Vishalreddy3
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,372
- Likes
- 8,652
China Military News & Updates
- Thread starter Skynet2
- Start date
Chinese Whistleblower Li-Meng Yan's Second Report Alleges COVID-19 Used a CCP Template Virus That Only Has 1.7% Bacteria
Dr. Li-Meng Yan alleges irregularity in the COVID-19 template virus as it shows only 1.7% bacteria as opposed to the normal 70-90% found in fecal matter.
www.techtimes.com
Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a virologist who worked in a particular WHO reference lab and proceeded to flee her position over at the University of Hong Kong, has recently published a second co-authored report. She revealed more allegations supporting the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused COVID-19, saying that it was not just created in a specific Wuhan lab, but was actually an "unrestricted bioweapon" which was, in fact, intentionally released.
Li-Meng Yan Paper: The virus allegedly came from a lab
According to the report, biological evidence as well as in-depth analysis was used to show that the SARS-CoV-2 is actually a laboratory product, which stems from a template virus known as ZC45/ZXC21 that was owned by research laboratories that were under the control of the known Chinese Communist Party or CCP.
It was stated in the report that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of lab modification which can be done in about six months by using a virus template that is owned by the People's Liberation Army or PLA's laboratory. The main fact that data fabrications were allegedly used to cover the origin story of the SARS-CoV-2, as stated in the article, further implies that the whole lab modification goes beyond the simple gain-of-function research.
Dr. Li-Meng Yan alleged that the entire scale as well as the coordinated nature of the whole scientific fraud points out a degree of corruption in both the public health and academic research fields.
What is known about the RaTG13 virus: Origin virus for COVID-19
It was also stated in the report that the known RaTG13 virus, previously obtained back in 2013 from bat feces (showing up 96% identical to the SARS-CoV-2) is actually fraudulent and man made. Since the publication, the known RaTG13 virus has been the backbone and founding evidence supporting the theory that SARS-CoV-2 did have a natural origin.
However, there are no live viruses or even an intact genome of the RaTG13 that has ever been recovered or isolated. This leads to the deduction that the origin of the "existence" of the known RaTG13 is its whole genomic sequence that was published on the GenBank.
Read Also: Chinese Whistleblower Li-Meng Yan Claims Coronavirus Lab Release Was in 'No Way an Accident' Amid Strict P3 and P4 Surveillance
Irregularities when it comes to the RaTG13 genome
The report then proceeds to state that the RaTG13 genome could actually have been easily fabricated and also the mere entry to GenBank is equivalent to the resulting existence of a simple assembled viral genomic sequence as well as associated sequencing reads. It was then stated that it is not even a definitive proof that the given viral genome is even real or correct. It was also stated that the whole process for sequencing the given DNA leaves room for actual "potential fraud." The RaTG13 is also said to have "multiple abnormal features."
It was stated that the RaTG13 was a fecal sample. However, only 1.7% of the given raw sequencing read bacteria when normally, most fecal swab samples show up with about 70-90% bacteria. The sequence also reportedly had other segments of non-bat origin from flying fox, fox, squirrels, and also other animals.
The following article give evidence by multiple researchers that Covid-19 virus was created via genetic manipulation in a Chinese Communist Party PLA military lab and intentionally spread to other countries by Chinese government. I am posting sections from the article in parts as it is very long:
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 1):
Scientists point to ‘suspicious’ SARS-CoV-2 properties
In an interview published in Minerva in Norway on July 2, Birger Sørensen said it was more than 90% certain that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory.
Sørensen and his fellow scientists Angus Dalgleish and Andres Susrud have done their research with a view to producing a vaccine.
Sørensen’s work came to international attention in 2008 when he launched a new immunotherapy for HIV. Dalgleish is the professor at St George’s medical school at the University of London who became world famous in 1984 after he discovered a novel receptor that the HIV virus uses to enter human cells.
Sørensen (pictured left) told Minerva that he and his colleagues discovered that SARS-CoV-2 was exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans, to the degree that it was suspicious.
He said he and his colleagues had discovered properties in SARS-CoV-2 that enable it to use an additional receptor and create a binding to human cells in the upper respiratory tract and the intestines that is strong enough to produce an infection.
Sørensen says the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is very stable and this points to it being “a fully developed, almost perfected virus for infecting humans”. This, he says, indicates that the structure of the virus cannot have evolved naturally.
He also points to the inserts in SARS-CoV-2, several of which do not, he says, exist in other coronaviruses. Sørensen told Minerva that it’s possible for a virus to attain these properties in nature, but it’s not likely.
“If the mutations had happened in nature, we would have most likely seen that the virus had attracted other properties through mutations, not just properties that help the virus to attach itself to human cells,” he said.
“The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists is in a laboratory,” Sørensen told Minerva. “So the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory. Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof.”
In an article published on July 13, Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud present detailed reasoning for their argument that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not natural.
They state: “This reconstructed historical aetiology meets the criteria of means, timing, agent and place to produce sufficient confidence to reverse the burden of proof.
“Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we also show, there are puzzling errors in their use of evidence.”
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud challenge the arguments put forward by Andersen et al. in their controversial article entitled ‘The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2’, published on March 17 in Nature Medicine.
The three scientists say the contention of Andersen et al. that it is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus because the ACE2 binding is not ideal “is weakened because Andersen et al. cite two authorities which actually say the reverse of what they say that they say”.
ACE2 (the Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is a protein found on the surface of human cells, as well as in soluble form in the blood, that has been identified as the receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 viral entry.
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud have identified five features of SARS-CoV-2 that individually, they say, seem unlikely to be the result of natural evolution and which, taken together, make natural evolution a less likely explanation than purposive manipulation, “specifically for gain of function”.
Sørensen and his colleagues say that a major part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has human-like domains with matured transmission adaption.
“Blasting the spike protein with a rolling window of six amino acids showed that 78.4% of six amino acid windows are human like,” they write.
Nearly 80% of the spike protein has a built-in stealth property by having high human similarity, they add.
“Therefore, it is remarkably well-adapted virus for human co-existence,” the scientists write. “Such high human similarity also implies a high risk for the development of severe adverse events/toxicity and even Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) unless specific precautions are taken when using the spike protein in any vaccine candidate.”
Sørensen and his co-authors say their discovery that the SARS-CoV-2 spike displays new amino acid inserts “with condensed cumulative charge, all of which are surface exposed” is particularly significant.
“Being physically located on the surface of the spike protein greatly increases the infectivity and pathogenicity of the virus, enabling these inserts to participate in binding to co-receptors/negatively charged attachment receptors or even, as we have discovered, to the negatively charged phospholipid heads on the cell membrane,” they write.
A comprehensive review of the relevant literature shows that a substantial amount of directly relevant gain-of function research has been undertaken, the three scientists say.
“Four studies are especially noteworthy. They are linked in two ways: scientifically, in that the third and fourth build upon the results of the first and second, and in continuity of the institution and personnel across all four.”
Sørensen and his colleagues note that the WIV was a key collaborator in all the projects.
The first project, in 2008, successfully demonstrated technical capabilities to interchange receptor-binding domains (RBDs) between bat SARS-like and human SARS viruses, Sørensen and his co-authors say.
Sørensen and his colleagues also say that, in 2010 scientists from the ‘Special Viruses’ section of the WIV were engaged in gain-of-function experiments, jointly with international collaborators, to increase SARS-CoV infectiousness for humans.
Sørensen and his co-authors also highlight the gain-of-function research carried out in 2015.
Sørensen and his colleagues detail the way the SHC014 spike, in a wild-type backbone, can “efficiently utilise multiple ACE2 receptor orthologs, replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV” and say that what are described are “precisely SARS-CoV-2 properties”.
The three scientists say that those who reported on the research carried out in 2015 “were well aware that the chimeric virus which they had created was very dangerous because they discussed this fact”.
Sørensen and his colleagues added: “It is certainly the case that this experiment created a chimeric virus with very high infectivity potential targeted to the human upper respiratory tract.”
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud say that when the in vivo experiments were carried out at Chapel Hill, and the chimeric virus replicated in mouse lung showed significant pathogenesis, this was the opposite of the result the researchers had expected.
“The creation of chimeric viruses like SHC014-MA15 was not expected to increase ‘pathogenicity’,” Sørensen and his colleagues write.
