The Highwire with Del Bigtree - STUNNING ANALYSIS: WERE OMICRON VARIANTS MAN-MADE?

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

While the DOE, FBI, and CIA all now back the possibility of a lab leak pandemic scenario, a new study by Japanese researchers sheds light on the genetic investigation. Appearing to show human intervention in the creation of the Omicron variant, scientists may now be forced to factor synthetic creation into the discussion.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We've talked a lot here about the lab origin, about that conversation. Was it manmade? Did it come from nature? There's a new gigantic bombshell study. I can't overstate the importance of this. And we're going to get to it in just a second because we have to really understand the importance of this. So remember, there's been a back and forth conversation. We had the internal emails from Fauci, from Collins, from Jeremy Farrar, from Christian Anderson, the virologist,

all saying at the beginning of this COVID pandemic, essentially that look, there's big questions here. This thing looks like it was, it looks like there were some lab fingerprints on it, if you will, but we're just going to go out and kind of kill that conversation. But then the big organizations, they all had their own feelers out there. And so you started to see in early 2023 here, this is the headline, lab leak most likely origin of COVID-19 pandemic. Energy Department now says, and that's the agency revising its assessment based on new intelligence. And then just a month later, that was in February and March, just a month later, you had the FBI. They had their own team out there. FBI director Ray acknowledges

Bureau assessment that COVID-19 likely resulted from lab accident. And now the CIA, so this is the New York Post. The CIA had their own people looking into it. They're jumping over, well, according to this whistleblower, CIA tried to pay off analysts to very findings that COVID lab leak was likely whistleblower. So there's two committees here. There's the intelligence committee and the select subcommittee on the pandemic, the coronavirus pandemic. And they have both sent a letter to the head of the FBI, Director Burns. And this is a fascinating point here. This is still a developing story. The letter says this. According to the whistleblower, this is a CIA whistleblower, the agency assigned seven officers to a COVID discovery team. The team

consisted of multidisciplinary and experienced officers with significant scientific expertise. According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the team believe the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The seventh member of the team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the lone officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis. The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position. Wow. So the CIA is doing what the CIA does really just manufacture consent here on a small level within that team. Meanwhile, our YouTube channel and Facebook channel were being taken down and others like us for daring to report that there were scientists saying that this looked like it was more likely lab origin than natural origin. None of the fact checkers that attacked us or those that took down our pages have ever apologized and are bad. as it turns out we relied to and we listened to the wrong people you don't hear anyone

on MSNBC or CNN or any of these news agencies apologizing to the people and here we have all the top people that were behind the lie driving the lie now whistleblowers are exposing everything and it's very important so remember we had the original strain the alpha strain then the Delta we were told was extremely deadly and we had to get vaccinated for this kids stay out of school But then the Amacron strain came. The Amacron is this dominant lineage. It was first identified in South Africa in late November 2021.

And what was interesting about the Amacron strain? Well, we'll go to Dr. Valentin Brutel on Twitter. He's a German virologist. And he says this about the Amicron strain. The SARS-2 evolved in complete isolation. That's what he's talking about. While all other variants of concern originated from circulating SARS-2 variants, This Amacron originated from a most recent common ancestor that was not circulating anymore

for more than a year. And we have a picture here. He added to this. This is called a phylogenetic tree. And you can see here at the bottom, you have all of the mutations, all those little dots. They're building upon, building upon mutating, mutating, mutating. And then this red rocket line comes out of nowhere. That's Amacron.

It's not playing with any of those other people. It comes out from early 2020 strain and just shoots over. over all of those and starts its own tree and dominates the rest of the viral strange. So there was a lot of people around the world going, wait a minute, where did this come from? How was it so potent on the population? It became the dominant, how to just replace everything else

that's been doing its time in nature. And where did it come from? It was not related to any of the most recent, you know, evolutions. It went all the way back as those sort of a, you know, it was almost like the Neanderthal man suddenly pops in. into, you know, is walking down the mall and you're like, wait, well, hold on a second.

