ology, i've gone into a crime, it's studies created a whole nonprofit to, to study global warming. so i always learn from my mentor louis alvarez said, if you have something to contribute your, your scientists before you are a physicist. and if you know things that are relevant, if you have a way of analyzing things, then then it's your responsibility to do it, especially on an issue that is publicly important. and i think some of your critics may say that because you're not a doctor, you should not be speaking on the issue. but what i found very persuasive about your argument is that you're actually watching a legion, you decide to take a process, you're calling for the scientific procedure to be upheld and for the evidence that it delivers to be respected and you're exactly right. and those, those people who say if you don't have the credentials, we shouldn't listen to you are the same. people say so. and so as a credential there for i will listen to what he says of that without any skepticism

. and that's not the scientific process. and the scientific process, you look at what someone says, not with their credentials, are now i have great credentials and science and of course, many, many different fields. so this whole idea though that, that you listen to people's credentials rather than their arguments is antithetical science. now, you focus primarily on the so called double c, g, g sequence which exists in covered 90 packages and which makes it so much more lethal. why are you inclined to think that it couldn't have appeared there naturally? okay, well let me 1st begin by saying no, we don't focus on that. the wall street journal article had 2 major points of the 5 major scientific coins that each one of which argues against this being a, a naturally ball pathogen. by the way, when we say it was made in laboratory, what we really mean was that a bat corona virus was taken,

wasn't made from scratch. and this bathroom virus was a changed in the laboratory to make it much more dangerous. there was still a human hand there and the human hands. as far as i understood your argument, what is, what made it so much more lethal than you would have made it legal and it leaves behind these clues in the, in the genome itself of the virus is clues, and there are, there are 5 really big ones. each one of which is sufficient to show it came from a laboratory. this c, d, c, g, g is, is part of one of them the, the virus has in it what's called a pure and cleavage site. and this is something that when it gets to the cell, cell looks at this thing. it says, all this is something i need, i open up and let the material come in. so the virus doesn't do anything. somebody has this code on called it for a cleavage site, and when that happens, it makes it much, much, much magic word opening the gate like

a question. where did the steering cleavage side come from? if you, there are 2 possibilities. one is from random mutations, but it's a complex thing. the idea that it came out of nowhere is like saying that the human i just popped up one day because of the mutation is too complex for that. so the other possibility is that it came from recombination or recombination is when you have another virus that has this in it and your code, it doesn't. and they get into the cell together and they, they're being manufactured, but it gets confused. and if you're in cleavage, site moves over. now the issue there is that this kind of recombination in only take place with a similar similar a corona viruses. so there are $58.00 known true viruses that could france for fear and cleavage size. and none of them have appearing plebiscite if i understood it correctly. while the nature doesn't really favour this particular sequence,

it happens to be a darling of many lab technicians around the world, and it has been used many times already. now what you're talking about here is part of the pure and cleavage, which is a little section called c, g, c z, a double say. now, there are c, g, g sequences in other viruses. but in, in, in the corner of virus, what this does is it is, it is, it creates a amino acid known as known as, as our genie. but, but the thing is there are 6 different ways you can create for argentine and the virus is lot use different ones. this is the one that happens to be used in the laboratory by most people. so it's a secondary bit of information. the fact that this is there just, it, we, there's no possible way it could have gotten there from, from, from natural gene transfer. but the fact that it happens to be the one that lack

technicians use is another clue that in that, that supports the contention that was put in there may now be the chinese side have long claimed that they've been trans bound as they can be. and lee signed his publish, sorry, go to partial genome as early as february, 2020, which i gather, you're not satisfied with what's, what's your problem with? i don't think anybody today would say that trends that china was being transparent, and the w h o, a group that went over there, ask them all sorts of data which, which were denied. but let me talk about that february publication, because in that, the chinese publish the genome of coding of, of the cold current of ours. but they didn't do the whole genome. they, they did most of it and they stopped short right at the point with 6 down late rule