In summary, the scientists say the work done in 2010 built upon the research carried out in 2008. “The 2010 work (Hou et al., 2010) perfected the ability to express receptors on human cells.
“On these foundations, the central gain of function work that underpins the functionalities of SARS-CoV-2 took place, carrying the WIV spike and plasmid materials to bond successfully to a UNC Chapel Hill human epithelial cell-line.”
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission.
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 1):
Scientists point to ‘suspicious’ SARS-CoV-2 properties
In an interview published in Minerva in Norway on July 2, Birger Sørensen said it was more than 90% certain that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory.
Sørensen and his fellow scientists Angus Dalgleish and Andres Susrud have done their research with a view to producing a vaccine.
Sørensen’s work came to international attention in 2008 when he launched a new immunotherapy for HIV. Dalgleish is the professor at St George’s medical school at the University of London who became world famous in 1984 after he discovered a novel receptor that the HIV virus uses to enter human cells.
Sørensen (pictured left) told Minerva that he and his colleagues discovered that SARS-CoV-2 was exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans, to the degree that it was suspicious.
He said he and his colleagues had discovered properties in SARS-CoV-2 that enable it to use an additional receptor and create a binding to human cells in the upper respiratory tract and the intestines that is strong enough to produce an infection.
Sørensen says the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is very stable and this points to it being “a fully developed, almost perfected virus for infecting humans”. This, he says, indicates that the structure of the virus cannot have evolved naturally.
He also points to the inserts in SARS-CoV-2, several of which do not, he says, exist in other coronaviruses. Sørensen told Minerva that it’s possible for a virus to attain these properties in nature, but it’s not likely.
“If the mutations had happened in nature, we would have most likely seen that the virus had attracted other properties through mutations, not just properties that help the virus to attach itself to human cells,” he said.
Sørensen told Minerva that the properties seen in SARS-CoV-2 had yet to be discovered anywhere in nature. If the virus came from nature, he says, there should also be many animals infected with it.
“The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists is in a laboratory,” Sørensen told Minerva. “So the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory. Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof.”
In an article published on July 13, Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud present detailed reasoning for their argument that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not natural.
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud analyse four research projects which, they suggest, show by deduction “how, where, when, and by whom the SARS-CoV-2 spike acquired its special characteristics”.
They state: “This reconstructed historical aetiology meets the criteria of means, timing, agent and place to produce sufficient confidence to reverse the burden of proof.
“Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we also show, there are puzzling errors in their use of evidence.”
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud challenge the arguments put forward by Andersen et al. in their controversial article entitled ‘The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2’, published on March 17 in Nature Medicine.
The three scientists say the contention of Andersen et al. that it is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus because the ACE2 binding is not ideal “is weakened because Andersen et al. cite two authorities which actually say the reverse of what they say that they say”.
ACE2 (the Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is a protein found on the surface of human cells, as well as in soluble form in the blood, that has been identified as the receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 viral entry.
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud have identified five features of SARS-CoV-2 that individually, they say, seem unlikely to be the result of natural evolution and which, taken together, make natural evolution a less likely explanation than purposive manipulation, “specifically for gain of function”.
Sørensen and his colleagues say that a major part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has human-like domains with matured transmission adaption.
“Blasting the spike protein with a rolling window of six amino acids showed that 78.4% of six amino acid windows are human like,” they write.
Nearly 80% of the spike protein has a built-in stealth property by having high human similarity, they add.
“Therefore, it is remarkably well-adapted virus for human co-existence,” the scientists write. “Such high human similarity also implies a high risk for the development of severe adverse events/toxicity and even Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) unless specific precautions are taken when using the spike protein in any vaccine candidate.”
Sørensen and his co-authors say their discovery that the SARS-CoV-2 spike displays new amino acid inserts “with condensed cumulative charge, all of which are surface exposed” is particularly significant.
“Being physically located on the surface of the spike protein greatly increases the infectivity and pathogenicity of the virus, enabling these inserts to participate in binding to co-receptors/negatively charged attachment receptors or even, as we have discovered, to the negatively charged phospholipid heads on the cell membrane,” they write.
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud point to articles by Chinese and American researchers in which, they say, “those researchers demonstrate and discuss how they have manipulated new chimeraviruses into existence, with SARS-coronavirus as a starting point”.
A comprehensive review of the relevant literature shows that a substantial amount of directly relevant gain-of function research has been undertaken, the three scientists say.
“Four studies are especially noteworthy. They are linked in two ways: scientifically, in that the third and fourth build upon the results of the first and second, and in continuity of the institution and personnel across all four.”
Sørensen and his colleagues note that the WIV was a key collaborator in all the projects.
The first project, in 2008, successfully demonstrated technical capabilities to interchange receptor-binding domains (RBDs) between bat SARS-like and human SARS viruses, Sørensen and his co-authors say.
Sørensen and his colleagues also say that, in 2010 scientists from the ‘Special Viruses’ section of the WIV were engaged in gain-of-function experiments, jointly with international collaborators, to increase SARS-CoV infectiousness for humans.
“They also found that some bat ACE2 receptors are very close to human ACE2 receptors. This study provided a model system for testing the most infectious of SARS-CoV-like viruses which already had been selected in a vast survey of Chinese bat populations between 2005–2013.”
Sørensen and his co-authors also highlight the gain-of-function research carried out in 2015.
“Together, they manipulated bat viruses to create a mouse adapted chimeric virus SHC014-MA15 which binds to and can proliferate on human upper airway cells.”
Sørensen and his colleagues detail the way the SHC014 spike, in a wild-type backbone, can “efficiently utilise multiple ACE2 receptor orthologs, replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV” and say that what are described are “precisely SARS-CoV-2 properties”.
The three scientists say that those who reported on the research carried out in 2015 “were well aware that the chimeric virus which they had created was very dangerous because they discussed this fact”.
Sørensen and his colleagues added: “It is certainly the case that this experiment created a chimeric virus with very high infectivity potential targeted to the human upper respiratory tract.”
Sørensen, Dalgleish, and Susrud say that when the in vivo experiments were carried out at Chapel Hill, and the chimeric virus replicated in mouse lung showed significant pathogenesis, this was the opposite of the result the researchers had expected.
“The creation of chimeric viruses like SHC014-MA15 was not expected to increase ‘pathogenicity’,” Sørensen and his colleagues write.
In summary, the scientists say the work done in 2010 built upon the research carried out in 2008. “The 2010 work (Hou et al., 2010) perfected the ability to express receptors on human cells.
“On these foundations, the central gain of function work that underpins the functionalities of SARS-CoV-2 took place, carrying the WIV spike and plasmid materials to bond successfully to a UNC Chapel Hill human epithelial cell-line.”
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission.
The following article give evidence by multiple researchers that Covid-19 virus was created via genetic manipulation in a Chinese Communist Party PLA military lab and intentionally spread to other countries by Chinese government. I am posting sections from the article in parts as it is very long (Part 1 is above; Part 2 is below the introduction below):
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 2):
‘The idea of an animal intermediate is speculation’
In an article published in Independent Science News on June 2, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, who are co-founders of the non-profit Bioscience Resource Project, which is based in Ithaca, New York, write: “Unfortunately, in the US at least, the question of the pandemic’s origin has become a political football; either an opportunity for Sinophobia or a partisan ‘blame game’.
“But the potential of a catastrophic lab release is not a game and systemic problems of competence and opacity are certainly not limited to China (Lipsitch, 2018). The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defence facility in Manhattan, Kansas.”
The DHS has put the 50-year risk of a release from its laboratory at 70%, Latham and Wilson say.
Citing the comment of the Australian virologist Nikolai Petrovsky, from Flinders University, that no natural virus matching SARS-CoV-2 has been found in nature despite an intensive search to find its origins, Latham and Wilson said: “The idea of an animal intermediate is speculation. Indeed, no credible viral or animal host intermediaries, either in the form of a confirmed animal host or a plausible virus intermediate, has to date emerged to explain the natural zoonotic transfer of Sars-CoV-2 to humans (e.g. Zhan et al., 2020).”
Petrovsky (pictured left) was the lead author of a preprint paper published on the arXiv server on May 13.
The Flinders University scientists found that SARS-CoV-2 targeted humans more potently than any of the tested animal species.
