Virologist Jonathan Latham PhD discusses likely lab origins of COVID-19 virus - Episode 35

Listen to the Podcast:

In this week's episode...

In this episode Jeffrey talks to Virologist and editor of Independent Science News Dr. Jonathan Latham about the lab origins of COVID-19.  With so much speculation and controversy about the origins of COVID-19, Dr. Latham presents some solid, scientific evidence that puts to rest all of the conspiracy and shows the lab origins of this deadly virus.

Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:07):

Hi everyone. This is Jeffrey Smith Institute for responsible technology. I'm with a friend of mine, Dr. Jonathan Latham, who's a virologist, who's done genetic engineering, who is the author of Independent Science News, who is a brilliant scientist who demands transparency and the truth in science. So, I have enjoyed talking to him about the non-transparency and the non-truth related to GMOs for a decade. Welcome Jonathan.

Speaker 3

Hi there Jeffery.

Speaker 2

And you could watch some of the amazing work that you're talking about in an interview that we did last summer on some of the new problems with gene editing, which hardly anyone's talking about, but now everyone's talking about COVID-19. And I've been looking at some of the interviews you've been giving about the possible genetic engineering, or at very least, lab origins of COVID-19. As a virologist, you're sitting on some science that we want to know about because so many people say, Oh no, it's conspiracy theory. You're saying, wait a minute. No, actually it's science. And you're saying that of all the possible origins, a lab is much more likely than in random transfer from a bat. So why don't you walk us through why you think the virus is most likely from a genetically engineered source in a laboratory.

Speaker 3 (01:32):

So, well, the way I think about this is that, you know, at some point the virus came from a bat, but, that everybody agrees on that, I would say. But the question then is, what happened next? Right, because the animals do not take origin, the natural origin thesis is that basically it either jumped directly from a bat, because a person ate a bat, handled the bat, or something, and then, or, that the virus passed through an intermediate species like a civet or a pangolin or a snake. You know, there's a whole bunch that have been mooted, and that was a kind of intermediary species that allowed the virus to evolve to be more humanlike and therefor become a pandemic type virus. The other possibility is that there's a lab in Wuhan, the Wuhan Institute of Virology,

Speaker 3 (02:31):

that’s world renowned and basically the world epicenter of bat coronavirus research, right? This lab has been going out to different parts of China and collecting bat coronaviruses. Right? So the question that we really need to ask is, why did the outbreak happen in Wuhan if, [inaudible] natural zoonotic origin that these researchers are having to go all the way to other provinces a thousand kilometers away and more to find the right kinds of bats with the right kind of coronaviruses in them yet the outbreak happened in Wuhan, right? The probability of an outbreak happening in Wuhan is about 1%, right? Randomly. If you think about Wuhan as a city with a population of 10 million people and China has 1.3 billion people. The chances, if this really is a natural zoonotic origin,

Speaker 3 (03:33):

the chances of it happening in Wuhan is less than 1%. Quite a bit less than 1%, because these bats are not found in Wuhan and nor, so far, has been the virus.

Speaker 2


Speaker 3

So, we have a prima facie case that this came from the lab, right? This is why I said this is the most likely explanation. Then the question becomes were they doing the kind of experiments, or doing the, you know, exactly how did a bat virus that we, you know, nobody's found the original bat virus, right? We could have imagined that somehow a virus, a virus from a bat, became infectious in people, and if it happened in the lab, then perhaps that's because they were doing the kind of experiments that will cause that kind of thing to happen, that kind of change to happen. So, what are the lab possibilities, right?

Speaker 3 (04:26):

In my mind, there are three lab possibilities. One is simply that these lab researchers are going to exotic places and handling bats and we know they got bat pee on them. We know they got bat poo on them. We know that they sometimes didn't use the right protective gear. Scientific American has an interview with Doctor Shi, whose lab is the, you know, the one we're talking about here, and she [Shi] is shown in this picture. Actually, the Chinese pronunciation is Shi, right? So, Shi is shown as releasing a bat in the photograph. She's wearing no protective gear except for a pair of gloves, right? She could be wearing a mask, she could be wearing a full protective outfit, but she's wearing a thin pair of gloves and she's going around the world giving talks about how dangerous it is to come in contact with bats. So we know that the, and from other evidence too, we know that these people were not handling these bats, and potentially these viruses, in the safest possible manner. Like on the surface, very far from the safest possible manner.

