i've lost the business a shot, but what is far less clear is where this global affliction actually came from. and according to my guess today, the answer to that question leads not to a cave in war, but to a lab. and that too, is quite self evident. well, to talk about that in more detail, i'm now joined by richard muller professor emeritus of physics at the university of california berkeley. professor molly, great to talk to thank you very much for finding the time. i'm pleased to be here that you recently call 3rd an article in the wall street journal, a much read article i should say about the odds of our school, the evolving naturally being extremely low. not impossible, but extremely low. i think you put it to one in a 1000000000 before we talk about that, let me ask, you know, how did of color all super i know we like yourself become interested in the novel corona virus. oh my, my,

my back when i was in particle physics and i've gone into archaeology, i've gone into climate studies, created a whole nonprofit to, to study global warming. so i always learn from my mentor louis. albert 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. ready 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 scientific process. you're calling for the scientific procedure to be upheld and for the evidence that it delivers to be respected. 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 who say so and so has

a credential there for i will listen to what he says without, 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, and i have great credentials and science and i've kind 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 and science. now, you focus primarily on the so called double c d 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 points that each one of which argues against this being a, a naturally evolve 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 dense. and 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 what made it lethal and it leaves behind these clues in the, in the genome itself of the virus. these clues, and there are, there are 5 really big ones. each one of which is sufficient to show it came from a laboratory. this the g, c, g, g is, is part of one of them. the virus has in it what's called a pure cleavage site. and this is something that when it gets to the cell, the cell looks at this thing. it says, ah, this is something i need, i open up and let the material come in. so the virus doesn't join again. code on

a cold for 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 you're cold, it doesn't, and they get into the cell together. and they, they are being manufactured, but it gets confused. and if you're in cleavage, site was over. now the issue there is that this kind of recombination in only take place with a similar similar occurring viruses. so there are $58.00 known true viruses. i could transfer peer and cleavage size,

and none of them have appearing plebiscite if i understood it correctly. while the nature doesn't really favor 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 faction called c, d, c z, a double fate. 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 argentine. 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 lab technicians use is another clue that in that, that supports the contention that was put in there. now the, the chinese side has long claimed that they've been trans bounded. they can be and the lease signed his publish. sorry, go be 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, 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 the call, the current of ours. but they didn't do the whole geno they,

they did most of it and they stopped short right at the point with 6 pieces down later after that the, if you're in clever psych was there, there publication did not include the pure in 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 inconceivable that they profess them all over the it's a 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, we don't know about corporate 900 isn't. 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, 666 nucleotide sort of it did 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 manipulative 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've didn't done this 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 the lancet,

appraised them for having been so transparent, but they, what they said turned out to be false and nobody denies that. it was false. at this point they said it was, there was a premature conclusion. so the evidence in favor of what's called the nordic, or the natural origin. there is not okay. now, for the papers that you mentioned there will health organization. and there has been a notable turn around and it's 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 laboratory. do you think that the americans indeed know as little as they claim to know about this whole thing? because even if the chinese or supper and about producing more information,

do you think the americans on that side could, could have contributed more to their public knowledge? well, 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 is lots of evidence for this. and the 1st bit of evidence is simply their total failure to find an animal from whom it could have been transfer recent report . they look at 80000 animals in china, everything from wild animals to market animals to farm animals. and in each one they look to see whether it has any evidence of having held this virus and the, and turned out to me 0 or 80000. now this in previous academic, so the sergeant den with 2003 the, the middle east mirrors academic. they found the animals pretty quickly. and secondly, well, when you, when you look at the, this, this, this site that's there and there's no possible way could get in there. and yet is

the sort of thing that was actually put in viruses by people at one in the past. another one is the fact that in, in, in the previous virus diseases, what happens is an animal carries it and starts giving it to people a whole 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, as you look back at the hospital cases and there are 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 had it. so this is complete departure from what has happened in the past. this is genetic purity because of the way 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 ice mice. it makes many, many, many, many, many cycles. and in just a few months, you can get something that appears to have 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 you will get back when you can moment they can. the me or i join me every thursday on the alex summon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the

world, the politic sport business. i'm show business, i'll see you then me. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have is crazy. plantation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk back either financial survival, no money. there's a girl. i want to do the central bank support. don't call them right now. they stopped in the me

or i welcome back. to will department, richard miller, 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 individual's loaner 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 that i wonder if that would be planned 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 of 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 detector 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, 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 coming. 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, as a man, dies his wife, you know, even in fact they decide caring for him. so there is clearly something about the ability of the person to be caught that particular virus. and i think at least my very limited knowledge suggests to me that it has something to do with the preexisting immunity. we may be compromised by the persons that metabolism, and we know that people with type 2 diabetes, for example, are usually of my much greater risk of over 9 over 900 complication.

anyway, what, what i'm trying to ask, and i do want to appear a conspiracy theorist here, but given the preponderance of metabolic disorders around the world, what is the natural dix packet of 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 other diseases. i mean, my sense is that a large number that most, most diseases that affect humans evolve in a much larger ecological community of animals. and they jump to humans. and it takes several mutations for them to become. 6 a pandemic in you 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 human eyes down was call you and eyes. mice was the same age to require receptor on it. and then go to a many, many, many generations and spread for 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 pure and 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 or 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. now speaking about this trajectory of the been damage, which you say is an evidence of some new pollution in and of itself. even though there were some very few mutations in the beginning of this damage. we are now dealing with increasingly burial and variations. so russia now in the grips of this delta barrier, which is a far dad layer than what we saw before. i didn't know if you have enough expertise

for that. but i mean, tell me your advocated gas. do you think we will have to go down the, the last and alphabet with ever increasing decimal, or is it likely if this pandemic likely to peak as some of the, some of the varying these, these viruses viruses are fascinating things. because they, they mutate 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's 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 virus and then anytime it mutates,

it just disappears because it's not as you 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 and you recover, there's 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 are 2 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 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, make decisions about vaccines. make a decision, make decisions about public health, etc. do 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 roles secured 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 do is 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 in the various ways 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 virus itself was the eye witness. it carried with it a code and told us all about its origins and, 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 an elaborate game, 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 panoramic? because i agree, 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 responsibility 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, 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 origin. all of the, the early papers that said it was natural says, and we'll see this will find the animal and you'll see these, there 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, but they are all, it is very strong evidence in favor of being for 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, you know, thank you for watching and hope to hear again next week on walter part the,

the in the me the me make no, no borders and the blind number t's as emerge. we don't have authority, we go to the back seen the whole world, leads to take action and be ready. people judge, you know, governors crisis. and we can do better,

we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenges to response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes it feel very proud that we are together in always be polite, never engage with an aggravated or confrontational office. don't get into any conversation to start answering questions. just ask for an attorney to survive and interrogation, you've gotta be ready to stand your ground. definitely don't want to be going to throw in the jump suit. one cups. you're more likely to walk

free if you're rich and guilty than you are. if you're poor and you got 2 eyes and 2 ears and one mouth. so you should be seeing and hearing a whole lot more than you're saying. if you don't take that advice, usually going to dig yourself a hole in your thoughts about warning shots off fired as russia space, the u. k. will face a severe consequences if it's greater than another provocation. doctor, a british warship breached rushing waters and the black sea on wednesday comes as a trove of secret documents is reportedly found that a bus stop suggesting the ship's route along crimea was no accident in the 2nd world real to the death of anti virus software. pioneer john mackenzie, who was found dead in a spanish prison cell in world forty's, the saying is

a suicide. so we had previously tweeted.