They said: “The binding energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and ACE2 was highest for humans out of all species tested, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is uniquely evolved to bind and infect cells expressing human ACE2.
“This finding is particularly surprising as, typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans.
The researchers combined the spike of the bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone into a single engineered live virus, Latham and Wilson write.
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission.
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 2):
‘The idea of an animal intermediate is speculation’
In an article published in Independent Science News on June 2, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, who are co-founders of the non-profit Bioscience Resource Project, which is based in Ithaca, New York, write: “Unfortunately, in the US at least, the question of the pandemic’s origin has become a political football; either an opportunity for Sinophobia or a partisan ‘blame game’.
“But the potential of a catastrophic lab release is not a game and systemic problems of competence and opacity are certainly not limited to China (Lipsitch, 2018). The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defence facility in Manhattan, Kansas.”
The DHS has put the 50-year risk of a release from its laboratory at 70%, Latham and Wilson say.
Citing the comment of the Australian virologist Nikolai Petrovsky, from Flinders University, that no natural virus matching SARS-CoV-2 has been found in nature despite an intensive search to find its origins, Latham and Wilson said: “The idea of an animal intermediate is speculation. Indeed, no credible viral or animal host intermediaries, either in the form of a confirmed animal host or a plausible virus intermediate, has to date emerged to explain the natural zoonotic transfer of Sars-CoV-2 to humans (e.g. Zhan et al., 2020).”
Petrovsky (pictured left) was the lead author of a preprint paper published on the arXiv server on May 13.
The Flinders University scientists found that SARS-CoV-2 targeted humans more potently than any of the tested animal species.
They said: “The binding energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and ACE2 was highest for humans out of all species tested, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is uniquely evolved to bind and infect cells expressing human ACE2.
“This finding is particularly surprising as, typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans.
Latham and Wilson note that, in 2014, just before a ban on gain-of-function research went into effect in the US, Zhengli did work with researchers from Ralph Baric’s laboratory in North Carolina, where gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses was carried out, and published a paper.
The researchers combined the spike of the bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone into a single engineered live virus, Latham and Wilson write.
Researchers in Shi Zhengli’s laboratory produced recombinant bat coronaviruses and placed these in human cells and monkey cells, Latham and Wilson note. “All these experiments were conducted in cells containing human or monkey ACE2 receptors,” they said.
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission.
The following article give evidence by multiple researchers that Covid-19 virus was created via genetic manipulation in a Chinese Communist Party PLA military lab and intentionally spread to other countries by Chinese government. I am posting sections from the article in parts as it is very long (Parts 1 and 2 are above; Part 3 is below the introduction below):
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 3):
Reports by exiled Chinese scientist
Exiled scientist Li-Meng Yan (pictured left) and three of her colleagues at the Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation in New York in the US have published two reports about the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2.
In the first report, published on September 14, Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu lay out arguments that suggest that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory in China.
Yan, who specialised in virology and immunology at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, but fled to the US in April, says that the Chinese government and the WHO knew about person-to-person transmission of Covid-19 much earlier than was reported.
She says that her supervisors ignored research that she conducted at the beginning of the pandemic that she believes could have saved lives.
In their first paper, which was published on the preprint website Zenodo, Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu say genetic evidence within the spike gene of the SARS-CoV-2 genome exists that suggests that the genome is a product of genetic manipulation.
Yan et al. say there is evidence indicating that SARS-CoV- 2 is a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.
They say that the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is “suspiciously similar” to that of a bat coronavirus discovered in military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command.
ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered (between July 2015 and February 2017), isolated, and characterised by researchers at the military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command, Yan et al. say. The data and associated work were published in 2018.
The researchers also say that the receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be born from nature. They say that the RBM of the spike resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic “in a suspicious manner”. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated, they say.
“The way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual,” Yan et al. write. “Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.”
The scientists further state that SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin cleavage site in its spike protein, “which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism”.
This cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature, the scientists say.
A codon is a trinucleotide sequence of DNA or RNA that corresponds to a specific amino acid.
Yan et al. say that, in a discovery that is consistent with the RBM engineering theory, they have identified two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, at either end of the RBM of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
“These two sites, which are popular choices of everyday molecular cloning, do not exist in the rest of this spike gene,” the scientist say.
“Such EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses, which strongly indicates that they were unnatural and were specifically introduced into this spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 for the convenience of manipulating the critical RBM.”
A restriction site is a sequence of approximately six–eight base pairs of DNA that binds to a given restriction enzyme. A restriction enzyme is a protein that recognises a specific, short nucleotide sequence and cuts the DNA only at a specific restriction site. The natural function of restriction enzymes is to inactivate invading viruses by cleaving the viral DNA.
Yan et al. say that once restriction sites are successfully introduced, the RBM segment can be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation.
The feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven, the researchers add. In 2008, they say, Shi Zhengli’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimised spike gene. They then validated the binding of the resultant chimeric spike proteins with the human ACE2 receptor (hACE2).
Yan et al. refer in their report to the work of Zhengli’s collaborator, Fang Li. “Dr Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of spike-ACE2 interactions,” the researchers said.
“The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence.
“The more deceiving approach would be to change a few non- essential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding … Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a ‘copy and paste’ of the SARS RBM.”
Yan et al. say that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created in a laboratory in a period of about six months.
The four scientists question the existence in nature of the RaTG13 virus.
They add: “It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2–ZC45/ZXC21 connection.
“On the other hand, substantial evidence has accumulated, pointing to severe problems associated with the reported sequence of RaTG13 as well as questioning the actual existence of this bat virus in nature.”
Yan et al. say that a very recent publication indicates that the RBD of the RaTG13’s spike protein could not bind to the ACE2 of two different types of horseshoe bats.
They say that their finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated “as the spike protein encoded by this sequence does not seem to carry the claimed function”.
They add: “The fact that a virus has been fabricated to shift the attention away from ZC45/ZXC21 speaks for an actual role of ZC45/ZXC21 in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”
Yan et al. say genomic sequence analysis reveals that bat coronavirus ZC45 is the closest match to SARS-CoV-2.
“When SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are compared on the amino acid level, a high sequence identity is observed for most of the proteins,” they say.
“The nucleocapsid protein is 94% identical. The membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the spike protein is 95% identical. Importantly, the Orf8 protein is 94.2% identical and the E protein is 100% identical.”
Yan et al. say sequence blast analysis indicates that, with the exception of SARS-CoV-2, no known coronaviruses share 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45/ZXC21.
“Although 100% identity on the E protein has been observed between SARS-CoV and certain SARS-related bat coronaviruses, none of those pairs simultaneously share over 83% identity on the Orf8 protein.”
Yan et al. say that the 94.2% identity on the Orf8 protein, 100% identity on the E protein, and the overall genomic/amino acid-level resemblance between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are therefore highly unusual.
“Such evidence, when considered together, is consistent with a hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as a backbone and/or template for genetic gain-of-function modifications,” they write.
They add that the high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support the scenario of an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution and clearly indicates that SARS-CoV-2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.
Yan et al. say that, if a natural recombination event is responsible for the appearance of SARSCoV-2, then the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM would have to recombine in the same cell by swapping the S1/RBM, which is a rare form of recombination.
“Furthermore, since SARS has occurred only once in human history, it would be at least equally rare for nature to produce a virus that resembles SARS in such an intelligent manner – having an RBM that differs from the SARS RBM only at a few non-essential sites.”
The possibility that this unique SARS-like coronavirus would reside in the same cell with the ZC45/ZXC21-like ancestor virus and the two viruses would recombine in the “RBM-swapping” fashion is extremely low, the researchers say. Also, such a recombination event would have to happen to produce a spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2.
Yan et al. say that, judging from the evidence that they and others have gathered, there should be an independent audit of the WIV P4 laboratories and the laboratories of close collaborators of the WIV researchers.
This, the four scientists say, is unusual scientific behaviour, which needs explaining.
The researchers also say a critical look should be taken into certain recently published data, “which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2”.
Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu published a second report on October 8 in which they say SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud”.
They allege that records indicate that “the unleashing of this weaponised pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental”.
The current pandemic, they say, is “a result of unrestricted biowarfare”.
