Urban Tanzanians have a more activated immune system compared to their rural counterparts. The difference in diet appears to explain this difference: in the cities, people eat a more western style diet, while in rural areas a traditional diet is more common. A team of researchers believe that this increased activity of the immune system contributes to the rapid increase in non-communicable diseases in urban areas in Africa.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2OlZqzt
With the help of about 200 human puzzle-takers, a computer model and functional MRI images, researchers have learned more about the processes of reasoning and decision making, pinpointing the brain pathway that springs into action when problem-solving goes south.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/388EgM8
In recent years, researchers have begun using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) not just to better understand the neural bases of psychiatric illness, but also for experimental treatment of depression, ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and schizophrenia with real-time fMRI neurofeedback. But how well does it work?
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3t2VpPJ
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine show that analysis of the proteomics, or all the protein data, from aggressive human cancers is a useful approach to identify potential novel therapeutic targets.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ehPmSS
Researchers reconstructed the evolutionary history of cancer cells in two patients, tracing the timeline of the mutation that causes the disease to a cell of origin. In a 63-year-old patient, it occurred at around age 19; in a 34-year-old patient, at around age 9.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30biH9l
A mutation that replaces a single amino acid in a potent tumor-suppressing protein makes it prone to nucleating amyloid fibrils implicated in many cancers as well as neurological diseases.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30ab4QC
Glycine can stimulate or inhibit neurons in the brain, thereby controlling complex functions. Unraveling the three-dimensional structure of the glycine transporter, researchers have now come a big step closer to understanding the regulation of glycine in the brain. These results open up opportunities to find effective drugs that inhibit GlyT1 function, with major implications for the treatment of schizophrenia and other mental disorders.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3e93xtJ
Researchers used CRISPR, a genome-editing tool, to figure out the hidden roles of a developmental gene called WOX9. It usually induces flower branching in tomatoes and influences embryo growth in a plant related to broccoli. By tweaking the DNA in the gene's nearby promoter region, the researchers found WOX9 could induce flower branching in other species. These types of genetic manipulations provide new opportunities to improve crop traits while eliminating unwanted side effects.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3cgYuoz
A new study employing ancient human DNA reveals how tuberculosis has affected European populations over the past 2,000 years, specifically the impact that disease has had on the human genome. This work has implications for studying not only evolutionary genetics, but also how genetics can influence the immune system.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3bZ67zH
Outdated assumptions around gender continue to hinder effective and fair policy making and action for climate mitigation and adaptation: women are innately caring and connected to the environment; women are a homogenous and vulnerable group; gender equality is a women's issue and; gender equality is a numbers game.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3sHcGO6
People with higher incomes tend to feel prouder, more confident and less afraid than people with lower incomes, but not necessarily more compassionate or loving, according to new research.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/387MbJW
Research led by scientists at the University of Queensland found phytonutrients have proneurogenic effects in the brain.1 The researchers studied the effects of quercetin in vitro and in an animal model. The basis of the research was investigating flavonoids, which are phytonutrients commonly found in fruits and vegetables.
Evidence has demonstrated that flavonoids have the potential to protect brain cells against injury, suppress neuroinflammation and promote cognitive functioning.2 The researchers found the most prominent examples of these flavonoids and polyphenols are epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), commonly found in green tea, resveratrol, red grapes and berries.3
Taking steps to protect your brain from the assault of processed foods and environmental toxins is a crucial way to protect your overall health and ability to stay independent as you age.
The results of a nationally representative cross-sectional study published in the BMJ4 found that 57.9% of the calories eaten by the participants came from ultraprocessed foods and 89.7% of the energy was from added sugars. One physician calls this diet pattern “Fast Food Genocide.”5
Added sugars present a significant risk to brain health as they contribute to obesity6 and Alzheimer’s disease.7 The researchers wrote8 that in ultraprocessed foods, the added sugars were eight times higher than in processed foods and five times higher than in minimally processed foods.
In the 9,317 participants surveyed, the researchers found 82.1% in the highest quintile consumed over the recommended limit of 10% of their calories from added sugar, as compared to the 26.4% in the lowest quintile. This indicates a significant need to improve dietary intake and protect brain health.
Phytonutrients Promote Growth of New Brain Cells
The study9 from the University of Queensland is yet another piece of evidence demonstrating the power of phytonutrients to your health. The researchers sought to investigate how natural compounds may have become part of the environmental stimuli that shape neurological structure and function.
