The Covid-19 coronavirus was “intentionally released” by the United States in Wuhan, China, with the target to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of vaccines, a US businessman specializing in patent auditing said.
The Covid-19 coronavirus was “intentionally released” by the United States in Wuhan, China, with the target to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of vaccines, a US businessman specializing in patent auditing said.
David Martin, the founding chairman of M Cam asset management company, said at an International Covid Summit organized by the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month that the US was responsible for the making of both coronaviruses causing the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome – or SARS – in 2003 and the Covid-19 pandemic in the past three years.
The third edition of the summit featured speakers from anti-lockdown advocates to medical academia to discuss the global pandemic response. The speakers shed light on the possibility that the coronavirus which caused the pandemic was man-made, instead of naturally occurring.
In his speech, Martin said: “The pandemic that we alleged to have happened in the last few years did not happen overnight. In fact, the very specific pandemic using the coronavirus began at a different time.”
He said that in 1965, scientists discovered the coronavirus as a model of a pathogen – an agent that causes disease. They also found out that coronaviruses can be modified.
“Later we started learning how to modify a coronavirus by putting them in animals such as dogs and pigs,” Martin said, adding that such a practice became the basis for US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s first coronavirus spike protein vaccine in 1990.
But very soon the medical sector and drug makers found out that the vaccines did not work.
“Because the coronavirus is a malleable model, it mutates,” Martin said. “Every medical publication concluded that coronaviruses escape vaccines because it modifies and mutates too rapidly for a vaccine to be developed.”
In 2002, a university in North Carolina initiated a study to develop an “infectious replication defective,” which Martin interpreted as “a weapon to target individuals, but not have collateral damage.”
Characterizing the project as having “mysteriously preceded SARS by a year,” Martin said the coronavirus that caused the highly deadly infection was not from China and that it was “engineered” instead of naturally occurring.
On Covid-19, Martin said the coronavirus – named as SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization – was poised for human emergence in 2016, with a preview about an “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory coronavirus” from a laboratory in Wuhan.
He said the purpose of the coronavirus “release” was to boost global acceptance on universal vaccination.
Explaining the common concern among the medical industry, Martin said: “Until an infectious crisis is very real, present and at the emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored.
“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as the pan-influenza, or pan-coronavirus, vaccine. A key drive is the media and the economics will follow the hype.
“We [pharmaceutical firms] need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issue. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process,” he said.
The Covid infection was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei province in central China in late 2019, with initial clusters coming from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
The disease turned into a global pandemic in early 2020.
As of Saturday, over 766 million infections have been recorded worldwide, with nearly seven million deaths.
The source of the coronavirus remained a mystery. Some scientists believe it transferred to humans from wild animals like bats and manidaes, while some politicians, in particular those from the US, accused the Wuhan Institute of Virology – a government-controlled lab – of leaking the pathogen.
A team of WHO-appointed experts inspected Wuhan in early 2021 to probe the source of the pandemic.
After the 12-day visit, including a visit to the lab, the scientists concluded that it is “extremely unlikely” that the lab could have leaked the Covid-19 coronavirus.
Comment: As we’ve been saying since… oh, April 2020.
Nevertheless, given the draconian levels of censorship that have been instituted since then, it’s surprising to see the truth about C-19 aired in Brussels.
Western media, of course, is dutifully ignoring this summit’s findings. The above report on it is from an English-language Hong Kong daily…
The World Health Organization estimates that (worldwide) there have been 763,740,140 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,908,554 deaths as of April 19, 2023. This does not include additional components of the excess mortality during the COVIDcrisis being documented by many in western nations, for which scientists and the various governments seems to not know what the causative agent is and no government seems to want to investigate… Although most will agree privately that these deaths are also related to COVID-19 “public health” policies in some way or another. These include deaths from lockdowns (famine, suicide, violence, alcohol and drug abuse), long COVID, vaccine deaths, lack of medical care for cancer and other diseases, etc. All told, the estimate for total deaths from the COVIDcrisis is probably around ten million people or more. Ten million people is a very big number. It is hard to even fathom.