. after that the if you're in clever psych was there were publication did not include the pure and cleaving side, which is so critical to understanding this. and so critical to finding it. so even there are publication the most read publication, nature magazine in the last 10 years, millions of reads. and if they left out a critical part that it's in conceivable that they had profess him all over his little knowledge that i know about that i have about the subject. i mean, those were very early days of different dynamic, and there's still much me don't know about corbett, 900 even. is that really surprising that some portion of that gina would be missing? oh yeah. you know, because this was supposedly the olds you know, that they publish. and it was a critical part and they stopped just short of it, succinct nucleotides short of it. anyway, i don't want to get into that because i'm not interest so much in describing blame

to anybody. what by my case is a scientific case that that there are 5 key scientific discoveries that each one of which strongly favors the origin of a natural bat virus. manipulated laboratory, and if i list the number of the about of the evidence for the, for the natural occurrence, it's all been disproven. i mean, the original evidence for this was that russia, i mean, sorry, russia, i'm talking to russia. what was that? china had actually completed the study and demonstrated that it came from a rack in the one where the market and everybody said they didn't done the work. they've done it quickly, they don't transparently or re for them. well it turns out they had to withdraw all . busy of that, all of those claims the early paper in, in the lines, it appraised them for having been so transparent, what they, what they said turned out to be false. and nobody denies that. it was false. at

this point, they said it was, it was a premature conclusion. so the evidence in favor of what's called the sonata, or the natural origin. there is now papers that you mentioned, the world health organization and there has been a notable turn around and its position as well. i guess the american prussia has had its effect, but the chinese are still very adamant about how much active they're willing to to give. now we know, i mean it's been well established that the a center for disease control has have certain contracts with that libraries or do you think that the americans indeed know as little as they claim to know about this whole thing? because even in the chinese cyber in about producing more information, do you think the americans on their side good could have contributed more to the

public knowledge? well, if you know, i don't, i don't really know, but that's not in my mind. the issue, the 1st step is to figure out if this truly was done in the laboratory. and as i said, there's lots of evidence for this. i mean, the 1st bit of evidence is simply their total failure to find an animal from whom we could have been transferred the recent report, they'd look at $80000.00 animals in china, everything from wild animals to market animals or to farm animals. and in each one they look to see whether it has any evidence of having held this virus and, and turned out to be 0 or $80000.00. now this in previous academics, so the, sorry, september of 2003, the, the middle east murder is academic. they found the animals pretty quickly. and secondly, when you, when you, you look at the, this, this, this site that's there and there's no possible way to get in there. and yet is the sort of thing that was actually put in viruses by people 11 in the past. and the

other one is, is the fact that in, in, in the previous virus diseases, what happens is an animal carries it and starts giving it to people hobble, heard about almost having people start getting it and they get sick and they go to the hospital. but they don't spread it because it takes a mutation before it spreads from human to human. so one of the things that's done in these viruses is you look back at the hospital cases and there were some 8000 hospital cases in which people have been been study to see that they had those pirates before it became human to human. not one of them have it. so this is complete departure from what has happened in the past. this is genetic purity because of the way it spreads and animals and jumps many, many, many, many times you typically get many different varieties of this right from the very beginning. but in this case, there was for the 1st 9 months, there was no improvement in the iris. it jumped out fully made. now that is

a real sign of what's called again, a function work. i think in a function where you take a virus, you want to make it more lethal. so you're exposed to human eyes. mice. it makes many, many, many, many, many cycles. and in just a few months, you can get something that appears to be evolved over years. and the fact that this, when this came out was all ready adapted for human to human transmission is again, an unprecedented professor. we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll get back with you moment they can me i me

i will i ah ah

ah, i use the me i welcome back to will department a richard molar professor emeritus of physics at the university of california berkeley, professor before the break we, we were talking about the lab work to supercharge the virus. and i want to ask you about one other thing that has long been puzzling me. you know, this virus seems to have this uncanny ability to identify an individuals on our abilities and strike where it hurts the most. and that's why they're, you know,

the symptoms are all around the board. they're really individual rather than collective. and i wonder if that would be penned on these sort of lab manipulation, or is it something that we have seen in other viruses? also know this, this is worse than those viruses and it's worse because it takes the most, the most virulent, the most harmful aspects of previous viruses and combine them into one. so there are 2 things. one is what's called the ace to receptor. and that is that this virus one is looking around for a cell. if there is a, a receptor on the cell, it's fix. that's the 1st step. and a to receptor is a receptor that's in the you and the long it's in the human brain, into the cardiovascular. just picking this receptor already makes it specialized for humans. the 2nd thing is when it's fixed, it has this so called pure and cleavage site, which is

