Sunday, February 7, 2021

SARS Covid: The View From 2005

I think many readers are aware that as long ago as 2005 the "potent" anti-viral properties of Chloroquine--with specific application to the SARS Coronavirus, the progenitor of SARS Covid 2019--were well known. Today at FR there's a post of portions from a well known 2005 study. One of the commenters notes that at the time this was published the study was lauded by none other than Tony Fauci. So, if you're wondering why nobody seems to have been working on a vaccine for SARS, this may be the answer: Why develop a vaccine for a disease for which we appear to have a highly effective treatment? 

Ah, those were the days of long ago, the days of our innocence, when nobody imagined you could get away with suppressing safe and effective treatments, scare the bejabbers out of the general population with a hoax casedemic, and then make a killing off a vaccine that wasn't really needed. Along those lines, the top medical official in Chicago has now announced that healthy individuals under 65 needn't bother.

Here's what was posted at FR:

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Virology Journal ^ | 22 August 2005 | Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksi

Posted on 2/7/2021, 11:37:35 AM by Slyfox


Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.


We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.


Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


  1. Replies
    1. I'll be interested to check that out. I saw a study earlier this week on that topic--or, at least, on the UK.

  2. The 3 liberal supreme court justices beginning their latest ruling on religious freedom with "we are not scientists" as a reason to take away a right to worship freely scars me. They represent a huge swath of people in media, academia, big tech and politics. Additionally, WSJ journals opinion piece includes "growing proof" for 2 masks. Not only are we to submit to scientists as kings and gods, but the science they aspouse is not even scientific nor proven and definitely not reproducible! Just reported then accepted.

    1. “opinion piece includes "growing proof" for 2 masks.”
      Maybe so, if evidence is cherry picked, and that pointing to the contrary is hidden.
      From (h/t Denninger):
      This study examined whether implementation of statewide mask mandates was associated with COVID-19–associated hospitalization growth rates among different age groups in 10 sites participating in the COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) in states that issued statewide mask mandates during *March 1–October 17*, 2020.
      Statewide mask mandates *might* be associated with reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and *might* contribute to reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization growth rates....
      Sites in states that did not have statewide mask mandates during March 1–October 17, 2020, were *excluded* from the analyses.”

    2. You don't want data spoiling your study.

  3. Can I get a clarification regarding the last line of the post. Did the top medical officer in Chicago say healthy individuals under 65 need not bother with the COVID shots? I'm guessing that's what what meant, but just want to confirm.

    I came across the following link today after listening to a radio interview Dr. Lee Merritt (an interview with her was linked to a post last month) did last week on an Omaha radio station. In the interview, Dr. Merritt mentioned Dr. Peter A. McCullough and I did a DDG search on Dr. McCullough and it pulled up the link below, which is a guide to home COVID treatment.

    1. Yes, that's what I meant. I don't have a link. I got that from a sister who works in a retirement/elder care facility.


  4. "Ah, those were the days of long ago, the days of our innocence, when nobody imagined you could get away with..."

    Re "Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a NEWLY(??) discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV)"


    ~ Synthetic construction of chimeric mutant and full-length SHC014-CoV was approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Dual Use Research of Concern committee.

    ~~ Wild-type SARS-CoV (Urbani), mouse-adapted SARS-CoV (MA15) and chimeric SARS-like CoVs were cultured on Vero E6 cells (obtained from United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases), grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) (Gibco, CA) and 5% fetal clone serum (FCS) (Hyclone, South Logan, UT) along with antibiotic/antimycotic (Gibco, Carlsbad, CA). - METHODS

    (Excerpts from
    "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence"
    Received: 12 June 2015 , Published: 09 November 2015

    1. Relatively speaking, 2005 WAS long ago. By 2015 maybe an idea was aborning ...

  5. Brilliant comment Mark!

    >You don't want data spoiling your study.

    Made me laugh, and so true!

  6. From , on potential disaster, if the vaccine leads to a "bad" mutation being advantaged, if such vaccines

    > do not produce *sterilizing* immunity, or worse, do not mimic natural infections at all.
    Specifically it is very possible, for such a vaccine to actually make it more-likely, that a deadlier form of the virus will survive, and in fact thrive! If the vaccine prevents you from getting seriously ill or dying, but not from developing a *viral titer*, and being able to pass the infection to others, then it erases the natural disadvantage, that mutations making a virus more deadly, would otherwise have.
    That raises the risk, of stopping or even reversing the natural mutation processes, by which easily-communicable viruses decrease in their capacity to kill people….

    Such "vaccines" must NEVER be given on a widespread basis to the public, when a particular virus is circulating in the population, as doing so risks a catastrophic *mutation cascade*, that will kill tens or even hundreds of millions of people.
    While numerically the risk of this occurring is *likely* quite small, the consequence, if it does happen, is *catastrophic*, and thus that course of action should never be undertaken. A vaccine that behaves this way is simply never safe in the general population; the only rational use is, in very high-risk individuals, who make up a **too-small and non-concentrated** portion of the population, to form a disease *chain vector* for a more-virulent mutation.
    Today Covid-19 is not a very virulent virus, despite all the screaming Karens….

    These vaccines should have never been put into widespread use, until and unless we *knew* if they produced *sterilizing immunity*, as that should always be a gating requirement for widespread use of any vaccine. By using them widely, if they do not produce sterilizing immunity, we take the very real risk of promulgating a much *more-lethal* strain of Covid-19, that would otherwise fail to find traction statistically*, and thus harm very few before it is outcompeted, instead spreading it worldwide, and for those who have had their immunity wane, who cannot be vaccinated due to immune or medical compromise (e.g. anyone undergoing cancer treatment which damages the immune system) or otherwise, that strain will result in a massive amount of mortality…. <

    And, on the odds of this disaster happening (from Denninger, on his Comments page #3) :

    < Mutation goes on all the time, but for it to bite you, a "bad" mutation has to be advantaged, either once and it's a really bad one, or several times and it's a progressively bad one. If the vaccine becomes akin to a flu shot, where some number of people get it every year, but others say "aw **** that", then the odds are pretty *low*.
    But if it turns into a fearfest for the foreseeable future, with people getting stabbed left and right *every* year, then the odds go up quite a bit, because this is a time-dependent risk.
    I can't really quantify this, except to say that, our experience with animal husbandry says that, given enough *time and non-sterilizing* vaccines, it is extremely likely it will happen to some extent.
    Over the next *year*? Low odds -- one chance in a thousand, or perhaps one chance in 100? Maybe not even that.
    But over *decades*, if non-sterilizing vaccines continue to be used? A SARS-style lethality mutation becomes odds-on, if you give it *enough time*…. >

    1. Interesting. It calls to mind what Dr. Merritt (?) was saying--that vaccines should NOT be used when treatments are available. What's going on is the rush to a vaccine for everything that may run counter to sound immunonological principles.

  7. Perhaps you mean, not Merritt, but Mercola, who's known to rather doubt vaccines, esp. for infants.

    1. No. I'm referring to the lady doctor whose video I posted not long ago. One of her points was that you don't mess around with vaccines when you've got a treatment (HCQ, Zinc, Ivermectin, etc.). This may be the reason--basic principles of immunology.

    2. At , he has 21 tips on ducking the virus:

      "The COVID-19 pandemic has been largely *overblown* by the media, and while the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are susceptible to the virus, the right tools and strategies can help keep you safe from this illness."