For comparison, the largest natural disaster (excluding famine) of the 20th century was the Chinese Yangtze River Floods in 1931, which killed 3.7 million people both directly and indirectly, with many people dying from poor sanitation and diseases. In 1958, the Chinese Yellow River Flood killed around a million people, although estimates widely vary. Other floods, cyclones, earthquakes all killed countless people. But none did so with as much devastation to human life as was done by the SARS-CoV-2-WIV virus.
But we also know this was not a natural disaster, this disaster was man made.
A list of genocides on Wikipedia shows that there have been no single human atrocities in the history of mankind that have come close to the deaths caused from the COVIDcrisis.
How do we “know this”? Because we have the receipts thanks to Judicial Watch, as well as the Congressional investigations – still ongoing.
This week, Judicial Watch received 552 pages from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These documents include the initial grant application, biosketches, budgets and annual reports to the NIH from EcoHealth Alliance. They describe the specific aims of the project, which include creating mutant viruses SARS (and MERS viruses) “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.”
Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. We will test our models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice. With bat-CoVs that we’ve isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules, we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence, to spill over. We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors. We will then use receptor-mutant pseudovirus binding assays, in vitro studies in bat, primate, human and other species’ cell lines, and with humanized mice where particularly interesting viruses are identified phylogenetically, or isolated. These tests will provide public health-relevant data, and also iteratively improve our predictive model to better target bat species and CoVs during our field studies to obtain bat-CoV strains of the greatest interest for understanding the mechanisms of cross-species transmission.
Later, they write (page 195):
we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence, to spill over. We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors.
It is important to understand that, although these quotes are technical and well beyond many to understand, the bottom line is that this project was and is gain of function research. In contrast to Dr. Fauci’s sworn testimony to Congress.
It is important to pull out these sections highlighting the gain of function research conducted that led to the deaths of millions of people. This is the only way I know of to make scientists, the courts and policy makers aware that this is not a conspiracy theory. This is real. That these deaths were caused by manslaughter.
The only question now is was this an accidental or intentional release of the man made virus? Was it manslaughter or murder?
According the 552 pages released, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was so safe, there were assurances made to this effect and the facilities were never inspected by the US government. The risk of mutant viruses escaping the laboratory was never even discussed in the risks associated with conducting this research.
If it was so safe, doesn’t the intentional release of this mutant virus have to be considered?
This only gets worse. The year 2 report (2016) clearly states that AIM 3 for year 3 had been expanded to also include conducting gain-of-function research using the MERS virus!
Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. The following experiments will be undertaken in Year 2 (page 197)
-An infectious clone of full-length MERS-CoV will be constructed using reverse genetic method. Using the S sequence of different MERS-related viruses identified from Chinese bats, the chimeric viruses with S gene of bat MERS-related coronaviruses and backbone of the infectious clone of MERS-CoV will be constructed to study the receptor usage and infectivity of bat MERS-related coronavirus.
The MERS virus (MERS-CoV) is highly pathogenic. During the 2012 outbreaks, there were about 2,500 known cases and 800 deaths. If these numbers are correct, this would be a case fatality rate of 31%! MERS-CoV did not appear to be highly infectious, unlike SARS-CoV-2-WIV (the virus created by Ralph Baric/EcoHealth/WIV).
Note that the above passage includes references to creating new chimeric variants and linking them to the infectivity of MERS! Could you imagine if they also created a more highly infectious MERS virus, that they spread through out the world, like SARS-CoV-2-WIV? The devastation would be like nothing the world has ever seen.
Moving on to the 2017 report (page 253):
In Year 3, we successfully isolated Rs4874 from the single fecal sample. Using the reverse genetic system we previously developed, we constructed two chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S gene of Rs7327 and Rs4231, respectively. Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with Rs4874, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1- Rs7327S, and efficient virus replication was detected by immunofluorescence assay in all infections. To assess the usage of human ACE2 by the three novel SL-CoVs, we conducted virus infectivity studies using Hela cells with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells. The results were further confirmed by quantification of viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR (Fig.11).