In the new paper, published on the preprint website Zenodo, Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu write: “The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.
Yan et al. say that, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China, “its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon”.
In their new paper, Yan et al. write about the novel animal coronaviruses they say were reported by researchers in laboratories in China after the start of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2.
“While no coronaviruses reported prior to 2020 share more than 90% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2, these recently published, novel animal coronaviruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) all share over 90% sequence identities with SARS-CoV-2,” they write.
“As a result, these SARS-CoV-2-like viruses have filled an evolutionary gap and served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin.
“Therefore, the only proof for the ‘existence’ of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank,” they write.
Yan et al. refer to an article by Yong-Zhen Zhang et al., published in Nature magazine on February 3, in which they make no mention of RaTG13 and show that, evolutionarily, SARS-CoV-2 is closest to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21.
Both of these viruses “were discovered and characterised by military research laboratories under the control of the CCP government,” Yan et al. say.
“Immediately after the publication of this article, Dr Zhang’s laboratory was shut down by the CCP government with no explanations offered,” they write.
In order to have the sequence of a viral genome successfully uploaded onto GenBank, submitters have to provide both the assembled genomic sequence (text only) and raw sequencing reads.
“However, due to the huge amount of work involved in assembling raw reads into complete genomes, no sufficient curation is in place to ensure the correctness or truthfulness of the uploaded viral genomes,” Yan et al. write.
Therefore, Yan et al. say, an entry on GenBank is not definitive proof that the viral genome is correct or real.
“Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.”
The RaTG13 virus and its published sequence are suspicious and show signs of fabrication, Yan et al. say.
The four researchers say in their new report that the complete genomic sequence of RaTG13 was first submitted to GenBank on January 27, 2020, and the raw sequencing reads were made available on February 13.
“However, the sequencing data for gap filling, which is indispensable in assembling a complete genome, was only made available on May 19th, 2020 … The timing and the reversed order of events here are strange and suspicious.”
According to Yan et al., the raw sequencing reads of RaTG13 have multiple abnormal features.
“No independent verification of the RaTG13 sequence seems possible because, according to Dr Zhengli Shi, the raw sample has been exhausted and no live virus was ever isolated or recovered,” they add.
“However, judging from Shi’s published protocol, exhaustion of the faecal swab sample is highly
unlikely.”
Yan et al. write: “Intriguingly, despite the pivotal role of RaTG13 in revealing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the information provided for its discovery was surprisingly scarce with key points missing (location and date of sample collection, previous knowledge and publication of this virus, etc).”
They added: “Only in the source section of the NCBI entry for RaTG13 (GenBank accession code: MN996532.1), one could find that the original sample was a ‘faecal swab’ collected on ‘July 24th, 2013’.”
According to Yan et al., there are discrepancies between what Shi Zhengli suggested in the article published in Nature in January 2020 (that the sequencing of the full genome of RaBtCoV/4991 was not done until 2020) and what Zhengli said later in emailed replies to Science magazine.
Yan et al. say that, in June 2020, file names of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13 uploaded were found, which indicated that the sequencing experiments were done in 2017 and 2018.
“Likely responding to this revelation, in her email interview with Science, Dr Shi contradicted her own description in the Nature publication and admitted that the sequencing of the full genome of RaTG13 was done in 2018.”
The researchers say no follow-up work on RaTG13 has been reported by Zhengli and her colleagues.
“Upon obtaining the genomic sequence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus, the Shi group routinely investigate whether or not the virus is capable of infecting human cells. This pattern of research activities has been shown repeatedly.
“However, such a pattern is not seen here despite that RaTG13 has an interesting RBM and is allegedly the closest match evolutionarily to SARS-CoV-2.”
There were, Yan et al. say, deviations from normal research activities and logical thinking that are difficult to reconcile or explain.
Yan et al. say investigations should be carried out “on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community”.
Yan has told television host in the US Tucker Carlson that her 63-year-old mother has been detained in China.
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission. This also eventually led to shortages of masks around the world, helping the virus to spread. Chinese Covid-19 virus detection tests sold to other countries also did not work, and this also contributed to the pandemic increase.
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
More than eight months after SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat, there is still no clarity about its origins. Those who suspect that the virus was developed in a laboratory are frequently dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but there is growing evidence to support the suggestion that gain-of-function research has made SARS-CoV-2 particularly virulent.
While some scientists still argue that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of natural evolution, others consider an accidental or deliberate leak from a laboratory to be a valid hypothesis that merits further investigation.
For decades, gain-of-function research, which alters viruses to increase their transmissibility, pathogenicity, virulence or lethality, has been carried out by American and Chinese scientists working in collaboration. There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003–2004.
Those who suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may well have originated in a laboratory include the Norwegian virologist Birger Sørensen, the French scientist and Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier, and the exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan, who says that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud” in covering up the truth.
Yan and others say there is evidence within the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that suggests it is a product of genetic manipulation. . . .
(Part 3):
Reports by exiled Chinese scientist
Exiled scientist Li-Meng Yan (pictured left) and three of her colleagues at the Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation in New York in the US have published two reports about the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2.
In the first report, published on September 14, Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu lay out arguments that suggest that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory in China.
Yan, who specialised in virology and immunology at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, but fled to the US in April, says that the Chinese government and the WHO knew about person-to-person transmission of Covid-19 much earlier than was reported.
She says that her supervisors ignored research that she conducted at the beginning of the pandemic that she believes could have saved lives.
In their first paper, which was published on the preprint website Zenodo, Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu say genetic evidence within the spike gene of the SARS-CoV-2 genome exists that suggests that the genome is a product of genetic manipulation.
The scientists say that the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has likely undergone genetic engineering, through which the virus has gained the ability to target humans with enhanced virulence and infectivity.
The four scientists say that the theory that SARS-Cov-2 has a natural origin, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.
“In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory.”
Yan et al. say there is evidence indicating that SARS-CoV- 2 is a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.
The four researchers present three main arguments to support their contention that SARS-CoV-2 was manipulated in a laboratory.
They say that the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is “suspiciously similar” to that of a bat coronavirus discovered in military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command.
ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered (between July 2015 and February 2017), isolated, and characterised by researchers at the military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command, Yan et al. say. The data and associated work were published in 2018.
The researchers also say that the receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be born from nature. They say that the RBM of the spike resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic “in a suspicious manner”. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated, they say.
“The way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual,” Yan et al. write. “Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.”
The scientists further state that SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin cleavage site in its spike protein, “which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism”.
This cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature, the scientists say.
“In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.”
A codon is a trinucleotide sequence of DNA or RNA that corresponds to a specific amino acid.
Yan et al. say that, in a discovery that is consistent with the RBM engineering theory, they have identified two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, at either end of the RBM of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
“These two sites, which are popular choices of everyday molecular cloning, do not exist in the rest of this spike gene,” the scientist say.
“Such EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses, which strongly indicates that they were unnatural and were specifically introduced into this spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 for the convenience of manipulating the critical RBM.”
A restriction site is a sequence of approximately six–eight base pairs of DNA that binds to a given restriction enzyme. A restriction enzyme is a protein that recognises a specific, short nucleotide sequence and cuts the DNA only at a specific restriction site. The natural function of restriction enzymes is to inactivate invading viruses by cleaving the viral DNA.
Yan et al. say that once restriction sites are successfully introduced, the RBM segment can be swapped conveniently using routine restriction enzyme digestion and ligation.
The feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven, the researchers add. In 2008, they say, Shi Zhengli’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimised spike gene. They then validated the binding of the resultant chimeric spike proteins with the human ACE2 receptor (hACE2).
Yan et al. refer in their report to the work of Zhengli’s collaborator, Fang Li. “Dr Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of spike-ACE2 interactions,” the researchers said.
“The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence.
Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation, Yan et al. say.
“The more deceiving approach would be to change a few non- essential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding … Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a ‘copy and paste’ of the SARS RBM.”
Yan et al. say that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created in a laboratory in a period of about six months.
The four scientists question the existence in nature of the RaTG13 virus.
They say that researchers from a Chinese BSL-3 lab (the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre), published an article in Nature in which they reported a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARSCoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 rather than with RaTG13, but the article “was quickly shut down for ‘rectification’”.
They add: “It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV-2–ZC45/ZXC21 connection.