Speaker 3 (05:44):

So, the simple, the very simple lab origin possibility is that they recklessly collected bats, recklessly brought them home to the lab and some of them became infected, or one of them became infected with a bat virus, and that was very much like COVID-19. And then they went home at night and they pass it to their family. They didn't put themselves in quarantine. Maybe they didn't even know they were sick, right? So, this is lab origin possibility number one. Simply, there was no genetic engineering going on. There was simply reckless handling of bat viruses, right, bats and bat viruses. The possibility two is that they brought this bat, they brought it into the lab, they cloned it, they made it basically an infectious clone of this virus. And then they did experiments on that infectious clone. So, for example, they might've put it into monkey cells, right?

Speaker 3 (06:41):

So, remember this is the bat virus, right? But typically, what people do is they put these viruses into, they don't have bad cells, right? You can't cultivate a bat virus in a normal lab. The Shi lab did not have the bat cells. No one has bat cells. No one has back colonies. So you have to cultivate the virus in monkey cells, or in human cells, or in some kind of cell type where you can basically allow the thing to replicate so you can store it, so you can keep it so you can have copies in the freezer and so forth. So, the problem with putting the virus into human cells or into monkey cells is that that virus then becomes adapted to those cells, right? So, this is called pathology. Basically, you have a live virus and you have a live culture of human cells or monkey cells, or whatever they are, and you basically every week or every month or whatever, you basically move the culture because you know, eventually it becomes infected, eventually the virus dies out or it kills the cells. You just keep culturing the thing. But in the process, it becomes adapted to the cells that you've put in there. And if what you've done is put it in monkey cells, or what you've done is put it and mouse cells even, or if you put it in human cells, then you basically are adapting that virus to humans. Right. And then there's a spill. Imagine that there’s a spill, somebody pricks themselves, somebody fails to dispose of the culture properly. You know, this is a classic lab accident thing where basically somebody thinks that disinfected the virus and destroyed the cells, but actually the disinfectant was made up wrongly or something.

Speaker 3 (08:28):

And it just gets thrown out with the trash, and then some cat eats the trash or whatever it is. Right? So, this is the kind of thing that happens in these high security labs where people are keeping viruses.

Speaker 2

And there are hundreds; hundreds of recorded instances of viral, or microbe, escape from these laboratories that USA today has documented. Carry on.

Speaker 3

Yeah, there are. We can discuss some of those, because there are some very interesting examples, right, that we could go into. So, that is possibility number two, right? That they weren't really engineering it. They merely made a virus kind of inadvertently without even, and in this case, they wouldn't actually know what the sequence was, right. By keeping as a live culture and it's changing as they're keeping it. They don't really know what they've made in the lab.

Speaker 3 (09:20):

Right. But then that lab creation, in a sense, escapes. The third possibility is that they’re mixing and matching or swapping different bits of viruses. And we know, we know they did all three of these types of experiments, right? They've also done mixing and matching type experiments where for example, you take a mouse virus, mouse Coronavirus, and you add a human spike and then you add another piece of the bat virus or you take bat virus and you add a human coronavirus spike protein. And then you add, like there's any number of possible starting points and any number of possible experiments that this lab quite likely was doing, right. They had grants to do these kinds of experiments. They talk about mixing and matching spike proteins, taking these mixed proteins, mixed viruses, and putting them into humanized mice, into human cells and so forth, right.

Speaker 3 (10:21):

So, we know that they were doing these kinds of experiments. And so, when people start to talk in the media about, you know, how did it get a pangolin spike and how did it get a furin cleavage site or whatever. Well, these are the kinds of experiments that researchers or colleagues of Shi, and quite likely Shi herself, and potentially in unpublished research, but also some of it published, have been doing exactly these experiments, right. So this is lab escape possibility number three; that they took one of a novel virus that they collected through their collecting expeditions, they did mixing and matching with some novel virus and other novel viruses that they had, or ones that they took off the shelf, the international shelf for viruses, and that creation escaped.

