter chimera was documented by Baric et al. in their March 2016 paper titled SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence—a chimera “that replaced the SARS spike with the WIV1 spike within the mouse-adapted backbone.”

What did the Wuhan Institute of Virology do with these chimeras? Did its researchers continue to modify and experiment with these chimeras?

Another exceedingly silly claim made by U.S. government officials—including members of Congress—is that the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain a mystery, given that the Chinese government and military will almost certainly never agree to perform a full and transparent investigation of their Wuhan Institute of Virology.

What did the U.S. government expect when it agreed to share cutting edge American biotechnology with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has long been known to be run by the Chinese military?

One grows weary of our U.S. government officials evading responsibility by pretending to be imbeciles or by revealing themselves to be true imbeciles.

If you found this post informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our Substack. Penetrating the smoke and mirror show performed by the abominable U.S. government requires a great deal of time and effort.

Subscribe to Courageous Discourse

Share