“On the other hand, substantial evidence has accumulated, pointing to severe problems associated with the reported sequence of RaTG13 as well as questioning the actual existence of this bat virus in nature.”
Yan et al. say that a very recent publication indicates that the RBD of the RaTG13’s spike protein could not bind to the ACE2 of two different types of horseshoe bats.
They say that their finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated “as the spike protein encoded by this sequence does not seem to carry the claimed function”.
They add: “The fact that a virus has been fabricated to shift the attention away from ZC45/ZXC21 speaks for an actual role of ZC45/ZXC21 in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”
Yan et al. say genomic sequence analysis reveals that bat coronavirus ZC45 is the closest match to SARS-CoV-2.
“When SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are compared on the amino acid level, a high sequence identity is observed for most of the proteins,” they say.
“The nucleocapsid protein is 94% identical. The membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the spike protein is 95% identical. Importantly, the Orf8 protein is 94.2% identical and the E protein is 100% identical.”
Yan et al. say sequence blast analysis indicates that, with the exception of SARS-CoV-2, no known coronaviruses share 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45/ZXC21.
“Although 100% identity on the E protein has been observed between SARS-CoV and certain SARS-related bat coronaviruses, none of those pairs simultaneously share over 83% identity on the Orf8 protein.”
Yan et al. say that the 94.2% identity on the Orf8 protein, 100% identity on the E protein, and the overall genomic/amino acid-level resemblance between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are therefore highly unusual.
“Such evidence, when considered together, is consistent with a hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as a backbone and/or template for genetic gain-of-function modifications,” they write.
They add that the high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support the scenario of an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution and clearly indicates that SARS-CoV-2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.
Yan et al. say that, if a natural recombination event is responsible for the appearance of SARSCoV-2, then the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM would have to recombine in the same cell by swapping the S1/RBM, which is a rare form of recombination.
“Furthermore, since SARS has occurred only once in human history, it would be at least equally rare for nature to produce a virus that resembles SARS in such an intelligent manner – having an RBM that differs from the SARS RBM only at a few non-essential sites.”
The possibility that this unique SARS-like coronavirus would reside in the same cell with the ZC45/ZXC21-like ancestor virus and the two viruses would recombine in the “RBM-swapping” fashion is extremely low, the researchers say. Also, such a recombination event would have to happen to produce a spike as seen in SARS-CoV-2.
Yan et al. say that, judging from the evidence that they and others have gathered, there should be an independent audit of the WIV P4 laboratories and the laboratories of close collaborators of the WIV researchers.
“We also note that in the publication of the chimeric virus SHC015-MA15 in 2015, the attribution of funding of Zhengli Shi by the NIAID was initially left out. It was reinstated in the publication in 2016 in a corrigendum, perhaps after the meeting in January 2016 to reinstate NIH funding for gain-of-function research on viruses.”
This, the four scientists say, is unusual scientific behaviour, which needs explaining.
The researchers also say a critical look should be taken into certain recently published data, “which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2”.
Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu published a second report on October 8 in which they say SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there has been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud”.
They allege that records indicate that “the unleashing of this weaponised pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental”.
The current pandemic, they say, is “a result of unrestricted biowarfare”.
In the new paper, published on the preprint website Zenodo, Yan, Kang, Guan, and Hu write: “The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.
Yan et al. say that, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China, “its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon”.
In their new paper, Yan et al. write about the novel animal coronaviruses they say were reported by researchers in laboratories in China after the start of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2.
“While no coronaviruses reported prior to 2020 share more than 90% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2, these recently published, novel animal coronaviruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) all share over 90% sequence identities with SARS-CoV-2,” they write.
“As a result, these SARS-CoV-2-like viruses have filled an evolutionary gap and served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin.
Yan et al. say the RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have a natural origin, but no live virus or intact genome of RaTG13 has ever been isolated or recovered.
“Therefore, the only proof for the ‘existence’ of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank,” they write.
Yan et al. refer to an article by Yong-Zhen Zhang et al., published in Nature magazine on February 3, in which they make no mention of RaTG13 and show that, evolutionarily, SARS-CoV-2 is closest to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21.
Both of these viruses “were discovered and characterised by military research laboratories under the control of the CCP government,” Yan et al. say.
“Immediately after the publication of this article, Dr Zhang’s laboratory was shut down by the CCP government with no explanations offered,” they write.
In order to have the sequence of a viral genome successfully uploaded onto GenBank, submitters have to provide both the assembled genomic sequence (text only) and raw sequencing reads.
“However, due to the huge amount of work involved in assembling raw reads into complete genomes, no sufficient curation is in place to ensure the correctness or truthfulness of the uploaded viral genomes,” Yan et al. write.
Therefore, Yan et al. say, an entry on GenBank is not definitive proof that the viral genome is correct or real.
“Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.”
The RaTG13 virus and its published sequence are suspicious and show signs of fabrication, Yan et al. say.
Yan et al. suggest that the fabrication of RaTG13 was planned and executed in coordination with the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2.
The four researchers say in their new report that the complete genomic sequence of RaTG13 was first submitted to GenBank on January 27, 2020, and the raw sequencing reads were made available on February 13.
“However, the sequencing data for gap filling, which is indispensable in assembling a complete genome, was only made available on May 19th, 2020 … The timing and the reversed order of events here are strange and suspicious.”
According to Yan et al., the raw sequencing reads of RaTG13 have multiple abnormal features.
“No independent verification of the RaTG13 sequence seems possible because, according to Dr Zhengli Shi, the raw sample has been exhausted and no live virus was ever isolated or recovered,” they add.
“However, judging from Shi’s published protocol, exhaustion of the faecal swab sample is highly
unlikely.”
Yan et al. write: “Intriguingly, despite the pivotal role of RaTG13 in revealing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the information provided for its discovery was surprisingly scarce with key points missing (location and date of sample collection, previous knowledge and publication of this virus, etc).”
They added: “Only in the source section of the NCBI entry for RaTG13 (GenBank accession code: MN996532.1), one could find that the original sample was a ‘faecal swab’ collected on ‘July 24th, 2013’.”
According to Yan et al., there are discrepancies between what Shi Zhengli suggested in the article published in Nature in January 2020 (that the sequencing of the full genome of RaBtCoV/4991 was not done until 2020) and what Zhengli said later in emailed replies to Science magazine.
Yan et al. say that, in June 2020, file names of the raw sequencing reads for RaTG13 uploaded were found, which indicated that the sequencing experiments were done in 2017 and 2018.
“Likely responding to this revelation, in her email interview with Science, Dr Shi contradicted her own description in the Nature publication and admitted that the sequencing of the full genome of RaTG13 was done in 2018.”
The researchers say no follow-up work on RaTG13 has been reported by Zhengli and her colleagues.
“Upon obtaining the genomic sequence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus, the Shi group routinely investigate whether or not the virus is capable of infecting human cells. This pattern of research activities has been shown repeatedly.
“However, such a pattern is not seen here despite that RaTG13 has an interesting RBM and is allegedly the closest match evolutionarily to SARS-CoV-2.”
There were, Yan et al. say, deviations from normal research activities and logical thinking that are difficult to reconcile or explain.
Yan et al. say investigations should be carried out “on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community”.
Yan has told television host in the US Tucker Carlson that her 63-year-old mother has been detained in China.
From: https://changingtimes.media/2020/10/12/sars-cov-2-lab-origin-hypothesis-gains-traction/
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
“On January 21, President Xi Jinping asked the director-general of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom, to withhold information about person-to-person transmission of the virus, as well as pandemic classification. Likely as a consequence, pandemic classification of the virus was delayed four to six weeks.”