Speaker 2 (11:17):

So, Jonathan, based on the analysis of the sequence of the SARS CoV-2 virus, or the COVID-19 virus, would you say that there's evidence suggesting that it was genetically engineered?

Speaker 3 (11:34):

You can’t, based on the sequence of COVID-19, you cannot distinguish between those possibilities. Any of them, that could be a virus really, really like COVID-19 sitting in bats, in Jiangxi, Hunan or somewhere, right. So there's no way of telling then, in my estimation, which of, the sequence of COVID-19 doesn't distinguish between those possibilities. People have tried to make arguments that it does, and I don't think they’re convincing. But maybe that, you know, you can take a different view of the statistics for example, but I don't think that they’re convinced.

Speaker 2 (12:15):

So, I want to point out some deeper questions. Okay. So, before I do that, because I want to challenge that assumption and see, because you're a virologist and I've analyzed this, I have a podcast on this. I have another Facebook live based on some information that we both have read from GM Watch. And I'd like to get your opinion on it. Is there any other big piece of information you want to insert at this point before I start to question about the genetic engineering origins?

Speaker 3 (12:47):

Well, the extra piece of this is that these experiments can be done in combination, right? So, so you can do a mixing and matching experiment and then you can do passaging, right? So, you can take that mix and match genetically engineered virus and you can put that into the novel cell type. And then it becomes evolved along its own particular pathway and may become a pathogenic virus. So there are, you know, it's not that they were only doing one or only doing the other. There's any, you know, the virologists have done basically hybrid type experiments.

Speaker 2 (13:27):

So, are you familiar with the argument made in the blog Nerd Has Power?

Speaker 3 (13:33):

I've read that. Yeah, there's, we have some problems with that, but go on.

Speaker 2 (13:38):

So, I reported on this last week, or two weeks ago, and the theory was that Shi, the director of the WIV - - who people call ‘bat woman’ so I make it easy and call her ‘bat woman’ - published a sequence called RAT dot, dot, dot, so I just call it ‘rat bat’ because it was supposed to be the sequence that she found in a rat in 2013. She didn't publish it in 2013, she published it in January of this year, and claimed that this is probably the likely natural origin of COVID-19, because it was so similar to COVID-19. And, the Nerd Has Power author who I call ‘Nerd’

Speaker 3

Do we have a name for him, by the way? [inaudible] a pseudonym?

Speaker 2

No, it’s a pseudonym, because it's like, ‘I'm not putting my name on here, this is too hot’. So, I'll just call ‘bat woman’, ‘Nerd’. I got the ‘rat bat’ virus.

Speaker 2 (14:43):

So, we like to, you know, create little trading cards here. So, the concept was that if you look at the ‘rat bat’ viral sequence listed by bat woman in the public domain registry in late January. First of all, it's so close to that which could be picked up by humans. Why in God's name did she wait seven years to list it, when she had been listing all of these other viral strains that are not even as potentially dangerous, if it was in fact as dangerous as the sequence suggests, then it would be a horrible thing for public health for her to sit on it for seven years? And so he thinks it was, and he also looked at it and said how it evolves, and I don't have to get into the asynchronous, the synchronous versus the non synchronous mutations, but in general that there are some problems with the theory that the rat bat sequence that he thinks is totally made up to protect Wuhan from actually being the cause of the release, then it's very unlikely that that could have been mutated to create the COVID-19 version because the section of the spike protein as a 44 to one ratio between the synchronous and non synchronous.

Speaker 2 (16:02):

In other words, these are not the ways that viruses mutate. And if you look in detail, it's like pointing out and saying it's nearly impossible or almost impossible that that is the source. So, do you, would you say that this ‘Nerd’ who wrote the anonymous blog, who's been getting a lot of positive attention from other scientists who's adding to the theory, would you say that he's on track or not?