The full-length infectious eDNA clone of MERS-CoV has been successfully constructed. The full-lengthS gene of 12 different novel bat MERS-related coronaviruses have been amplified and cloned into the T-vectors. In Y4, we aim to use the reverse genetic method, and construct chimeric viruses with the backbone of MERS-CoV and the S genes from diverse newly identified bat MERS-related coronaviruses, to examine the pathogenicity of bat MERS-related coronaviruses on cell and animal levels.
More gain of function research.
Moving on to Year 4 (page 275):
Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission.
In Vivo Infection of Human ACE2 (hACE2) Expressing Mice with SARSr-CoV S Protein variants
Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, W IV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued. In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1)and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while WIV1 and rWIV-4231S produced less body weight loss. In th emice infected with rWIV1 -WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106 genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.
In the year 2020, it appears that the grant was revised and extended for an additional FIVE years!
For this period (2020-2025, it appears that AIM 3 on the cover page was re-written to remove any gain-of-function research from the proposal front page. It is as if they might think that they could be blamed for having conducted gain of function research that resulted in development of a virus that was released onto the global population! Seriously, the complete rewrite of AIM 3 on the new contract cover page to remove all allusions to the creation of mutant viruses has the appearances of a cover-up of one of the most highly lethal atrocities in the world.
Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential. We will combine these data with bat host distribution, viral diversity and phylogeny, human survey of risk behaviors and illness, and serology to identify SARSr-CoV spillover risk hotspots across southern China. Together these data and analyses will be critical for the future development of public health interventions and enhanced surveillance to prevent the re-emergence of SARS or the emergence of a novel SARSr-CoV.
It is interesting that deeper into the text, the proposal is a little more specific about AIM 3.
Aim 3: In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will characterize the propensity of novel SARSr-CoVs to infect people in vitro using primary human airway epithelial cells and in vivo using the transgenic hACE2 mouse model. We will use mAb and vaccine treatments to test our hypothesis that SARSr-CoVs with 10-25% divergence inS protein sequences from SARS-CoV are likely able to infect human cells. and to evade mAb therapeutics and vaccines. We will then map the geographic distribution of their bat hosts and other ecological risk factors to identify the key ‘hotspots’ of risk for future spillover.
Note the use of the word “novel.” It is unclear if these novel mutants have already been “developed” (gain of function research) in prior years or whether they are to be developed.
Farther into the documents, they write (page 496):
3.3 Virus characterization: 3.3.a Construction of chimeric SARSr-CoV viruses: Infectious clones with the S gene of novel SARSr-CoVs and the SARSr-CoV WIV1 genome backbone using the reverse genetic system developed in our previous R01 (24). The correct infectious BAC clones will be screened by BAC DNA digestion with appropriate restriction enzyme or PCR amplification. The chimeric viruses will be rescued in Vero cells and then verified by sequence analyses.
The proposal goes on to describe how the chimeric viruses will infect primary epithelial cells and humanized mice (pages 496-497).
Yep! Nothing has changed. Deep in the text is the gain of function research that they still have left to do! It is just removed from the front page of the proposal.
The are no more annual reports – so whatever research has been conducted subsequently is not known past the 2019 annual report.
This research has to stop now. Congress must stop the funding immediately. There must be accountability. There must be justice for the injured and the dead.
There are ten million people dead from this research “project”. Do we need another man-made outbreak to fully grasp how dangerous this type of research is?
The virus, SARS-CoV-2, leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which tests bat coronaviruses, twice in 2019, researchers conducting the report say.
“The preponderance of information supports the plausibility of an unintentional research-related incident that likely resulted from failures of biosafety containment during SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related research,” the 301-page report, released on April 17, states.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Ky.), a member of the Senate Health Committee, released the report, which was produced by a team that included Dr. Robert Kadlec, a longtime former government health official who played a key role in developing the COVID-19 vaccines, and staffers on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where Marshall chairs the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security. The final report updates an interim report released in the fall of 2022.
Researchers started with two hypotheses, Marshall told reporters in a briefing. One was that the virus started in animals before spilling over to humans, known as a natural origin. The other was a leak from the Wuhan lab, located in the same city where the first COVID-19 cases were detected in late 2019.