The scientific evidence shown in this and previous posted articles is further proof that Covid-19 virus is a result of lab modification by Wuhan Institute of Virology of viruses owned by the Chinese Communist Party funded People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratories. The fact that Xi Jinping hid person-to-person transmission of the virus from the world for six weeks while allowing international travel from Wuhan is proof that Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party intentionally spread the Covid-19 virus to other countries. The Covid-19 virus was created as a bioweapon through modification/combination of viruses in Chinese Communist Party funded PLA laboratories, and then intentionally leaked from Wuhan Virology Institute in Wuhan as a bio-weapon. The knowledge about the virus was then suppressed as it was allowed to spread to the rest of the world intentionally using the Chinese people as carriers. This should not be surprising as the Chinese leadership does not care about common Chinese people. The Chinese leadership also stocked up on PPE (masks, etc) and antiviral medications ahead of time, so they were well-prepared. And since they were the ones who spread the virus, they knew where to lock down (Wuhan) as well as where to trace the cases within China. Yet they intentionally allowed the virus to spread throughout the world. At the behest of the CCP, the WHO gave the advise not to wear a mask to other countries, even as the Chinese people were required to wear masks to stop the outbreak; masks which the Chinese government had stocked up on while lying to the world that there is no person to person transmission. This also eventually led to shortages of masks around the world, helping the virus to spread. Chinese Covid-19 virus detection tests sold to other countries also did not work, and this also contributed to the pandemic increase.
rockdog
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,249
- Likes
- 3,025
Global arms sales top $360bn as US and China dominate
www.independent.co.uk
Dominated by America and China, the global arms industry recorded a nearly nine per cent jump in sales in 2019 from the previous year, according to a study released Monday.
Based on the most recent publicly available data about sales of arms and military services, the 28-page report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), Mapping the International Presence of the World’s Largest Arms Companies, provides a partial picture of the growing magnitude and internationalisation of the military industry.
... ...
Global arms sales top $360bn as US and China dominate
Weapons sales increased by more than eight per cent in 2019
Dominated by America and China, the global arms industry recorded a nearly nine per cent jump in sales in 2019 from the previous year, according to a study released Monday.
Based on the most recent publicly available data about sales of arms and military services, the 28-page report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), Mapping the International Presence of the World’s Largest Arms Companies, provides a partial picture of the growing magnitude and internationalisation of the military industry.
... ...
FOXBAT ALOK
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2018
- Messages
- 137
- Likes
- 373
Chinese border guards began operating exoskeletons. How India and other countries will respond?
SPURCE : defence view
Chinese border guards were the first to receive new exoskeletons. Units guarding the border in the country’s mountainous regions have received kits from Chongqing Niudi Technology Development, CCTV reported. Thus, the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army of China became the first to try on fantastic technology in the fields.
Specialists developed the Chinese exoskeleton from the PLA National Defense University in cooperation with Chongqing Niudi Technology Development. The kit is a set of hinges that follow the joints of the legs. Articulated with them is a satchel stand that distributes the load outside the human musculoskeletal system.
The Chinese exoskeleton’s carrying capacity is 70 kilograms – while the development is passive – there are no electric or hydraulic drives in its design. Probably, the Chinese exoskeleton uses the principle of energy storage and release through balanced lever-hinge joints.
The Chinese design refers to passive systems.
Exoskeleton tests showed a 91% decrease in the load on a person in static positions and up to 44% in motion. At the same time, the load on the back decreased by a third.
Competitors
The first exoskeleton was created in the 1960s by General Electrics in collaboration with the US military. However, the design was not used due to the high mass of the kit and technological imperfections. Nevertheless, since then, the US Armed Forces have not abandoned their attempts to obtain serial exoskeletons.
In 2011, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the Warrior Web project, which began designing the TALOS exoskeleton (Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit). The development was supposed to accommodate a set of sensors to control a soldier’s movement, a heating layer, and active hinges to facilitate movement and fixation in a certain position. The desire to get the “Swiss knife” probably turned out to be impracticable, and in 2019 the development of TALOS was suspended, giving preference to individual systems.
For example, Lockheed Martin introduced the ONYX exoskeleton, a servo system that reduces the legs’ load. The 6.4 kg kit is an active system, so the battery life is limited by the battery capacity. For example, the most capacious battery will provide up to 16 hours of assistance, but its weight is 5.4 kg – with the ONYX carrying capacity of 45 kg.
Active exoskeleton ONYX, and ExoBoot (left)
The system is equipped with a set of sensors and an AI-based on-board computer that “predicts” movements and adjusts assistance forces. The manufacturer claims the ONYX promotes an even load distribution, reducing the likelihood of injury and increasing efficiency when using heavy weapons.
Another promising development is the “third hand” from the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL). The device weighing up to 1.8 kg is mounted on the torso side and allows you to stabilize weapons weighing up to 12 kg, increasing shooting accuracy and reducing fatigue.
Speaking of walking aid, the most compact American development is the Dephy ExoBoot. In this system, the exoskeleton’s support is limited to the ankle joint – by reducing the load on the calf muscles. The system consists of a special boot with an integrated lever and an electric motor that is controlled by an algorithm. The AI analyzes a person’s steps, determining the required force, after which the motor will generate additional torque in the ankle. On a single charge, the 1.6 kg ExoBoot can travel up to 9.6 km, and the reduction in leg load will be equivalent to 23 kg.
Russian developers are going through the creation of passive exoskeletons. For example, the BEC-01-PE6 exoskeleton from the Rostec-Trusted Platforms Robotic Complexes company is designed to reduce the musculoskeletal system load. At the same time, as in the Chinese system, the BEC-01 does not use additional mechanisms – the movements are facilitated by the lever-hinge elements that repeat the joints of the legs. This summer, footage from exoskeleton tests was demonstrated – according to the manufacturer, the BEC-01 allows you to carry up to 60 kg of loads, and the ability to lock the hinges contributes to accurate shooting and reducing fatigue under static loads.
India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)’s Defence Bioengineering and Electro-medical Laboratory (DEBEL) has been for some time collating data for Simulation and Analysis of Musco-skeletal parts, like lower limb stimulation (while the soldier is standing), etc. The private sector companies too, are doing R&D for the Exo-suit design for the Indian soldier, which will be customised according to the different environmental challenges.
According to experts, India is already incurring expenditure on upgrading wearable gear on each soldier to meet the ever-changing combat environment challenges, but there is a limitation up to which equipment can be fitted onto a soldier’s body.
Exoskeletons are gadgets worn as a harness by a soldier to augment his strength. These body gadgets are fitted with powered special devices and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance a soldier’s capability. A soldier rigged with an exoskeleton, also called Exo-suit, is capable of faster movements and possesses the extra load-bearing capability.
Since the Exo-suit technology is still evolving world over and prototype tests are underway, Make in India may be the only way ahead since such niche’ technologies may not be readily shared by an advance nation any time soon.
SPURCE : defence view
Chinese border guards were the first to receive new exoskeletons. Units guarding the border in the country’s mountainous regions have received kits from Chongqing Niudi Technology Development, CCTV reported. Thus, the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army of China became the first to try on fantastic technology in the fields.
Specialists developed the Chinese exoskeleton from the PLA National Defense University in cooperation with Chongqing Niudi Technology Development. The kit is a set of hinges that follow the joints of the legs. Articulated with them is a satchel stand that distributes the load outside the human musculoskeletal system.
The Chinese exoskeleton’s carrying capacity is 70 kilograms – while the development is passive – there are no electric or hydraulic drives in its design. Probably, the Chinese exoskeleton uses the principle of energy storage and release through balanced lever-hinge joints.
Exoskeleton tests showed a 91% decrease in the load on a person in static positions and up to 44% in motion. At the same time, the load on the back decreased by a third.
Competitors
The first exoskeleton was created in the 1960s by General Electrics in collaboration with the US military. However, the design was not used due to the high mass of the kit and technological imperfections. Nevertheless, since then, the US Armed Forces have not abandoned their attempts to obtain serial exoskeletons.
In 2011, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the Warrior Web project, which began designing the TALOS exoskeleton (Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit). The development was supposed to accommodate a set of sensors to control a soldier’s movement, a heating layer, and active hinges to facilitate movement and fixation in a certain position. The desire to get the “Swiss knife” probably turned out to be impracticable, and in 2019 the development of TALOS was suspended, giving preference to individual systems.
For example, Lockheed Martin introduced the ONYX exoskeleton, a servo system that reduces the legs’ load. The 6.4 kg kit is an active system, so the battery life is limited by the battery capacity. For example, the most capacious battery will provide up to 16 hours of assistance, but its weight is 5.4 kg – with the ONYX carrying capacity of 45 kg.
The system is equipped with a set of sensors and an AI-based on-board computer that “predicts” movements and adjusts assistance forces. The manufacturer claims the ONYX promotes an even load distribution, reducing the likelihood of injury and increasing efficiency when using heavy weapons.
