JThomasM

I salute the Light within you. 🇺🇸 Saved by grace. 🌎 🌍 🌏 I follow-back Patriots

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

This is all there is to it. Love for all God's children, learning to work together, valuing our differences. https://t.co/J9e9FouPCW

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

Just three questions!

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Just common sense!

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

Correction and credit, because getting this right matters more than looking right.

@MonaRahalkar called us out after post 1, and she was right to. So we went and traced the actual history of who found what, when, on RaTG13. Here it is, in order:

May 2020: Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar publish the first paper questioning RaTG13's origin story at all.

June 2020: Lin and Chen raise further concerns about the same Nature paper.

August 1, 2020: Daoyu Zhang documents anomalies in the sequencing and provenance of the dataset.

August 2020: Rahalkar and Bahulikar publish again, specifically on the abnormal nature of the fecal swab sample.

August 27, 2020: Singla, Ahmad, Gupta and Sethi independently run the numbers themselves: RaTG13's sample is 0.65% bacterial. A real fecal swab should be full of bacteria. They also try to reassemble the genome from scratch and cannot - the longest piece they can rebuild is less than 20% of the reported length. And buried in the same dataset: trace reads matching pangolin and rice and corn, the kind of thing you only see when samples get mixed up on a shared sequencer.

October 2020: Rahalkar and Bahulikar publish peer-reviewed work connecting RaTG13 to the 2012 Mojiang mine deaths we posted about a few days ago.

2021 and 2024: Steve Massey runs the most direct version of the comparison - a same-day control sample - and gets it peer-reviewed.

Massey's work is what most people cite today, ours included at first. But he was one of the many persons to independently notice something was wrong here, not the first. Rahalkar and Bahulikar were raising the alarm a full year before most of this became mainstream discussion.

Get the receipts right. Everyone in this chain did real work. Nobody gets erased.

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

Unwinding the tangled web…

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

Correction and credit, because getting this right matters more than looking right.

@MonaRahalkar called us out after post 1, and she was right to. So we went and traced the actual history of who found what, when, on RaTG13. Here it is, in order:

May 2020: Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar publish the first paper questioning RaTG13's origin story at all.

June 2020: Lin and Chen raise further concerns about the same Nature paper.

August 1, 2020: Daoyu Zhang documents anomalies in the sequencing and provenance of the dataset.

August 2020: Rahalkar and Bahulikar publish again, specifically on the abnormal nature of the fecal swab sample.

August 27, 2020: Singla, Ahmad, Gupta and Sethi independently run the numbers themselves: RaTG13's sample is 0.65% bacterial. A real fecal swab should be full of bacteria. They also try to reassemble the genome from scratch and cannot - the longest piece they can rebuild is less than 20% of the reported length. And buried in the same dataset: trace reads matching pangolin and rice and corn, the kind of thing you only see when samples get mixed up on a shared sequencer.

October 2020: Rahalkar and Bahulikar publish peer-reviewed work connecting RaTG13 to the 2012 Mojiang mine deaths we posted about a few days ago.

2021 and 2024: Steve Massey runs the most direct version of the comparison - a same-day control sample - and gets it peer-reviewed.

Massey's work is what most people cite today, ours included at first. But he was one of the many persons to independently notice something was wrong here, not the first. Rahalkar and Bahulikar were raising the alarm a full year before most of this became mainstream discussion.

Get the receipts right. Everyone in this chain did real work. Nobody gets erased.

[Senator Rand Paul @SenRandPaul]

When the DARPA DEFUSE proposal leaked, detailing plans to insert furin sites into bat coronaviruses, the group didn't just discuss the science. They discussed managing their paper trail:

"stay off email"

"carefully curate some emails for the FOI records"

[Monali C. Rahalkar @MonaRahalkar]

These guys were afraid of us!! @BillyBostickson

[Monali C. Rahalkar @MonaRahalkar]

This explains how big was the impact of the opening of Defuse to the public, and how terrorised this fang was! Proud to be part of the core team @gdemaneuf @BillyBostickson @humblesci and @CharlesRixey

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

Before any of this got forensically analyzed, someone already smelled something wrong - two years earlier.

In 2012, six miners cleaning bat droppings out of a copper mineshaft in Mojiang, Yunnan, got sick with a mystery pneumonia. Ground-glass lungs, blood clots, three of them died. In 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology took samples from that exact same mineshaft.

One of those samples became RaTG13 - the virus at the center of everything we've been posting about.

Researchers Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar were the first to connect these dots, in a peer-reviewed paper back in 2020: same mine, same location, a cluster of deaths, then years later the "closest known relative" of the COVID virus turns up from that spot with barely any public explanation of the gap in between.

That paper is what opened the door. Everything since - the forensic read analysis, the contamination patterns in unrelated datasets, all of it - built on the question they asked first: why does the story around this specific sample not add up?

[Rahalkar & Bahulikar, Frontiers in Public Health, 2020, https://t.co/GIwl1acUoq]
@MonaRahalkar

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

The timeline:

-> Patent filed: 24 February 2020
-> Documented production time for an RBD-Fc construct: ~4 months (established in his MERS work)
-> 4 months prior to filing: October-November 2019
-> First unexplained pneumonia cases in Wuhan: November-December 2019

Zhou's military team was working on a vaccine before the world knew there was an outbreak.

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

Finding 1 of 7 in our formal comment on Zhou et al. (2020) concerns a sequence that should not exist in patient samples from December 2019.

A thread on Zhou Yusen's signature -- and a timeline that only makes sense one way.

[JasperV @JasperFarlake]

Seven anomalies in the earliest SARS-CoV-2 sequencing data from Wuhan.

One public dataset. Five patients. December 2019.

A summary thread.

[Rogier Louwen @dr_louwen]

🚨 Er klopt iets niet met de officiële data over het ontstaan van corona. Een publieke dataset onthult 7 vreemde afwijkingen:• Genetische sporen van geheime CRISPR-experimenten• GPS-locaties die wijzen naar een lab in Maryland (VS)
https://t.co/g7cfbduvGK

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

If you don't already know what critical theory is, I recommend you do some independent research and figure it out.

Because, right now, literally every manmade problem in the USA is a function of critical theory.

Defeating critical theory is the most important task for American survival.

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@Mkellytx2 Yes, definitely write again! Found your discussion applying basic strategy to this unfolding situation to be helpful for context, even these several months after the fact. Especially because connecting to straightforward discussion on media channels can be so difficult.

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@TomWoodstom The sure-fire method to find a use for my stash of useful tech is to throw it away and wait a few days.

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@de_fluffy_panda @BonifaceOption 😅 …but ya know, that’s pretty cool too 🤓

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@NikolovScience “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” (S. Kierkegaard)

What has appealed to me from the beginning about the N-Z Concept is its steadfast reliance on first principles.

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@NikolovScience “[…] The absorption of solar energy by planets and the emission of long-wave radiation to Space are examples of diabatic processes, while the Atmospheric Thermal Effect is due to an adiabatic process, which is a pressure-induced enhancement of the absorbed solar energy.” 2/2

[JThomasM @RealJThomasM]

@wideawake_media What/where is “the recent study” that is the source of this claim?