“They exhausted every piece of evidence that they could find, every resource witness that they could talk to, to come up with conclusions,” Marshall said.
Kadlec’s team of consultants spent approximately 18 months probing the COVID-19 origins and concluded that the available evidence supports a lab leak.
More specifically, there was likely an aerosol leak that caused an infection of lab personnel or the virus may have been released to the outside environment due to biocontainment failures. One theory revolves around cleaning agents causing corrosion of welded seams in the lab, a possibility mentioned in multiple 2019 documents on upgrading the lab.
“Patents addressed biocontainment faults with animal transfer cabinets, biosafety autoclaves, leaky airtight doors, and excessive corrosive disinfectants affecting stainless steel laboratory equipment and biocontainment structures,” the report states.
Both domestic and foreign bodies have for years raised concerns about biosafety at the WIV. A 2018 U.S. State Department cable, for instance, (pdf) reported that the then-newly opened biosafety level four lab at the facility had a “serious shortage” of trained technicians to safely operate the lab.
Researchers at the lab, before the pandemic, reported experimenting on mice, bats, and palm civets to find coronaviruses that were more capable of infecting humans and sometimes experimented at sub-biosafety level four conditions. A more recent summary showed scientists conducted experiments that increased the function of a bat coronavirus. WIV’s refusal to reveal the full results of their experiments resulted in U.S. officials ending a subgrant after the pandemic started.
Research-related lab biosafety issues can unfold in a number of ways, while most infections acquired in laboratories due to lapses are never conclusively determined, researchers have said previously.
Chinese reports, communications, and notices were offered as support for the lab leak theory, including an attempt in November 2019 to procure an air incinerator at the lab. That suggested “some concern about the risk of an infectious aerosol escape,” researchers say in the new report. They also noted that WIV staffers underwent a remedial biosafety training course that same month.
Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 suggest the virus was manmade, including the presence of a furin cleavage site at the same location that was proposed in a grant proposal by EcoHealth Alliance, the report concludes. EcoHealth funnelled U.S. taxpayer money to scientists in Wuhan.
Between 2014 and 2019, US tax dollars were funnelled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance. Given that US scientists have far more virology expertise than the Chinese, this begs an obvious question: what type of research was US tax dollars paying for in Wuhan, China? Dr. Fauci’s surprising statement in an interview might provide the short answer to this question: “You don’t want to go to Hoboken, NJ or Fairfax, VA to be studying the bat-human interface that might lead to an outbreak, so you go to China.”
Given what we’ve endured for the past three years, Fauci’s “so you go to China” comment suggests that he hadn’t considered the global implications of a highly transmissible coronavirus leaking from a Chinese lab plagued by serious safety issues.
Unwilling to admit that he, EcoHealth Alliance, and their Chinese collaborators, are suspects in one of the largest crimes against humanity, Fauci instead opted to conspire with his boss, Francis Collins, to declare “lab leak” a “destructive conspiracy” that must be “put down.” Sadly, it’s clear that from the beginning, these two distinguished scientists made up their minds about the virus’s origin without evidence from both sides of the debate.
Even worse, renowned scientists that rely on Fauci for their research funding, fearful of sanctions being placed on their life’s work, rallied around the “anti-lab leak” stance. One of the premier scientific journals, Science, whose political bias has become very apparent, attempted to provide legitimacy to Fauci’s position by publishing a paper by authors that claimed “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from an animal at the Wuhan market. This paper allegedly “crushed” the lab-leak hypothesis, despite leaving much room for debate.
The good news is that Big Tech, scientific journals, and most media sources were forced to stop censoring countervailing evidence as it reached critical mass and began spilling over into the public domain. Far from being a “conspiracy,” there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus that spread from a Wuhan virology lab. Before getting into the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and leaked from a lab, let’s start a debate around the “dispositive evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 is natural and emerged from the Wuhan market.