Where did you just come from? Right. I mean, that's what happened with this virus. Right. And, you know, there's a lot of theories about that. Well, maybe an immunocompromised person and just had it and they were isolated for a really long time. And then they just popped out of nowhere in 2021. But the problem was it was, it was immune to a lot of the antibodies that were out there, which is totally against that theory. So some Japanese researchers started to look at some databases of a lot of the variants. And this is the study. This is a study. This is a really this is like Fauci's original internal email where we finally saw oh my gosh there's actually something here this is a genetic version of that so unnatural evolutionary processes of SARS

COB2 variants and possibility of deliberate natural selection so they looked at these variants from around the world a lot in the united states but someone from india bangladesh other other countries as well there's a storehouse of these and they wrote this to determine the order of mutations They're looking at how these things order themselves only in the Omicron variant. Leading to the formation of SARS-CoV-2 Amicron variants, we compare the sequences of 129 Amacron BA-1-related, 141-1-related, and 122-B-A-2-related isolates. That's almost 400 isolated variants they're comparing,

and attempted to clarify the evolutionary processes of SARS-CoB2 Amacron variants, including the order of mutations leading to their formation and the occurrence of homologous recombination. They continue. As a result, we concluded that the formation of a part of Omicron isolates B.A.1, B.A.1, and B.A.2, was not the product of genome evolution, as is commonly observed in nature, such as the accumulation of mutations and homogalus recombinations. They go on to say reverse genetics. They found evidence of reverse genetics. They say reverse genetics experiments are an essential part of virus research and is inimical to virus research to consider that artificial, artificially synthesized viruses were deliberately spread throughout the world. However, now that reverse genetics has become common in virus research, we believe it is not scientific to discuss the mutation process of SARS-CoB2 without excluding the possibility of artificially synthesized viruses. So a lot was said there, but let's just key in on

something reverse genetics. So they found evidence. So basically they went in and said, let's just see if, I mean, just how scientific testing was. It's like a double negative without excluding, but what they're saying is if we can exclude, you know, scientific manipulation here, we can't keep talking about the evolution of this virus, right? And so what they're looking at is 400 versions of Omicron, right? This isn't Delta or all the others. It's just the Omicron variants. So all the Omicron variants from around the world, they line them up, and they're trying to figure out which one came first.

They figure, you know, by doing this reverse, you know, analysis. Deconstructing it they can find where the changes happen and then build that like as we saw that sort of tree Where you know this one came first then it added this little hairy function and then it grew some you know toes and eyes or whatever, but we see that evolution and they're able to structure what they want to do is structure which came first This is the sampling I think of their original strains Not just Omicron but you see how that works they they build on each other. That's what they're looking for is which one came first okay, right and and And they're saying, you know, let's focus on the amicron, because we know the phylogenetic tree of a lot of other ones, but omicrons is this mystery. So now that it's been out there, let's take all these strains and let's rebuild this thing.

Let's look at it. So they use the word reverse genetics. So let's talk about what is reverse genetics. So we go to this article outside the study. It's basically, it's an approach researchers used to discover the function of a gene by tinkering with it and analyzing the effect. So it says in this article, reverse genetics has many important therapeutic applications. So again, researchers, this is just a common thing they're doing, especially in engineering of vaccines against viruses or the reconstitution of a viral genome.

In vaccine development, reverse genetics can be used to create viral strains that have reduced that have reduced pathogenicity, but still be able to be robustly recognized by the immune system to lead to the creation of antibodies against the virus. Well, isn't that interesting? Because in nature, the actual publication nature, it says this about the Omicron strain when it came out looking at the research. It said, Omicron, increase transmissibility and decrease pathogenicity. Kind of exactly what you would do for vaccine development. Now, stay with me here for a second. So now let's look at some basics on mutations. So we're going to bring a chart here.