Speaker 3 (16:31):

Mmm, well it might be a she

Speaker 2 (16:31):

It's true. thank you for that. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (16:40):

I think you can’t go as far as that. But what you can say, I have a different theory. Right. So, so our guess is that

Speaker 2 (16:53):

essentially what happened at the beginning stages of the outbreak

Speaker 3 (16:58):

is that people were generating sequence of COVID-19, right, of the whole genome. You know, labs and hospitals in Wuhan, they were collecting COVID-19 sequences, then they were putting them into the database. And the hottest kit out of all of the sequences in the database is a small piece of a bat coronavirus held by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is only eight miles from the alleged epicenter, basically more or less in the middle of the city, right? So, everybody is going, well, we've got this virus. It doesn't look like anything else except something that's held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Let's phone them up and say, you know, have you been working on this virus? Did you have any lab accidents recently? Whatever. And everybody in China, you know, who knows about the sequence for, like, three weeks

Speaker 3 (18:05):

is basically asking this same question. You know, and probably the, you know within a few days, the president of China probably is on the phone too, right: did you have an escape from your lab? Because the nearest known sequence to COVID-19, is something that you collected six years ago from a cave and that you claim in that collection, right. When they put in the paper that they had collected the sequence, they said; this sure looks like an interesting sequence, someone ought to work on it. Right. But they didn't do anything with that sequence except for, published the previous year, some information about its virology. Right. But in public they did nothing. But it's reasonable to suppose, seeing as they wrote in that paper that someone ought to study this and that someone is only going to be them, right, because they have the sample, that they did study that virus. Right. That means that they quite likely were studying the nearest known relative, but now there's an outbreak. Right. What the hell is a person to do? Right. Everybody, even if they weren't working on it, everybody thinks they were. So, what they do is they take that tube and they basically sequenced the hell out of it. Right? And they just come up with a sequence that’s like, you know, basically they did this experiment in two weeks, right? They basically come up with this sequence that is, you know, it looks like a bat coronavirus and they do this in a roaring hurry. And, bat sequence is RaTG13 right, the one that you were referring to

Speaker 2

as ‘rat bat’, but you say that they actually sequenced, what did you think that they sequenced in order to get rat bat?

Speaker 3

They sequenced whatever was in the tube with that original sample.

Speaker 2

Oh, from seven years ago?

Speaker 3 (20:00):

Yea, from seven years ago, right. They go, ‘phew’ that doesn't look anything like COVID-19. It can’t possibly have escaped from our lab. So they publish that, they rush out a sequence and they published it  in Nature what they consider what this RaTG13 sequence [is], and they claim is the nearest living relative. But actually, the nearer living relative is the original sequence that they had sitting in their tube. So, there are several possibilities here. Right? In RaTG13 is a piece of sequence, so just basically cobbled together to deflect from the fact that they are the owners of the nearest living relative because the rest of RaTG13 is much more different from COVID-19.

Speaker 2

Right. vastly different.

Speaker 3

Yeah, considerably more different. Like, several percentage points more different, between the original BTCOV 4991, which is this small sequence that they sat on, supposedly standard.

Speaker 2 (21:04):

I love these names. These names just, they're so intuitive. They roll off the tongue. Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (21:09):

Well, the RA stands for Rhinolophus Affinis. So, what they’ve basically done is, they cobbled together a piece of RNA that looks like a bat coronavirus. The problem is they don’t actually know if this is a real virus or not, right. All I've done is sequence the contents of their tube, right. The normal way that when you say we've isolated a new virus, and so on and so forth, is you don't just sequence the DNA or the RNA that's in a tube, you have to generate an infectious clone and demonstrate Koch’s postulates, right? That when you take it out of the tube and put it into bat cells or bats or human cells that this thing replicates and infects and does all of the things and causes the symptoms of the disease that you claim that you've isolated.

Speaker 3 (22:08):

Otherwise, all you've done is sequence a random RNA from your tube and claim that it's the nearest living relative of COVID-19, right? So, there are several possibilities. And one is they just rushed it out and it's just kind of a mess, but it suits their purposes to place this in the phylogenetic kind of world as a decoy, right? It's basically functioning at this point as a decoy from the original sequence that was much more common that they collected five years ago, they claim they did nothing with. Right? So, it's functioning as a decoy.