The “market origin hypothesis” is based on four debatable premises
The entirety of the “dispositive evidence” for market origin cited by Dr. Fauci and others can be summed up as follows: 1) “Early” cases allegedly lived near the market, 2) “early” SARS-CoV-2 lineages were allegedly associated with the market, 3) wild animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market, and 4) positive SARS-CoV-2 samples were found in the environment around the market and were allegedly “linked to human cases.” For many reasons, some of which are discussed here, none of this evidence is anywhere near “dispositive.” This is why reviewers forced the authors to remove the phrase “dispositive evidence” as a requirement for publication.
Did “early cases” really live near the market?
The Science paper relied on a joint World Health Organization (WHO)-China report to define “early cases” as those that occurred in December 2019. However, the joint WHO-China report also states: “Based on molecular sequence data, the results suggested that the outbreak may have started sometime in the months before the middle of December 2019.”
This statement seems more in line with other evidence that the pandemic started earlier than December 2019. Urgent communications from the highest levels of the Chinese government circulating at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in November 2019 reported a “complex and grave situation” at the lab. Was this “grave situation” the start of a SARS-CoV-2 “lab leak” unfolding in real-time, weeks before the rest of the world was made aware of the imminent pandemic?
There were also multiple reports from Chinese media and even the venerable Lancet that documented initial cases started before December 2019, as well as lab-based evidence of international spread as early as November 2019. Furthermore, shouldn’t we be alarmed that a group led by Chinese military scientists applied for a COVID-19 vaccine patent in February 2020?
If the first COVID-19 cases really were in December 2019, this means that inexperienced Chinese military researchers somehow managed to produce a COVID-19 vaccine based on traditional, less efficient methodology, in a little over a month. For comparison, it took vaccine giant Pfizer about 9 months to produce their vaccine based on a more efficient mRNA methodology. Accurately pinpointing the true start date of the pandemic would allow us to assess how meaningful the “early cases” data are. If countervailing evidence is correct and cases that preceded December 2019 were missed or ignored, then a dataset beginning in December would most likely lead to flawed conclusions about the pandemic origin.
Were “early virus lineages” really associated with the market?
In perhaps the clearest evidence of a crime scene coverup, Chinese scientists quietly removed from public databases at least 13 genome sequences representing the earliest SARS-CoV-2 strains. There is no legitimate reason for doing that. Fortunately, the files had been backed up before they were removed, allowing Dr. Jesse Bloom to be the first to retrieve them from Google Cloud and analyze them.
This is proof that the Science paper many claimed to have “crushed” the lab leak was unlikely to be fully representative of the viruses spreading at the start of the pandemic. Adding to the intrigue, one of the authors of the Science paper attempted to intimidate Dr. Bloom so he would not publish his findings. If the evidence for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is so “dispositive,” why would anyone feel the need to censor an expert like Dr. Bloom?
Animals susceptible to COVID-19 were sold at the market but none tested positive.
Some of the animals trafficked at the market had been experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 in labs or deemed theoretically susceptible based on the presence of compatible receptors. However, the WHO-China Report revealed that none of the 457 samples taken from 188 animals at the market tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A criticism of these negative results is that the market was “under-sampled.” The SARS-CoV-1 pandemic of 2003-2004 spread around the world causing about 8,000 documented infections, resulting in about 800 deaths. Chinese scientists mobilized immediately and within a few months discovered an identical virus that naturally occurs in palm civet cats that were sold in Chinese markets.
Yet here we are, three years later, thousands of additional animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences analyzed, and nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be detected in nature. Why is that?
Positive environmental samples found at the market were taken too late to infer virus origin
SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples were detected at the market. However, the samples were taken between January and March 2020. By January, the virus had likely been spreading in Wuhan for more than a month, and had already spread internationally, so how much can we deduce from these samples taken from the heavily trafficked market, weeks after the pandemic started? In fact, those responsible for collecting the samples concluded, “Tthe market might have acted as an amplifier due to the high number of visitors every day.”
In other words, infected people most likely entered the crowded market and spread the virus. It’s notable that many of the positive samples came from vendor stalls in which “aquatic products,” seafood, and vegetables were sold. None of these products could be a natural reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the WHO-China report concludes that many of the environmental samples reflect “contamination from cases” (i.e., infected people) given how widely distributed the virus was by then.