a code on the surface of the virus. when it, when the cell detect code, it opens up think this is something benign. it thinks this is something that the rest of the body is sending it for its own health. so this combination which, which is something that we haven't seen before, that combination is really, really super dangerous. and that's one of the reasons why this is, is so bad. there are other aspects to it too. i think the fact that you don't notice the infection for the 1st week or so when you are a carrier in spreading. and so these are other aspects to that told me, i don't have any evidence that that was designed in. but it could have been done by the selection of the right of the right virus. these wires, it's present not in a linear way because i mean that we well known a couple of cases here and there when, for example, my neighbors, you know, at amanda, his wife, you know, they were in fact to decide caring for him. so there's clearly something about the

ability of depression to because that particular virus, and i think at least my very limited knowledge, the just to me that it has something to do with the preexisting immunity. we may be compromised by the persons metabolism. and we know that people with type 2 diabetes, for example, are usually of my much greater risk of over 9 over 900 complications. anyway, what, what am i trying to ask? and i do want to appear a conspiracy theory here. but given the preponderance of metabolic disorders around the world, what is the natural dicks back of the some scientists would be playing around the edges of chronic and metabolic diseases. and trying to establish whether there would be any connection between the 2 or any in a negative energy that you i my, my expertise on this has to do with the, with the origins of the virus and not in the generic, any issue of,

of other diseases i mean, my sense is that a large number that most, most diseases that affect humans are involved in a much larger ecological community of animals. and they jump to humans. and it takes several mutations for them to become a pandemic in new humans. but i'm on the general issue, and the whole purpose of the research that was supported to, to, to, to create more dangerous viruses was, was thought of as a way of accelerating natural evolution. so the so called gain of function method means that you take a virus and you put it in, in animals, but the human eyes down with you and eyes. mice will stay the same a to require the receptor on it, and then go through a many, many,

many generations, and spread from mouse to mouse and so on. and then within, within a few months or a year, you would see what might evolve over a 100 years out in the while. so the idea that variance derives from you taishan of less virulent things is really a foundation of, of her ology. and again, a function was meant to do that when you start sticking in a, a, if you're in cleavage site, then you're doing something that would not occur in nature. and i don't want to tell her ologist what they should do, what they shouldn't do, but whatever they do should be done with complete transparency. so the world can watch and make sure that they have the security that they need. and that they're being sufficiently careful. and that has not been the case in, in now speaking about this trajectory of the pin dynamic, which you say is an avid in some, when you pull ation in and of itself,

even though there were some very few mutations in the beginning of the spend down if we are now dealing with increasingly burial and variations, russia is now in the grid of this delta barrier, which is a far dad layer than what we saw before. i didn't know if you have an expertise without that. i mean, tell me, your educated gas, do you think we will have to go down the last an alphabet with ever increasing decimal, or is it likely if this damage likely to peak some of the some of the varying these, these viruses viruses are fascinating things because they, they knew take very quickly why not too quickly. so you have to be able to mutate in order to become more dangerous. but if you may take too much, then you can read so that they're right on this narrow boundary line. and what we

typically see is a lot of mutations in the beginning, and then you get a virus where additional mutations don't make it any worse. and so is the one that don't mutate that for the most rapidly, like it normally takes days, 2 weeks. and you see this mutation taking place within a month or 2, you may have the optimum buyers and then anytime it mutates, it just disappears because it's not as it can compete with the one. it takes much, much longer then for it to develop the beta gamma delta versions of this. but those, those will happen eventually this dies out and it dies out because enough people get it, you recover there is an immune system, you have the immunity and then it can't mutate around that. the key thing in the mutation is, does it affect the, the, the, the policy of the back seen to,

to attack it. and most of the cases it has not, the vaccine doesn't attack this other change that makes it go quicker. but when in the end, you might need new vaccines, i think the solution to this there, to solutions. one is hurting me and a get lots of people die. you know, there is heard immunity through vaccination. and the vaccination is not solely for the benefit of the individual. it's where the benefit of the community. some people say, well, i'd rarely get sick, but the problem is if they're going to spread it to others and that that's, that's their social response. while i think the problem with it is also that they never, they could never know how bad it would be. because, i mean, judging from russia data received the average age of people who add up and intensive care units grow every younger. so it's a, it's a, it's a very dangerous thing, and the, many of the people who die from it are in dire surgery, send their forties,