Another promising development is the “third hand” from the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL). The device weighing up to 1.8 kg is mounted on the torso side and allows you to stabilize weapons weighing up to 12 kg, increasing shooting accuracy and reducing fatigue.
Speaking of walking aid, the most compact American development is the Dephy ExoBoot. In this system, the exoskeleton’s support is limited to the ankle joint – by reducing the load on the calf muscles. The system consists of a special boot with an integrated lever and an electric motor that is controlled by an algorithm. The AI analyzes a person’s steps, determining the required force, after which the motor will generate additional torque in the ankle. On a single charge, the 1.6 kg ExoBoot can travel up to 9.6 km, and the reduction in leg load will be equivalent to 23 kg.
Russian developers are going through the creation of passive exoskeletons. For example, the BEC-01-PE6 exoskeleton from the Rostec-Trusted Platforms Robotic Complexes company is designed to reduce the musculoskeletal system load. At the same time, as in the Chinese system, the BEC-01 does not use additional mechanisms – the movements are facilitated by the lever-hinge elements that repeat the joints of the legs. This summer, footage from exoskeleton tests was demonstrated – according to the manufacturer, the BEC-01 allows you to carry up to 60 kg of loads, and the ability to lock the hinges contributes to accurate shooting and reducing fatigue under static loads.
India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)’s Defence Bioengineering and Electro-medical Laboratory (DEBEL) has been for some time collating data for Simulation and Analysis of Musco-skeletal parts, like lower limb stimulation (while the soldier is standing), etc. The private sector companies too, are doing R&D for the Exo-suit design for the Indian soldier, which will be customised according to the different environmental challenges.
According to experts, India is already incurring expenditure on upgrading wearable gear on each soldier to meet the ever-changing combat environment challenges, but there is a limitation up to which equipment can be fitted onto a soldier’s body.
Exoskeletons are gadgets worn as a harness by a soldier to augment his strength. These body gadgets are fitted with powered special devices and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance a soldier’s capability. A soldier rigged with an exoskeleton, also called Exo-suit, is capable of faster movements and possesses the extra load-bearing capability.
Since the Exo-suit technology is still evolving world over and prototype tests are underway, Make in India may be the only way ahead since such niche’ technologies may not be readily shared by an advance nation any time soon.
China's Carrier-Based Fighter Jets Keep Crashing And Burning
China is developing a new carrier-based fighter aircraft to succeed the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark.The J-15—which is an unlicensed Chinese development
taskandpurpose.com
The J-15—which is an unlicensed Chinese development based on a T-10K-3 prototype of the Russian Su-33 Flanker-D—has proven to be a disappointment in service with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The navalized Chinese Flanker derivative has suffered a number of high-profile crashes due to technical issues with the aircraft’s engines and flight control system.
The J-15’s problems are apparently serious enough that Beijing is embarking on the development of a new carrier-based aircraft that would take the J-15’s place in China’s nascent carrier air wings.
A “new carrier-based fighter to replace the J-15” is being developed, Lt. Gen. Zhang Honghe, deputy head of the PLA Air Force, told the South China Morning Post.
It is unclear what the J-15’s successor will look like, but whatever aircraft Beijing develops will have to be able to operate from the ski-jump configured flight decks of theType 001 and Type 001A carriers —which are developments of the Soviet Kuznetsov-class —as well as the forthcoming Type 002, which is reportedly going to be outfitted with electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS).
Chinese naval analysts have suggested that Beijing might develop a naval variant of the FC-31 Gyrfalcon, which is a “privately-funded” development of the state-owned Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.
However, there is no official confirmation from Beijing on what a J-15 replacement might look like.
The impetus for doing away with the J-15 stems from a series of four serious accidents suffered by the type.
According to the SCMP, there have been at least four J-15 crashes that have resulted in at least one fatality and one case of serious injury due to what has been described as a series of “unpardonable mechanical failures.”
The technical problems seem to be traceable to the J-15’s indigenously developed engines and flight control system.
“The J-15 is a problematic aircraft – its unstable flight control system was the key factor behind the two fatal accidents two years ago,” a source told the SCMP.
Indeed, during two of the incidents which resulted in J-15 crashes, the SCMP said the “flight control system was breaking down” on approach to the runway during Field Carrier Landing Practices (FCLP). That might suggest the J-15’s flight control laws are vulnerable to pilot induced oscillations or any number of other problems.
Additionally, it is not clear how reliable the J-15’s indigenous Shenyang Liming WS-10H engines are and if they played a factor in these crashes. Older versions of the J-15 were powered by the Russian Salyut AL-31F engines, which are more or less reliable.
The Chinese apparently were well aware of problems with the J-15 but pressed ahead with deploying the jet operationally regardless of the risk, which highlights a culture that is markedly different from the U.S. Navy.
Indeed, while the U.S. Navy will fly an aircraft with restrictions for problems that have emerged once a type has entered service, the Pentagon would not normally declare an aircraft operational if it is known to have serious safety issues.
“Of course it’s impossible to prevent any accident from ever happening during training,” a PLAN veteran told the SCMP.
“But unlike their counterparts in Western countries, Chinese air force pilots are asked to work around these mechanical errors.”
The PLAN also seems to have been in a state of denial about the extent of the J-15’s problems even after at least one naval aviator was killed in a crash (though that is often a problem with military services around the world).
“Aviation experts at first refused to acknowledge that the J-15 has design problems,” a source told the SCMP.
“They only agreed there were problems after Cao [Xianjian, a highly experienced naval aviator] encountered the same trouble.”
That the J-15 has serious design flaws should come as no surprise.
At the end of the day, the Chinese reverse engineered the J-15 design from an incomplete prototype of the Sukhoi Su-33 that it acquired from Ukraine. While Chinese engineers might have gained considerable insight into the Flanker design from the T-10K-3 and other Su-27 derivatives in Beijing’s possession, because they did not develop the jet or its systems, they do not fully understand the airframe due to some of the traditional limitations inherent to reverse engineering. These gaps in knowledge probably led to some of the problems the Chinese are now encountering with the J-15 design.
#95 China Is Already Winning the War | Kerry Gershaneck
China is waging a political war against the United States. This is a US China Cold War that the US has been unwilling or unable to fight. As we can see with Chinese influence operations targeting Hunter Biden, or Chinese agents like Fang Fang getting close to Rep. Eric Swalwell, or lobbying from Wall Street, the Chinese Communist Party is very successful and elite capture and influencing Americans in this modern warfare. Is there any way for the US to fight back? And what would a Biden Administration's China policy look like? Joining us on this episode of China Unscripted is Professor Kerry Gershaneck, from National Chengchi University in Taipei.
Download the Book! https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Pol...
China is waging a political war against the United States. This is a US China Cold War that the US has been unwilling or unable to fight. As we can see with Chinese influence operations targeting Hunter Biden, or Chinese agents like Fang Fang getting close to Rep. Eric Swalwell, or lobbying from Wall Street, the Chinese Communist Party is very successful and elite capture and influencing Americans in this modern warfare. Is there any way for the US to fight back? And what would a Biden Administration's China policy look like? Joining us on this episode of China Unscripted is Professor Kerry Gershaneck, from National Chengchi University in Taipei.
Download the Book! https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Pol...
Second China defector gives biological weapons information
U.S. intelligence agencies recently increased their knowledge of China’s covert biological weapons program with the help of a defector from the People’s Liberation Army, according to people familiar with the incident.
www.washingtontimes.com
However, the defector is the second person from China to provide information about Chinese biological research with potential weapons applications.
Chinese virologist Yan Li-meng fled to the United States from Hong Kong this spring and charged in news interviews that the virus behind the COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and appears to be designed from two viruses stored in a PLA laboratory.
The State Department provided new details about China’s covert biological weapons program in a recent report on arms compliance.
“The United States has compliance concerns with respect to Chinese military medical institutions’ toxin research and development because of the potential dual-use applications and their potential as a biological threat,” the report said. “In addition, the United States does not have sufficient information to determine whether China eliminated its assessed biological warfare program, as required under Article II of the [Biological Weapons] Convention.”
A senior Trump administration official in May disclosed that China is working in secret on biological weapons, including arms capable of targeting specific ethnic groups with pathogens.