The following is a review of some of the lab-based and circumstantial evidence supporting the “lab leak.” Hopefully, this analysis will lay the foundation for honest, thoughtful discussion, leading to a true understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. If we can’t have honesty, how will we ever minimize the chances of this happening again?
Early strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human adapted
The “natural origin” hypothesis contends that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans from an animal in December 2019. A virus that so recently jumped to humans from an animal should not bind to human cells with higher affinity than the animal host it came from. However, at the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Nikolai Petrovsky’s lab made the startling discovery that the earliest known strains of SARS-CoV-2 were unnaturally human-adapted.
In fact, these strains showed the highest affinity for human cell receptors over receptors from bats, pangolins, and about eleven other animals known to harbor coronaviruses. Dr. Petrovsky submitted this important research to a top journal, Nature,in August 2020. In an egregious example of censorship, Nature delayed publishing the paper until June 2021, corresponding to when Dr. Fauci finally admitted that a lab leak could have started the pandemic.
There was financial motivation and established methodology for creating pandemic viruses
A rejected 2018 grant proposal submitted to DARPA that includes EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) collaborators gives us enough information to figure out the motivation and methodology that likely created SARS-CoV-2. The primary goal of the grant was to create a “complete inventory” of SARS-like coronaviruses taken from several bat caves in China.
What follows is a streamlined version of the workflow proposed by the researchers: 1) add the spike proteins from these novel bat coronaviruses to a previously characterized SARS-like bat coronavirus core, and insert genetic modifications to spike proteins for enhanced infectivity if necessary, 2) infect “humanized” mice with these lab-made viruses, 3) flag chimeric viruses capable of infecting the mice as potential pandemic strains, and 4) prepare “spike” protein vaccines from these potential pandemic strains and use them to “immunize” bats in caves (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Risky research methodology used by EcoHealth Alliance, WIV, and their collaborators to attempt to create bat vaccines. There’s no way of knowing in advance the pandemic potential of unnatural, chimeric SARS-like viruses created in this workflow.
The authors of the DARPA proposal discuss the importance of spike protein cleavage by human enzymes such as furin in the ability of coronaviruses to spread optimally and become pandemic strains. Notably, they proposed to insert “human-specific cleavage sites” (e.g., furin cleavage site, FCS) in spike proteins that lack the functional cleavage sites and then “evaluate the growth potential” of the modified viruses in human cells.
They further proposed to modify cleavage sites in highly abundant, low-risk SARS-like viruses taken from Chinese bat caves. These studies are precisely the type of work that could accidentally or intentionally create pandemic viruses. Although the proposal states that chimeric virus work would be done at the University of North Carolina, by Fauci’s own admission, “I can’t guarantee everything that’s going on in the Wuhan lab, we can’t do that.” Furthermore, whenever a proposal this large (i.e., a $14 million request) is submitted, a great deal of the work will have already been done in advance to provide the “proof of concept” needed to sway reviewers.
The unique furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of genetic engineering
Many natural coronaviruses contain an FCS, so why is an FCS in SARS-CoV-2 so suspicious? The answer is that the genomes of thousands of coronaviruses from hundreds of different animals have been sequenced, and it’s clear that only distant relatives of SARS-CoV-2 have an FCS (see Fig 1A, Table 1).
The closest known sibling of SARS-CoV-2, a bat coronavirus named RaTG13, at best weakly infects human cells and lacks an FCS. SARS-CoV is another sibling of SARS-CoV-2, and like all the other known siblings, also lacks an FCS. Without an FCS, SARS-CoV-1 spread around the world in 2003-2004 but fizzled out after infecting about 8,000 people. A comparison of the short stretch of amino acids in the spike protein clearly reveals the missing FCS in these SARS-CoV-2 siblings (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Comparison of partial spike protein amino acids showing the FCS of SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., “PRRAR”), and the lack of FCS in two of its siblings. Different letters represent unique amino acids. Identical amino acids in all three viruses are highlighted in yellow; dashed lines indicate the missing FCS.