They chose to investigate bioactive compounds found in apples as they are consumed worldwide and analyzed the presence of quercetin in apple peel and 3,5 dihydroxybenzoic acid from the apple flesh. Dihydroxybenzoic acid is not related to flavonoids but did appear to have proneurogenic properties.
Quercetin was chosen as it was an abundant flavonoid extracted from apple peel. However, past studies have investigated the effects of other flavonoids, namely EGCG and resveratrol named by researchers from the University of Queensland.
One study published in Genes & Nutrition10 investigated the neuroprotective actions demonstrated by flavonoids that help promote memory, learning and cognitive functions. They found the effects are supported by two processes. In the first, flavonoids appeared to play an important role in signaling cascades.
In the second, the flavonoids improve peripheral and cerebral vascular blood flow in a way that could lead to angiogenesis and the production of new nerve cells in the hippocampus. The result of the second pathway is the same described by the researchers analyzing quercetin — generation of new nerve cells in the hippocampus.11
Evidence has shown that flavonoids have a direct and indirect effect on the central nervous system12 and the various effects on the brain include the ability to reverse some symptoms that are associated with Alzheimer's disease and enhance cognitive function.13 The neuroprotective mechanism also contributes to the quality of neurons and their connectivity, which one study suggests:14
“... can thwart the progression of age-related disorders and can be a potential source for the design and development of new drugs effective in cognitive disorders.”
Tea May Help Improve Brain Connections
The current study supports past evidence that drinking green tea can improve cognitive functioning. A study15 from the National University of Singapore used data from neuroimaging from 36 older adults. The researchers were interested in the effect that tea might have on the structure, organization and function of the brain.16
The participants were asked about their tea-drinking habits from age 45 to the present and then underwent an MRI. From the imaging, the researchers discovered that the participants who drank tea had better brain structure, function and organization. However, those who drank the most — at least four times a week for about 25 years — also had greater functional connectivity strength.
While the growth of new nerve cells in the hippocampus does support better memory and recall, greater connectivity offers additional benefits. Assistant professor Feng Lei from the National University of Singapore explained the importance of connectivity in a press release:17
"Take the analogy of road traffic as an example — consider brain regions as destinations, while the connections between brain regions are roads. When a road system is better organised, the movement of vehicles and passengers is more efficient and uses less resources. Similarly, when the connections between brain regions are more structured, information processing can be performed more efficiently.
We have shown in our previous studies that tea drinkers had better cognitive function as compared to non-tea drinkers. Our current results relating to brain network indirectly support our previous findings by showing that the positive effects of regular tea drinking are the result of improved brain organisation brought about by preventing disruption to interregional connections."
Research evidence has also suggested that drinking green tea is associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairments.18 One literature review19 of in vitro and in vivo administration of EGCG found it reduced beta-amyloid accumulation in the lab and animal models.
EGCG Connected to Heart Health
The ability to break up beta-amyloid plaques may also be the basis for an association with the reduction of atherosclerosis plaque. Researchers from the University of Leeds and Lancaster University found green tea can prevent heart disease by dissolving arterial plaque.20
EGCG alters the structure of amyloid fibrils formed by apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1), which is the main component of high-density lipoprotein shown to accumulate in atherosclerosis plaques. This happens in the presence of heparin. Unfortunately, the concentrations required to achieve this result in the study were so high you can't achieve the same results from drinking green tea alone.
Another benefit to the cardiovascular system from long-term tea drinking is an improvement in your blood pressure readings. One systematic review21 of 25 randomized control trials with 1,476 participants found those who regularly drank either green or black tea for 12 weeks had an average of 2.6 mm Hg lower systolic pressure and 2.2 mm Hg lower diastolic pressure compared to those who did not drink tea.
The researchers measured the effects of green tea and black tea and found that green tea provided the best results, especially in those who drank it for more than 12 weeks. According to the authors, this reduction:22
"... would be expected to reduce stroke risk by 8 percent, coronary artery disease mortality by 5 percent and all-cause mortality by 4 percent at a population level ... These are profound effects and must be considered seriously in terms of the potential for dietary modification to modulate the risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease]."
The data from this literature review did not show exactly how much tea was needed to receive these benefits. However, previous studies have suggested the ideal amount is between three and four cups of tea per day. For example, one study23 in 2007 found clear evidence that three or more cups of tea — in this case, black tea— reduced the risk of heart disease.
