Indeed, in February, 2020 after I had learned that the pandemic had originated in Wuhan, China, home of their infamous BSL-4 laboratory, without evidence, just the kind of reasoning we used when I studied thermodynamics as an undergraduate physics major, I made a Facebook post containing the following quote: “The overwhelming likelihood, on the order of 99.999+ %, is that the Virus entered the human population by escaping from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than from an intermediate animal host.”
I was being too conservative. The likelihood is, of course, far greater than 99.999+ % as I have shown. And, yes, no evidence of the type ordinarily used by investigators was necessary.
Of course at this early juncture, even questioning the veracity of the natural hypothesis was a “no go zone”. The mainstream media and social networks labeled anything that veered from the wet market narrative- remember that?- a conspiracy theory. They were doing that at the direction of the people who, you will soon learn, had and still have, a lot to lose for letting the truth come out.
Yes, the wet market theory was conjured up out of thin air-very thin air- as I demonstrated in that February post. Just think about it for a second. If a pangolin, or any other animal sold in the Wuhan wet market got the virus from a bat, it had to happen within 50 km of the bat caves in Yunnan province (since 50 km is the range of horseshoe bats) , 1500 km from Wuhan -or- infected bats had to be transported up to Wuhan, dead or alive, where they infected the intermediate host, whatever it was. If either of these is true, why didn’t the outbreak occur in some other cities? Surely, whoever transported the dead bats as food or the live bats or the infected pangolins to Wuhan would have stopped to sell the same in multiple cities along the 1500 km journey. Imagine taking cheap animal food from New Orleans to Washington DC and not stopping to sell some along the way! I think you’d be out of business in less than a week.
Sorry, but the wet market theory made no sense from the beginning. So I was not surprised to learn that China’s all-out effort to find the intermediate host came up empty. To this date, fully 28 months since the first human cases began appearing in Wuhan, 80,000 animals (bats included) from 230 species have been tested (starting in January, 2020) in hopes of rescuing the country from international condemnation. Not a single animal has been found to harbor the SARS CoV-2 virus.
I’ve been lucky. I haven’t been labeled a conspiracy theorist or told I was “not following the science” by anyone yet, perhaps because of my habit of proving everything I say, perhaps because of my sound logical arguments accompanied by whatever science is necessary to wrap them up with nice tight bows. This thoroughness may discourage the name callers but it makes for lengthy posts and videos- over 50 hours, so far-which is fine- I’m glad to do it- although it carries with it the low readership and viewership that is part of the limited attention span-times we are living in. I’m hopeful this book will fare better.
No, they haven’t called me names, but they’ve taken down dozens of my posts and videos, which is much worse. Imagine a fact-checker at Facebook or YouTube taking down a post by an MIT physics major who taught Electricity and Magnetism- Maxwell’s euations included- at a major University at age 21, who later went to medical school where he scored 99th percentile on the National Board Exam and the American Board of Surgery In-service Exam (that’s 99th percentile among surgeons, not the general population…)- Did I mention my 1580 on the SAT and my 1570 on the GRE?- taking down a post from someone who is afraid to make a mistake in his analysis of an issue of jugular importance to the health of society? What Facebook, YouTube (Google) and Twitter have done and continue to do is a violation of mine and many others’ First Amendment right of free speech and they should be punished severely for it. People have the First Amendment right to be wrong so even incorrect science and logic should be challenged, not censored. I’ve been right about all things COVID since the beginning, so their censorship of me has been destructive to society on multiple levels. You could make a pretty sound case that social media companies through their censorship, have contributed to the deaths of millions of people throughout the world.
To be sure, those who even questioned the natural hypothesis- as far as I could tell, I was the first to rule out the natural hypothesis, rather than to merely question it- those questioners were subjected to propaganda campaigns unleashed by, if I could beg your pardon, the government of the United States of America, the mainstream media of the United States and the band of doctors behind the creation of this virus and the pandemic it caused- doctors who will be exposed when the truth comes out, and it will come out eventually.