The unique genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is evidence of genetic engineering
In coronaviruses, the blueprint for assembling proteins such as the surface spikes needed for infection lies in their RNA genome. The specific genomic sequence that encodes the short, all-important FCS within the SARS-CoV-2 spike is: CCU CGG CGG GCA CGU. Each three-letter bit of code (i.e., codon) dictates the specific amino acid to be used in building the FCS. Thus, CCU encodes “P” (for proline), CGG encodes “R” (for arginine), GCA encodes “A” (for alanine), and CGU also encodes “R.”
As you can see, there is redundancy in the genetic code (e.g., there are six different codons that a virus can use to encode arginine). The odd feature of the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is the double CGG codons. In fact, CGG is one of the rarest codons in human coronaviruses, yet there just so happens to be two right next to each other in the FCS, one of the most important sequences in the entire 29,903 “letters” making up the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
In fact, these are the only two CGG codons out of the 3,822 “letters” encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and they are the only instance of a CGG-CGG doublet in any of the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2. Notably, an arginine-rich FCS enhances the ability of coronaviruses to infect cells. At this point, it should not surprise anyone that CGG codons are the preferred code for genetic engineers who wish to produce an arginine-containing protein in human cells. It’s hard to deny that the CGG-CGG in the SARS-CoV-2 FCS is a “smoking gun”-level evidence of genetic tampering.
Suspicious cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome are evidence of genetic engineering
One method to create chimeric viruses utilizes specialized genome-cutting enzymes called “Endonucleases.” Endonucleases can be used to cut virus genomes in specific places, then the pieces can be strategically recombined to create chimeric viruses. Cut sites are randomly distributed in the genomes of natural viruses, but they can be precisely inserted or removed by scientists to make chimeric viruses in a laboratory. BsmBI and BsaI are two examples of endonucleases that co-authors of the DARPA grant used in previous work to make chimeric coronaviruses.
When present, the distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in viruses isolated from nature (e.g., SARS-CoV-1) are randomly distributed throughout the genome. Meanwhile, the distribution of cut sites in SARS-CoV-2 appears to be non-random and suggests genetic manipulation in a laboratory (Fig. 3). Curiously, a previous study involving EcoHealth Alliance described the insertion of two BsaI cut sites in a bat coronavirus called “WIV1” (i.e., Wuhan Institute of Virology 1), allowing scientists to make changes to the spike protein (see S9 Fig. Spike substitution strategy).
Two BsaI cut sites can be found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome (Fig. 3) in the same location as BsaI cut sites engineered into WIV1 back in 2017. The astronomical odds of this being coincidence cannot be overstated. According to the authors, “BsaI or BsmBI sites were introduced into the [spike]. Then any spike could be substituted into the genome of [lab engineered WIV1] through this strategy.” The same strategy might have been used in the construction of what would become the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Fig. 3. Distribution of BsmBI and BsaI cut sites in the genomes of the two pandemic SARS viruses. SARS-CoV-1 is a natural virus with cut sites that are randomly distributed, while distribution of cut sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome appear to be non-random. The black bar represents the location of the spike gene; the FCS region is highlighted in red. BsaI can be used to cut out and replace most of the SARS-CoV-2 spike, including FCS, to alter virus infectivity.
Strong circumstantial evidence supports the lab- leak hypothesis
Three years into the current pandemic, with thousands of animals sampled and millions of genome sequences analyzed, nothing close to SARS-CoV-2 has been found in nature. In stark contrast to 2003-2004, China’s early response to COVID-19 was “disappearing” scientists and journalists, obfuscation, and deflecting blame for starting the pandemic away from themselves onto everything from the US Army to imported frozen fish. This is exactly the type of behavior you might expect from a guilty party.
No one (except maybe the dishonest Chinese government) has ever denied that the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic is Wuhan, China. But what are the odds that such an explosive outbreak originated at the Wuhan market? This is just one market out of about 40,000 markets scattered around China, and it happens to be a few miles away from a lab that in 2017 became the first high-security virology lab on the Chinese mainland.