Speaker 2

Now let's take a look

Speaker 3


Speaker 2

So, what I understand from Nerd Has Power, that that original one that they collected five or six years ago, they actually, there's two that are very similar, where I just call them ‘the twins’. So, he said that if you look at it

Speaker 3

[inaudible] have to give me the names. I’ll probably have opinions on them based on the names.

Speaker 2

They’re in the Nerd Has Power [inaudible].

Speaker 3 (23:11):

Nerd Has Power talks about two sequences. One is ZC something or other and another one has a K in it. Off the top of my head, I can't remember the names. We don’t think, I mean Shi never claims to have collected those sequences and they never have had them in her lab. Right. There's a flaw in the Nerd Has Power thesis, right. They say that these are the nearest living relatives. It depends which part of the virus you're talking about. This is a complicated question because viruses are not like, don't have phylogenies is like people do, right? Because they recombine all the time. You have to specify what part of the virus you're talking about before you can say this is the nearest living relative. Right. Because you know, I can be more related to you than Vladimir Putin, right, but in the world of viruses, one part of me, one part of my genome could have recombined with Vladimir Putin and that could be more similar to Vladimir, and the rest of me be more similar to you. But that can't happen with humans, but it can happen with viruses.

Speaker 2 (24:26):

So, so then the question is the one that you think is the most closely related?

Speaker 3 (24:34):


Speaker 2 (24:36):

Is it possible based on its characteristics and the type of mutations that can occur, [inaudible] mutations that COVID-19 could have been a natural mutation from that? Or was there, for example, a particular discrepancy or gain of function around its ability to attach to the H2 receptor, which means, Oh, this could have been genetically engineered so that this part of the virus is now made to infect more, and then, because it's more, it's different than the others, it indicates that it's not part of the natural mutation evolution, but that it was the result of intentional improvement or infectivity of the virus?

Speaker 3 (25:29):

So, it could, but you have to understand that what I'm saying is the original virus that they are working with is BtCoV 4991 is not RaTG13, right. RaTG13 is something that was cobbled together in a hurry and may or may not be a real virus. Right. Maybe they even filled in, you know, filled in letters that they couldn't attain, you know, like honestly it's not infectious, you know, the way we see things. We don't know what they did right. But all of these sequencing methods, they all require decision making about whether you have confidence in this base, and that base, and that base, or whatever. And when you don't have an infectious clone, like, you have no grounds for that confidence. You're just randomly guessing as to whether this base is an A or this base is a T or this base is a G.

Speaker 3 (26:21):

Right. Because you just got a whole tube full of bat poo and, as far as you know, the virus in that, there may even be two viruses in that, right. Then the sequencing is just kind of stuck together because it doesn't know which is one genome which is the other, right. So, your making a lot of guesses, right, when you just publish sequence from a tube. And so, you know, in my estimation, the only way that you can generate from the tube in two or three weeks, the sequence that you're calling RaTG13 and the nearest living relative of COVID-19 is basically cobbling it together and kind of making it up. Right. But, but what you see is that this cobbling together and making up is really helpful to the Shi lab because it basically places when, when people then do searches for the nearest living relative of COVID-19 it comes up with a sequence RaTG13 and RaTG13 has no history.

Speaker 3 (27:31):

Right? And what they do is, what they do, they publish RaTG13 in the Nature paper. And in the Nature paper sequencing COVID-19 they publish it and they make no mention of the fact that this is derived from BtCoV 4991 and that they've had it in the lab for five years. They don't say anything about that. So, like, firstly you have to ask yourself, why don't you cite the history of this virus? That's bad science, right? Why do you give something that is a hundred percent sequence identical and taken from the same tube, why do you give it a new name? Right. That is a weird thing to do. They’ve taken the tube and the sequence of 4991 and all of a sudden started calling it RaTG13 and pretended like there was no forerunner to that.

Speaker 2 (28:27):

Was it exactly the same as the BT?

Speaker 3

100%. There's no base difference whatsoever. It’s 100% identical.

Speaker 2

When was the BT published?