Let us now, however, use the evidence-based approach and show the conclusion to be equally-assured. I used to do the math questions on the SAT mentioned above in less than half the time so that I had the luxury of doing them all again in a completely different way. When I got the same answer, I knew I had eliminated the chance of a careless error. What we’re going to do now is something along those lines.
In the three months leading up to the pandemic, there were 9000 admissions to hospitals in and around Wuhan, China with flu-like (and therefore COVID-like) symptoms. I’m talking about shortness of breath, exhaustion, fever, cough, etc.- symptoms that could apply to either disease. Compliments of the very good data gathered from the SARS-1 and MERS outbreaks, also due coronaviruses causing respiratory syndromes similar to SARS-2 , we know that of the 9000 admissions, 250 should be due to SARS-2 infection and 8,750 should be due to influenza. Remember, according to the natural hypothesis, months have to go by during which time multiple precise mutations must occur in the genome coding for the spike proteins - we think it’s about 14 mutations- before these viruses can fuse rapidly enough to produce large enough viral loads for human-to-human transmission to be possible. Of course as I explained above, this almost never happens because of the “one-in-a-million” mutations that must occur. But according to the natural theory, they must occur. So we’re going to assume they did and derive a nice contradiction, proving the theory incorrect.
It was only a matter of going back to check the sputum and other specimens collected from those 9000 patients- blood, which would be checked for antibodies, for example- and see how many of them were admitted for SARS-2. When this was done by the W.H.O., it was found that not a single one of the 9000 was admitted because of SARS-2 infection!
Do you know how unlikely it would be for zero people out of 9000 to be admitted due to SARS-2 when 250 are expected? For fun, try to figure it out for yourself. The question is, “What are the odds that zero people out of 9000 were admitted because of SARS-2 when 250 are expected?”
OK, here’s how I calculated those odds. See if you agree with my reasoning.
Since 250 of 9000 are expected to be admitted because of SARS-2, any given admit has a 250/9000 chance or 1 in 36. That means that there is a 35/36 chance that any given admit is not coming in because of SARS-2 (i.e., they’re coming in because of influenza). The chance for two patients in a row to come in for influenza would be 35/36 x 35/36. For three in a row, it would be 35/36 x 35/36 x 35/36… For 9000 patients, it would be 35/36 times itself 9000 times. That’s (35/36) to the 9000th power. That is an incredibly small number, so small that when I did the sum on a calculator, the answer kept coming up as “0”. If you only multiply it by itself 1000 times, it comes out to be on the order of 1/10^-13. That’s one chance in 10 trillion!
I could take that number – it was 5.828 x 10^-13 and adjust the exponent from 1000 to 9000 and, knowing how to work with exponents, get the correct answer when taking 35/36 to the 9000th power.
It came out to be 7.76 x 10^-111
No wonder the cauculators kept saying it was “0”!. (I did eventually find a calculator on the internet that could do the calculation and it came out to the exact same number! See what I mean about doing problems two different ways?
This all means that the chance of the natural theory being correct is roughly 7.76 x 10^-111.
Do you know how small that number is? Since a trillionth is 1 in 10 ^12, our result,
the chance that the natural theory is correct, is, roughly, a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth.
If you thought having two ways to solve a problem (or prove a hypothesis) was great, what about three, four or five?
I think it’s time to introduce you to the major players in the scandalous controversy that is the origin of the virus and its cover-up, the locations in the US and China where the reckless behavior was taking place, and the timeline for when all of this occurred.
oops. I meant to write "a trillionth" only 9 times...
Hi Reid - I do not believe in the release of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from the Wuhan lab. It may be easy to manipulate the sequence of a virus, but it is exceedingly difficult to test it. I talked a lot to Soviet scientists from the Vector Institute in Novosibirsk, which was an institute dedicated to the development of biological weapons. Not even one project succeeded, even though some of the constructs were tested on "volunteers", young recruits from units stationed in Siberia. The only "success" was a severe outbreak of anthrax among Vector workers when containment failed.