Similarly, drinking three to four cups of green tea each day has demonstrated the ability to promote heart and cardiovascular health.24 Improvements in cardiovascular health may be the result of beneficial effects on endothelial function, which is integral to blood pressure and heart disease.25
Consider the Multiple Benefits of Resveratrol
Resveratrol is produced by the plant to resist disease. While it is found in grapes and berries, it's also produced by the cacao plant and found in raw cacao and dark chocolate. Although red wine does have some resveratrol, it is in such small amounts you can't drink enough to get the benefits.26
It's also important to remember that alcohol damages your brain and organs, and is itself a neurotoxin. This means drinking enough red wine for the benefits of resveratrol is counterproductive.
Resveratrol can cross the blood-brain barrier where it has a dramatic effect as an antioxidant. Researchers from Georgetown University Medical Center write that resveratrol, when given to people with Alzheimer's, appears to “restore the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, reducing the ability of harmful immune molecules secreted by immune cells to infiltrate from the body into brain tissue.”27
The ability to improve cerebral blood flow is likely the basis for the neuroprotective effects of improving cerebral blood flow and cognitive performance,28 depression,29 brain inflammation30 and may improve learning, mood and memory.31
Researchers are also investigating resveratrol’s use against lung cancer when the compound is administered nasally in high doses.32 In one study33 conducted at the University of Newcastle, researchers detected improvements in bone density in postmenopausal women who were given resveratrol.
In the study, called “Resveratrol for Healthy Ageing in Women (RESHAW),” women took 75 milligrams (mg) of resveratrol twice daily or a placebo for 12 months, after which researchers measured their bone density by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans, commonly called DXA scans.34
"The modest increase in bone mineral density at the femoral neck with resveratrol resulted in an improvement in the study population’s T-score and a reduction in the 10-year probability of major fracture risk," said Peter Howe, an author of the study and Professor Emeritus at the university.35
EGCG and Resveratrol Help Support Your Immune Health
In addition to the neurological, cardiovascular, bone and other health benefits of these powerful phytonutrients, they also play a role in supporting your immune system. During cold and flu season, and during the current COVID-19 pandemic, providing added support to your immune system may help protect your health.
Resveratrol is known to play a role in the prevention and progression of inflammatory chronic diseases such as obesity, neurodegeneration and diabetes.36 Evidence also shows it modulates your immune system by interfering with pro-inflammatory cytokines synthesis, modulating immune cell function related to the production of cytokines by CD4 and CD8 T-cells.37
In 2017, resveratrol was tested against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the laboratory and found it significantly inhibited infection and lengthened cell survival after infection.38
EGCG can improve your body's ability to use zinc intracellularly. The action as a zinc ionophore39 helps support your body's response against viruses like the common cold, flu and COVID-19.
One 2015 study40 found green tea was also able to help with dental issues. After 28 days of using a 2% green tea mouthwash, the data revealed those using the green tea had a reduction of plaque and their gingivitis scores.
Evidence has also suggested there is an antifungal activity of EGCG that is four times higher than that of the drug fluconazole and up to 16 times higher than flucytosine.41 Another study42 demonstrated a foot bath infused with green tea polyphenols could significantly reduce infected areas of people with interdigital tinea pedis, or athlete's foot.
The topical application of a green tea ointment also demonstrated an effective cure rate of 81.3% for people with impetigo.43 Interestingly, the antiviral and antifungal effects of green tea do not appear to have the same antibacterial effect on your intestinal tract.44
EGCG is sensitive to brewing temperature. To release the most from your tea leaves, brew your green tea at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit.45 Try drinking it while it's freshly brewed to get the most health benefits, rather than tea that may have been sitting for a few hours. Consider adding a spritz of citrus juice to boost the benefits and increase the catechin absorption.46
Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.
I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created in and escaped from a lab.
In a February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin, and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.
Why Zoonotic Origin Is Most Unlikely
Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.
The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.
What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”
According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.
“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2
Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:
“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Zoonotic Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Random
Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)
Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)
Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.
Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4
“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.
We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.
(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”
Zheng-li’s Research Revolved Around the Pandemic Virus
Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).
“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.
Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:
“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”
They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial evidences that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”
“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”
WIV Held Closest Known Relative to SARS-CoV-2
Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.
In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.
Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.
Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5
1. The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6
2. Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.
Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8
In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)
3. The failed vaccine development theory.11
4. The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.
“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:
“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”
WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt
Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16
They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.
The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”
There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.
Secondly, China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20
He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
No Credible Evidence Food Is a Route of Transmission
The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.
For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.
Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29
Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food handling might be a significant route of transmission.30
Why the Lab-Origin Theory Must Be Quashed
You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.
Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.
On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.
As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright, told Boston Magazine:31
“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”
Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even more blunt, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.
Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainder are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.
According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.
It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.
If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.