Speaker 3 (28:42):

Speaker 2

So, you're saying that the one that was published,

Speaker 3

2016, sorry. It was isolated in 2015 and published in 2016

Speaker 2

So, this is amazing. The rat, what I call the rat bat, which was published in late January, it was actually already published five years ago.

Speaker 3

But only the 370 base paths [inaudible]

Speaker 2

Oh, I see a smaller version of it.

Speaker 3

But the point is that they had it. Right. There's no reason to rename that. You just say, they just published two papers on that 4991 and then they’re acting like it just disappeared.

Speaker 2

So, would you guess that the 4991, the reason that they don't want to refer to it, it's like don't look behind the curtain?

Speaker 3

Yeah, [inaudible] probably working on it.

Speaker 2

It's because they were probably working on it and it could have been engineered to become COVID-19.

Speaker 3


Speaker 2

And so the

Speaker 3

There's hardly any difference between it and COVID-19.

Speaker 2 (29:42): But except that it was only the short version that was published [inaudible] COVID-19 [inaudible].

Speaker 3

The identity is 98% and 400 base pairs that's like 8 nucleotides different.

Speaker 2

was the portion that grabs onto the H2 receptor, uh

Speaker 3

No, that's not part of the sequence because it's only 400. What they publish is only 400 base pairs, 370 base pairs. Right. So, they didn't publish the whole sequence of the virus. They just published that small bit. So, the question is, were they working on that? Because if they were working on that then there’s a [inaudible] reasonable basis, that's something that then became COVID-19.

Speaker 2

All right. So, let me summarize, in very easy to understand. So, if you've just joined me, my guest is Dr. Jonathan Latham, who is a virologist, who has done genetic engineering as part of his career and is the editor of Independent Science News.

Speaker 2 (30:44):

Now, I emphasize independent science, because Jonathan is extremely aware of how non-independent science can be actually checkbook science or corporate science or tobacco science. And you know what I mean. It's science that has been skewed for the benefit of those which are, who are funding it. And what we're talking about now is the possible laboratory origins of COVID-19 and Jonathan, you gave three different options. One, you said, well one option is it just happened to be coming from a wet market, from a bat, from a pangolin, and the chances of it being in Wuhan are kind of minor because a lot of the bats that have the coronaviruses aren't even in that part of the country, but actually the people who run the Wuhan Institute of Virology go around and collect all of those bats had bring either the bats or their poop to the Institute.

Speaker 2 (31:47):

So, because that now becomes the single greatest concentration of bat coronaviruses in the world, is it possible there just happens to be a random jump between a bat and a human eight miles away from the library of the biggest collection and the biggest laboratory research on back road viruses in the world. It has nothing to do with that. And you're saying. very unlikely. If it does come from the lab, there are three ways that it can come from the lab. One is that they just happened to bring it in to the area and it infected someone accidentally; was never worked with, it was never engineered, it was never introduced to any cells. And we clearly know that, and this was described in the literatures, so I'm not just making this up, that the bats peed on the hands of the people collecting the bats or the samples.

Speaker 2 (32:47):

They actually got the pee and the poo on them and that that's one way for viral transfer. So, someone just got infected and it had got out. The second way is they just took it, didn't genetically engineer but simply exposed it to cells to carry it. And then they continued to expose it and stuff, because you can't just leave it in one cell forever and you can't, they can't, no one has bat cells for some reason, it didn't explain why, but they can use primal, primate cells or mice cells or human cells. And just by putting it in those cells will cause some changes which could cause the normal bat virus to then become more likely to infect a human. And then it escaped somehow. So, two different ways that it could have escaped from a lab that were not genetically engineered. And the third, And we know, we know that WIV, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was genetically engineering coronaviruses to increase their infectivity into humans so that they would either be airborne if they were normally not, so that they would be able to be more likely to grab onto the H2 receptor, which is what COVID-19 does. So, we know they were doing this research and it's possible that either that alone or in combination with adding it to human cells, or primate cells or my mice cells, caused changes in a natural bat virus that then escaped. So those are the three. And that there was a publishing in Nature in January of a virus strain that was oddly, they left information out that you would call bad science. And I know from talking to you and from many other scientists that when we look at genetic engineering research and there's bad science, we can understand why the bad science is there. Because, if it were a good science, it would expose a problem. So, we've been analyzing together and individually the bad science of Monsanto for years. And so we realize, Oh, of course they didn't do it this way because if they did, they would have exposed the problem. So now we see WIV publishing research, then there's bad science because they didn't indicate, they did not even pay attention to the fact that there was another strain that they had had since 2015, which in your opinion is the most likely source of COVID-19. It's the most likely source and the

Speaker 3

It’s the closest one that we know of.

Speaker 2

Alright. Are we missing anything?

Speaker 3 (35:21):

No, I don't think so. I mean, there is, the one extra thing that you can add is that, you know, why did they not cite the provenance? Like, it's one thing to invent this, [inaudible] come up with this Rat T13. And then the other one is why not cite its provenance, right. It’s very easy to do that and why, why try to disguise its provenance with a new name?

Speaker 2

When you say provenance you mean its ancestry?

Speaker 3

It's the fact that they, it comes from a tube that they identified in 2015 as something they wanted to work on. Why not say that? And the answer, the answer to my mind is because they will try to hide that fact. That's exactly the fact that they wanted to hide.

Speaker 2 (36:07):

Beautiful. So, are you convinced that there's no way to look at the current virus and ever conclude that it’s genetically engineered? I just understood in an article that I read last week, or this week, that scientists verified that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was using techniques that could engineer viruses without being traceable as engineered.

Speaker 3 (36:36):

Yeah. You can. It's very easy to make recombinant viruses without there being signs of that.

Speaker 2

Recombinant, meaning genetically engineered?

Speaker 3

Yes. And like you, you don't want to leave signs because that's a bad experiment, right. The whole point is you mix and match things and you just change the one thing that you are interested in, which is a spike and you don't make it look like a jammed in spike with restriction sites or something like that. Because then you’ve basically got an uncontrolled experiment. The whole point of genetic engineering is to make it so the cells can’t tell the difference.

Speaker 2 (37:15):

All right, very good. So, it looks like the only way to confirm that it's genetically engineered, if that's the case, is to get more information from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And, I understand that there's some reports out of the U.S., and I don't necessarily just trust U.S. reports when they talk about China. I don't, because there's so much politics and bias in U.S. reporting. Reading multiple sources from around the world on genetic engineering, I've come to discredit a lot of U.S. reporting. So, I say that with a grain of salt. But there's evidence, according to U S reports, that China has been suppressing investigations and not releasing information from the Wuhan Institute of Virology or from the original studies, evaluations, of COVID-19. I don't know if it's true, but that's the claim.

Speaker 3 (38:12):

You don't need to guess. It's obviously true, because they could just say, here's the lab books.

Speaker 2 (38:20):


Speaker 3 (38:20):

Right. They can just put the lab books in line and say, anybody come into our Institute. Right. And any other course of action is suppressing the data.

Speaker 2 (38:32):

So, the lab books would have all the evidence there?

Speaker 3 (38:35):

Yeah, they will prove it or disprove it. And, people write dates and people try, you know, try hard to make lab books that show exactly what they did, and why and when, and sign it at the end of every day, whatever. That's what people do in science, right. Those folks exist. And the whole point of them is to demonstrate, for example, when you generate patents, that you were the person who worked on this and you isolated on this particular day and it will stand up in court and so on and so forth. Right. So, those lab books should exist and we would like to see that.

Speaker 2 (39:12):

So, the two possible reasons why those lab books would not be released is that, one, that the WIV was in fact the cause of COVID-19 and they don't want it to be known. Or, two, there are other experiments that they want to hide and so they don't want to be transparent with the science, and are willing to appear to be obstructing the investigation, and even appear to be guilty of releasing the COVID-19; because, willing to make that impression in order to cover up other experiments that they're doing.