There's a substack that has a very basic chart. And they wrote about this. Substack is under a pseudonym of PMSI. And there's a picture in this substack article about just the basics of viral mutations. So you see all these letters, and you see the original mutation up there, and then you go down to the mutation one line, and you can see that red G is now formed. It goes from a C in the original virus, and then to the mutation one, it goes to a G. That G tracks all the way down that column. That G is now embedded in that viral genome, never to go back to a C again. And then you look at the mutations down the line. Another G turns to a blue A.

You have a T turning back to a G, a yellow G. And so on those columns, once those mutations happen, they're baked in the cake, if you will. They're never going to change back. Now, let's go back to the Japanese researchers and their study for almost 400 variants of this Amacron variant. This is what they found. They put their own tree together. And it sure looks pretty systematic.

So that's BA1. Now you notice there's white step ladder there. The white step ladder there are places where. the mutation has been removed. But you notice when it steps down to the next step, that mutation that was removed is put back in, and another one is removed, and so on and so forth, down this step process. Well, that's interesting. So they looked at three variants of Amacron. Now let's look at BA1. Let's look at that image. Same conversation, same image. So this is like, and what they're saying is this clearly a splice where this is being removed.

It doesn't, in the evolution of something, it doesn't grow an arm, and then the next day, suddenly doesn't have that arm anymore. And then you lose, you know, if we thought about this way as you're going down on one group, you've lost an arm, then the arm is back, but now you've lost a leg, then the leg is back, now you've lost a foot. And it's perfectly lining up on this graph. And that's supposed to be natural.

And they're saying there's no way this is natural, right? Right. And the mutations happen. There's no uniform way mutations happen. That's really the definition of them. They mutate. It's chaos. that you can't it's chaos exact you can't predict that so let's look at the facility

looked at three versions of this and just to finish that off we have the b a 2 image this is the final variant they looked at of omicron wow same pattern so this is what the researchers then write they say this study aims to point out that sars cov2 has undergone unthinkable mutations based on conventional coronavirus mutation mechanisms and we hope that the possibility of artificial creation is included in serious discussions on the formation of of SARS-CoB to variants. So let's go to that. Let's be really clear that I'm getting this right.

There was always this thought that was Amacron created almost to sort of be an antidote to what was happening with Delta? It appears out of nowhere. There's speculation that this might be coming from a lab. But then even if that happened, or like if you think the original version, then it starts mutating on its own and it runs in its own life. What they seem to be saying here is that we don't. just think the original first Amicron came from a lab. We think every single one of these variations

of the 400 is coming from a lab because we're seeing this really strange anomaly where each one's being maneuvered, removing the one little part of it in a very systematic manner. So they're saying Amacron didn't essentially, if they're right, didn't mutate at all, these are just 400 different lab creations that are being spread all over the world. Is that essentially what this is sort of alluding to? It's a big assertion and they're very careful with their wording. If you go back and read that article, anybody can get this. They sign up for a newsletter. They'll get it Monday morning. There's the link to this research. It's a very thick read. It's very in depth. But they're, they're very careful with their wording, but that seems to be what they're suggesting. They're saying

look, at least, at least given this evidence. We need to approach this conversation, have this in the debate when we're talking about the origins of this thing. So as, as I was saying, There's not a lot of coverage on this as of yet. There's a substack written by somebody named PMSI. They covered this study. And they titled there, I mean, they were a little looser with it. They said unnatural evolution, indisputable evidence of deliberate and systemic creation. But they said this.

They looked at those step processes that we just looked at, all three of those graphs, if you will, with the missing mutations. And they wrote this about that. They said perfect reversion of mutations like this on such a scale is completely implausible by any natural process. The variance found by Tanaka and Miyu Zawa, those are the Japanese researchers, can best be described as a panel of reversion mutations. This kind of panel is exactly what a researcher would create to systemically test the contribution of different elements of a virus to its activity. So they're saying, this is exactly what you would do if you start tinkering with a virus

trying to figure out which one does what in a systemic process. And so the final piece of this study, The study, this Japanese study has a lot of interesting conversations and evidence in there. But when something mutates, whether it's a cancer virus or a SARS virus in this case, there's only two types of mutations it has. They're technically called synonymous and non-sononymous. So a synonymous mutation is a silent mutation. It's functionally silent. It's evolutionary neutral.

It's not going to do anything. It's just there. It's adding and crewing in the background. It's not going to be non-sanonymous. is what really start pulling the levers of these things. This is what makes it more pathogenic. This is what makes it more transmissible or less transmissible. It's the stuff that really matters.

So this is what the researchers also wrote. They said concerning the genetic variation of the spike protein of these variants, most of the mutations were non-sanomous, meaning they were dealing with some pretty big movers and shakers when it comes to the amino acid sequences. They said there were no synonymous mutations, in the alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or mu variants,

but only one each in the Lambda and Omicron variants. So to say that a different way, in nature, viruses have more synonymous or silent mutations. That's because they're working on. I try to imagine this again, like in cartoon world, the virus can grow some crazy purple hairs, some yellow hair, and a bunch of things that aren't going to affect your health at all,

because it's just, they're just different viruses that are selecting, and it's chaos, right? And some, one of those things might be, you know, in the end, non-sononymous, which means this really affects you. Actually, this makes it more infectious. But it developed a whole lot of other things that didn't matter. And what they're saying is those all a lot of other things aren't happening at all.

This thing isn't mutating in any other place except exactly where it's precisely affecting the human experience with it, right? That's what they're saying. Serious changes was all that happened to this. No accidental, none that didn't make it more powerful. in some important way, which is just again, it's like someone's thinking about it and working with it specifically.

Right, and so playing with this idea, playing with this idea that they're suggesting that there may be a possibility of this thing being synthesized by man's hand. Wouldn't that be what a lab team would do or a scientist would do? Let's not deal with these synonymous mutations because they don't concern me,

because they're not going to do anything in the end. I want to deal with prime movers, the non-synostomers. that are going to actually have changes of this virus that I want to see change. We don't know, but this is a big, big study to move this ball forward. And, you know, along with all the departments, the CIA, the FBI, Department of Energy, moving forward and saying there is a probability now, possibility now that this thing was created in a lab, this adds a big, big component to the scientific conversation, which has been slow,

obviously in the public space because this is very technical, but this is a big conversation now. to the root of something, I think. Let me ask you a question. Is this still a preprint? Is this been published yet? This is still a preprint, yes. Okay, so for our audience that's watching this right now, we are breaking you science that is still being peer reviewed right now.

There may be peer review that happens. Scientists come in and say, we don't think this study was done properly. In fact, I'm sure the CIA and everybody else is going to come in and try and knock this down because it puts a giant fingerprint on what's happening here. And so to be clear, don't go running out and say, oh my God, the high wire just proved that all the variants of Omicron were manmade. What we're saying is there's a study right now that is showing that and I think more studies have to happen. But one of the reasons we decide to report something is, as we've told you before here on the high wire, we're tracking the whole story. We're tracking what science is being done, what it knows for sure, what it doesn't, as we try to figure out what is going on here.

And one of the things I think, and it just occurred to me, Jeffrey, because we've been working on this all week, one of the conversations that we have and we're looking into is the investment in super infectious vaccines, the idea that they want to make vaccines that you only have to give the people that want it, but it infects all the people that don't want it. And we also are looking into the aerosolization of vaccines, which is being invested into. And one of the questions that comes up from me here is, wait a minute, If they're finding all of these lab-created versions of Omicron, which did somehow seem to overcome Delta and sort of slow the spread of Delta, is it possible? We have already all been in contact with maybe the first purposely released virus or fake virus or vaccine of some sort.

All of this again, speculative, but we're going to keep bringing you the science, folks. But I want to make sure that you just sort of put this on your shelf right now the way we are and say super interesting. more science needs to be done, but we want to make sure you heard it here first, that there are real scientists looking into this now. And that would be very shocking to find out that Omicron never actually naturally evolved, that all of them were laboratory creations. Super fascinating, really, really interesting. Yeah, this is just the start of this conversation. And, you know, it's in the public space, and that's what we're reporting on.