at least in my country. now, speaking about the rush, i'm currently preparing for an interview with the top russians by and when asked about the origins of this virus. he essentially said that the origins and all that important because any government has to do with, as it is, makes decisions about vaccines. make it to make decisions about public health, etc. do you agree with that? and if not, what practical value could be? knowledge of the viruses early days bring for the treatment of this film. isc none, i agree with him completely. the reason we're starting the origins is to make sure it doesn't happen again. and if this happened in a secret laboratory, then we need to have a demand transparency of all laboratories that are doing this kind of research. i mean, real transparency or not where well, we'll keep it secret, but they won't actually publish it. if you're working with such dangerous things,

then you have to allow observers from other countries to come in and see precisely what you're doing. and that's the real value. the purpose of this is not to treat the current illness any, any better? no, we don't need that. we know this all as we have the genome. the danger is the future . and if there are laboratories around the world in the united states, in china, or in russia that are developing pathogens, that there may be some valid reason for doing it. but if they're doing something like that, it has to be early open and transparent. well, technically speaking, virus research doesn't fall under the biological weapons regulation, even though if, if your hypothesis is correct, covered. and i do, well, may have killed more people than all biological weapons combined. do you think those things should be regulated and internationally brag biological weapons

convention is very weak, and it's mostly here is what you should be doing. and here's what you shouldn't be doing. i haven't cover doesn't cover a virus research. so essentially there's very little oversight and it's treated as a national security issue. but as we, i mean again, if your hypothesis is correct, that is a matter of security and just national security is absolutely global. you know, these things different cross course borders and that that's real change. and one of the way, i think, i think i'm, it was trying to, didn't release this purposely. now for the very simple reason that if they had one and she said as a weapon, they would not have released again will on china. one place where they have this kind of research going on. that was clearly accidental if they wanted to use it. and then the various way they would have taken it to the united states and released it there for dietrich where we, where we have biological research going on. so in a way it was an accident, and i personally suspect they really didn't want to get to the united states

because the virus itself was the whistleblower. the fires itself was the eye witness. it carried with it a code and told us all about its origins and that, that code then is how the information leak out of trying to that they were doing something that they should not have been doing. okay. can i ask you the last question? if we, if we knew for a fact that these viruses was indeed alive as came, do you think it would have altered in any way public health programs that were rolled out a year ago? do you think it would have changed the law of the condemning? because i re, i mean, if it's a lot of gave you kind of, you know, penalized china for that. but if they knew that and if they weren't fully transparent, then they bear responsibilities. not only for half of k,

but also for many of the wrong assumptions. that would have been taken based on these, the nordic high processes. you understand what i'm trying to see. and i see what you're trying to say and the issue, you know, i, if, if they've been more transparent in the beginning, it might have help. but again, i know my scientific expertise is on the origin and there are 5 clear bits of evidence that are strongly in favor that this was had been manipulated and made more dangerous. in the laboratory, there is no evidence that i can find that supports the national. busy origin, all of the, the early papers that said, it was natural said and we'll see this will find the animal and you'll see these are other things. hospital measurements will show that people are pre infected and so on. and all of their predictions turned out to be wrong. the surviving evidence in favor of natural has just disintegrated what they are. it is very strong

evidence in favor of being a laboratory creation. so no, this doesn't affect how we treat the disease at this point. it does affect how we prevent it from happening again. ok, well professor molar. great stuff. thank you very much for your time and say thank you for watching and hope to hear again next week on walter part the the me the me. oh, i didn't

respond necessarily need budget. yeah. you didn't. your mother thought i had the value, but i again, jack jones, i died. i might be okay to go to the deal. but the most the most difficult to find the parking lot. there are 410 days right. on the bank of guns based water chemical lies and has are, this is going to develop new to them and their international market know that these industries that polluting you're simply ignoring one days that mother and when we love them, other than that means we love the

join me every 1st aid on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world. the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me certainly the british empire perfected logistics. the sun never set on the british empire, either dominant domination of the c d like right. and so the u. s. that what china is saying is that they have, especially with one got one road initiative going to kind of connect similar empire . that's great, but it's going to be land base. their ideas are going to create a land based empire where it's off. so therefore to do. and anyone to partner with

them is also exposing themselves to the risk of big point. absolutely. replacing off the money because we're seeing enough labrador who's a scandal pro and british shell secretary finally quit solve the surviving months of criticism for boxing. the pandemic response port kissing an aid in violation of his own social business in guidelines. the un press to investigate crimes against the condition of people in canada over 50 unmarked graves. the found it a formal residential school. the chief of a local nations group told us indigenous people of faith, genocide, well generation. we did not ask for all of this to happen for 5 generation. it was policies in the 1800 early 190-0100. this.