Speaker 3


Speaker 2

Alright, so that gives it. Now before we finished Jonathan, what's the lesson and takeaway for what should be the policy and your opinion in the world about genetically engineering viruses, genetically engineering microbes? Because microbes would include bacteria and algae and fungus and you've been doing it, you've done genetic engineering of viruses, maybe other stuff as well, what do you think should be the world policy now that we've seen COVID-19 in action?

Speaker 3 (40:27):

Well, I mean there should be a list of pathogens, not only viruses, but a list of pathogens that shouldn't be worked on as live organisms. Right. And especially if they shouldn't be worked on as live organisms for gain of function research, they shouldn't be worked on as live organisms for, in human cells, right; the kinds of cells that would cause them to evolve or cause them to become infectious organisms. Right? So, there should be that list. The problem, of course, is that, you know, no one knew that this virus would leak out and become the pathogen that it has. Right. The whole, you know, estimation of the viral community was that this wasn't such a bad virus and therefore it was safe to work on, but then it turns out that it is safe to work on. Right. So that list, the list of viruses that should have been worked on has to be quite large.

Speaker 3 (41:29):

And, that is the only way to protect ourselves really. I mean, we have a long history, I mean, you may know about the H1N1 virus. Did you, have you told your readers about H1N1?

Speaker 2

No, I haven't.

Speaker 3

No. Okay. So H1N1, it's basically, it was the prevalent virus, flu virus, in the 1940s and prior to the 1950s. Basically it died out because humans became resistant to it. And, but it was stored in various labs, including one in Russia, and they took it out to use it to make a vaccine and they let it loose, right. And this virus became the pandemic virus of the late 1970s. When I went to school, we, our school was closed because, in late 1977, basically all the kids got flu.

Speaker 3 (42:33):

Well, they sent us home and nobody knew where that virus came from. It was H1N1, and it basically spread around the world and caused flu. And the only reason, I mean it effected a lot of people, but the reason why it wasn't very bad in terms of the general population is that all older people already had an immunity to it. Only those of us who are under 20 years old, that didn't have immunity to it, but we all got sick, right? So, this is a pandemic virus that was released from a Russian lab that was making a vaccine in 1977. We know that for sure. And so, this kind of thing happens on a regular basis, right? This is why I say that there should be a list of viruses that we don't work on as live viruses. Experiments were little bits and pieces and little subclones and whatever, like test the spike. You can tell test a spike and how much it binds to the H2 receptor without having to make a live virus in a live human cell or a humanized mouse or whatever. There's a whole ton of experiments that can be done and keep scientists busy for ages, which don't involve working with live viruses.

Speaker 2

And what about pathogenic bacteria?

Speaker 3

Yeah, I have, I have less opinions about those, but there are some like anthrax, quite bad things. Right? But the viruses are the worst, because if there’s no vaccine. Right? It's very hard to protect people. If somebody gets a pathogenic bacteria, normally they can be treated with antibiotics, and people who work on it can instantly take antibiotics or you know, we, you have options, right? There are many more options. With viruses, you have few options.

Speaker 2 (44:32):

Okay. I had a lot more questions, but I think if we let this get too long. It will be less popular, and I don't want people to miss this. So, thank you very much Jonathan. I love talking to you. You always give a level of detail and science that's missing from the general public. Can you tell people how to find your publication?

Speaker 3 (44:50):

So yeah, the, we have a website We also have a non-profit, the Bioscience Resource Project. Its URL is And, on the Independent Science News, we have a lot of articles in it. I'm hoping to write about this very soon.

Speaker 2

And can people can sign up for their newsletter there?

Speaker 3

Yeah, we have a mailing list that we really encourage people to sign up too because you know, with all the Google censoring and Facebook censoring and all the rest of it, that may end up being your only way of keeping in touch with us.

Speaker 2 (45:31):

Right. I read your stuff. Whenever you put it out. Thank you for your amazing work. Thank you everyone and safe eating.

Speaker 3 (45:41):

Yeah. Same from us, Jeffrey

Speaker 4 (45:50):

Thank you for listening to Live healthy. Be well. Please subscribe to the podcast using whatever app you listen to podcasts with or go to to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world, until now. Please share the podcast with your friends. They will be enlightened and may even save lives. Safe eating.



Save this episode...