Here, a counterargument is that SARS-CoV-1 was a natural spillover from a market, so there’s precedence. But even the far less transmissible SARS-CoV-1, not long after being brought into the lab for study, eventually “leaked” with fatal consequences.
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the most important question of the pandemic, with implications that extend exponentially beyond scoring political points. At the start of the pandemic, even the journal Nature was sounding the alarm about the increasing role China’s military has been playing in secretive biomedical research in China. Yet, three years later all we have is obfuscation from China and Fauci and nothing even close to a natural ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. Throughout the pandemic, people parroted empty phrases like “Follow the science” without really following the science.
So, let’s do that, let’s “Follow the science” (and the logic), because the genetic and circumstantial evidence for a lab leak is impossible for any reasonable person to deny.
* * *
Pat Fidopiastis is a Professor of Microbiology at California Polytechnic State University,
Three doctors in the armed forces have decided to blow the lid on the United States military’s open deception concerning the negative outcome of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” on American troops.
According to the three whistleblowers, medical billing code data captured by the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which is run by the Department of Defense (DoD), shows that rates of miscarriage, myocarditis, cancer, Bell’s palsy, female infertility, and many other health conditions are up big time.
Cancer rates are particularly concerning, they say, as the normal average number of new cases per year is about 38,700, based on the time period from 2016-2020. In 2021 after Operation Warp Speed was launched, however, the number of new cancer cases that year rose to 114,645.
The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch (AFHSB) runs the DMED, which it describes as a “web-based tool to remotely query de-identified active component personnel and medical event data contained within the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS).”
“The database contains every International Classification of Diseases (ICD) medical billing code for all medical diagnoses submitted by the military for medical insurance billing,” reports explain. (Related: Remember at the launch of Operation Warp Speed when Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce, MD, suffered a horrific miscarriage right after getting jabbed for the Chinese Flu?)
Neurological issues up 1,000% in the military following Operation Warp Speed
The three military whistleblowers in question are Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long. Attorney Thomas Renz issued sworn statements from these three to the courts as part of a major lawsuit.
During the first 10 months of 2021, Renz says, miscarriages alone rose by 300 percent in the military. His hope is that the suit will lead to an end to covid jab mandates in the military.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) is also involved, having recently hosted “COVID-19: A Second Opinion,” a livestreamed discussion panel featuring numerous world-renowned doctors and medical experts who offered a much different take on the scamdemic and how the government handled it.
On February 1 of this year, Johnson wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. In it were the findings from a roundtable on covid jab injuries and deaths, including data showing a 10-fold increase in neurological issues post-Operation Warp Speed.
Johnson also revealed the following increases in other health conditions following the mandate of covid injections in the military:
Hypertension: 2,181 percent increase
Nervous system disorders: 1,048 percent increase
Malignant neoplasms of esophagus: 894 percent increase
Multiple sclerosis: 680 percent increase
Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs: 624 percent increase
Guillain-Barre syndrome: 551 percent increase
Breast cancer: 487 percent increase
Demyelinating: 487 percent increase
Malignant neoplasms of thyroid and other endocrine glands: 474 percent increase
Female infertility: 472 percent increase
Pulmonary embolism: 468 percent increase
Migraines: 452 percent increase
Ovarian dysfunction: 437 percent increase
Testicular cancer: 369 percent increase
Tachycardia: 302 percent increase
Between the years 2016 and 2020, there were 1,499 codes for miscarriage reported each year. From January through October 2021 – not even a full year – there were an astounding 4,182 miscarriages logged into the system.
During his panel, Johnson further made note that it appears myocarditis rates are being doctored by the government. Back in August 2021, it was shown in the codes that myocarditis diagnoses were up 2,800 percent. This month, however, it is now listed as only 200 percent higher.
“There appears to be doctoring of the data,” Johnson stated. “Now, my staff has already sent – this morning, we sent a record preservation letter to the Department of Defense to try and protect this data.”
“Our soldiers are being experimented on, injured, and sometimes, possibly, killed,” he added in a statement.
The latest injury and death counts associated with Fauci Flu shots can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone