McKernan to Couey — ‘Wuhan might be a scapegoat lab and many others had similar leaks that we never saw until PCR was turned on’

1st- I agree with @jjcouey on 99% of what’s going on and we find ourselves ever whittling away at our minor differences.
Since this is a testimony, I feel obligated to point out the inconsistencies.
1:30 mins in he shows a paper where the Infectious clone..

Produces the exact same imbalance in gRNA to sgRNA once it is executed in a cell.

His own words states, they made an IC and only get 2 copies of the full length genome.

So what is the mechanism by which these ICs generate higher copy number of gRNA/sgRNA?

This is never described.

[This is detailed material but interesting if you have paid attention to either of these two excellent researchers. It may look like there is a fine line between them but the difference is a large ongoing military psyop complete with timed releases of covid Infectious Clones (IC) or not. ABN]

He also conflates two different E gene primer sets to suggest all E gene primers are non specific.

Without describing the details of how an IC is making different gRNA/sgRNA, this all a roos to provide a hall pass for reckless GOF research.

If CVs can’t spread around the world (despite 229E, HKU1 doing it every year) then why regulate them?

Wuhan might be a scapegoat lab and many others had similar leaks that we never saw until PCR was turned on.
This is impossible to tease out of from an intentional parallel IC release that appears harder to organize than a point source leak.

Since these ICs produce the same poor yield of gRNA as the virus, why use them as a FEDEx vector when FedEx uses the same planes to get around as the people infected with a virus.
IC don’t afford wormholes and therefore don’t open up any faster diaspora than the virus.

Originally tweeted by Kevin McKernan (@Kevin_McKernan) on April 29, 2023.