“We are looking at potential biological experiments on ethnic minorities,” the official said.
Chinese military publications since 2017 have described biology as a new domain of warfare, and one report warned that a future war could involve “ethnic genetic attacks.”
rockdog
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,249
- Likes
- 3,025
China launches fourth and final LMS for Royal Malaysian Navy
www.janes.com
China’s Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group has launched the fourth and final Keris-class Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) ordered for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) as part of a contract awarded in 2017 and renegotiated in 2019.
China launches fourth and final LMS for Royal Malaysian Navy
China’s Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group has launched the fourth and final Keris-class Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) ordered for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) as part...
www.janes.com
China’s Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group has launched the fourth and final Keris-class Littoral Mission Ship (LMS) ordered for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) as part of a contract awarded in 2017 and renegotiated in 2019.
More evidence of made in China weapons being unreliable:
ifenewsnetwork.com
Over 40℅ of ‘Made In China’ PAF JF-17 Grounded
Made In China JF-17 Grounded due to structural and technical Issues
Pakistani Airforce frontline fighters are facing critical issues, due to which 40℅ of JF-17 grounded. The PAC JF-17 Thunder, or CAC FC-1 Xiaolong, is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation of China. Tailor-made to suit the needs of poor countries like Pakistan. Designed and developed by China the JF-17 are facing several issues to be 100℅ fits to fight and is operational.
One of the major issue faced by JF-17 fighter jets said to be cracked. Pakistan Airforce authorities have noticed several cracks formations in the lower fairing skin. This is said to be due to damage taken during high G manoeuvres. This is not the only issue plaguing the fighter.
All most 40℅ of JF-17 fighter jets have been grounded for a quick fix. But the issue is there is no quick fix available as of now as per Pakistani experts.
Another major issue is said to be the technical one. The JF-17 electronic systems and devices in the canopy are also malfunctioning I. the dual seater JF-17B. The critical error makes the co-pilot eject on its own. Endangering the pilot’s life. China has blamed Pakistani Airforce and its poor training for the issues as per some sources.
These are not the end, the saga of JF-17 issues even continues to get 40℅ of jets being grounded. Problems are also found with the fuselage, which are developing cracks as well. Reason said to be the high G pressure on the poorly designed structure.
There are cracks in the stake areas as well. The anchor breakages of the JF-17 jets are also facing similar issues due to low quality Made and Designed in China. Moreover, the report also brings to the notice of overweight devices used with the radar.
Over 40℅ of 'Made In China' PAF JF-17 Grounded - IFE News Network
Share It ASAPTweetMade In China JF-17 Grounded due to structural and technical Issues Pakistani Airforce frontline fighters are facing critical issues, due to which 40℅ of JF-17 grounded. The PAC JF-17 Thunder, or CAC FC-1 Xiaolong, is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft...
ifenewsnetwork.com
Made In China JF-17 Grounded due to structural and technical Issues
Pakistani Airforce frontline fighters are facing critical issues, due to which 40℅ of JF-17 grounded. The PAC JF-17 Thunder, or CAC FC-1 Xiaolong, is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation of China. Tailor-made to suit the needs of poor countries like Pakistan. Designed and developed by China the JF-17 are facing several issues to be 100℅ fits to fight and is operational.
One of the major issue faced by JF-17 fighter jets said to be cracked. Pakistan Airforce authorities have noticed several cracks formations in the lower fairing skin. This is said to be due to damage taken during high G manoeuvres. This is not the only issue plaguing the fighter.
All most 40℅ of JF-17 fighter jets have been grounded for a quick fix. But the issue is there is no quick fix available as of now as per Pakistani experts.
Another major issue is said to be the technical one. The JF-17 electronic systems and devices in the canopy are also malfunctioning I. the dual seater JF-17B. The critical error makes the co-pilot eject on its own. Endangering the pilot’s life. China has blamed Pakistani Airforce and its poor training for the issues as per some sources.
These are not the end, the saga of JF-17 issues even continues to get 40℅ of jets being grounded. Problems are also found with the fuselage, which are developing cracks as well. Reason said to be the high G pressure on the poorly designed structure.
There are cracks in the stake areas as well. The anchor breakages of the JF-17 jets are also facing similar issues due to low quality Made and Designed in China. Moreover, the report also brings to the notice of overweight devices used with the radar.
Last edited:
India is gearing up to become a self-reliant country with maximum goods and manufacturing being done indigenously, as part of AtmaNirbhar her at. India is also working towards creating a big, in-house niche defense industry that while catering to the nation’s need will also export to other countries and earn a good amount of foreign exchange and leverage to help grow the national GDP.
The world has long realized that the quality of Chinese goods and machinery are never up to the mark. There are huge deficiency in the quality, durability, and overall performance of machines and goods manufactured in that country.
China has become the global manufacturing hub, mostly on account of its low-cost labor rather than any real qualitative or technological edge. However, new revelations regarding the trouble being faced by countries who have imported Chinese military equipment should really come as an eye-opener.
Recent reports have poured in from various parts of the world about countries being unhappy with the faulty Chinese military equipment, dumped by China under the garb of varied commercial defense deals with them.
Kenya that bought Chinese VN-4 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC) reportedly had a number of mechanical defects, leading to the unfortunate death of some Kenyan army men while trying out a test firing.
Algeria witnessed a number of accidents involving Chinese CH-4 UCAV drones in the last six years. Jordan had even a much bitter experience as it was compelled to put on the Chinese CH-4 UCAV drones on sale after they failed all the required parameters of its military.
In Asia, Nepal bought six China-made Y12e and MA60 aircraft for its civil aviation sector. Interestingly, all such planes showed mechanical and operational defects and it was forced to put them in hanger lying unused for many months now.
Bangladesh, a country that is now getting extra attention from Xi Jinping in the aftermath of tensions with India, bought two 1970s Ming Class Type 035G submarines at a cost of US$ 100 million each, from China in 2017.
Rechristened as BNS Joyjatra and BNS Nobojatra, both developed defects and are lying unused. In 2020, it secured two Chinese 053H3 frigates, turned into BNS Umar Farooq and BNS Abu Ubaidah. Very soon, both faced issues like non-functioning navigation radar and gun systems.
Myanmar which has close politico-military relations with China too has expressed its displeasure on Chinese military equipment it has received. Its acceptance of the Indian naval submarine Sindhuvir, against Chinese wishes, should be seen in this larger context.
And not to forget the closest lackey of China, Pakistan. It too has not escaped the Chinese machinations in terms of its commercial perfidy. The Pakistan Navy got refurbished Chinese frigates F22P but reportedly they have remained plagued with technical hitches.
Its army secured LY-80 LOMADS mobile missile systems from China but some of them have remained non-functional due to technical issues. Even in the civilian domain, the much-touted Lahore Metro Bus service that started in August this year, by a Chinese company, got technical glitches and issues like overheating of engines led to the suspension of its services for a few weeks.
When that happens, it will be replicating the example of the Indian space sector led by ISRO that has not only become a big global space power but also is earning a lot of money by commercially launching satellites of many other countries.
Probably, a right thrust had been initiated when ISRO involved a number of big and small native companies in its space applications and development program. A separate commercial wing of ISRO Antrix has evolved to promote and market its products/services to global customers.
Following that example, recently the Indian government too has opened up the defense sector for private enterprises (wherein for many decades allowing private sector was a big taboo) for making different military equipment, machinery, vehicles by creating a new and innovation-driven defense policy.
Some of the very reputed Indian conglomerates who already are contributing to the hugely lucrative national defense manufacturing worth US $620 billion, are TATA, Mahindra & Mahindra, L&T, Hero Group, Bharat Forge besides, PSUs like HAL, BEL, BHEL, and a few start-ups.
There is no doubt that Indian companies, both the private sector as well as PSUs have much higher qualitative standards as against the Chinese companies. It is evident in the huge spurt in Indian armament exports recorded in recent years, a spectacular 700% growth from Rs 1,521 crore in 2016-17 to Rs 10,745 crore in 2018-19.
Though currently, major importers of Indian military hardware are Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius, and a deft in diplomatic maneuvering and marketing could make the country securing important military contracts to nations like Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines, Brazil, countries in Central Asia, and of course, many in Africa too.
A big focussed approach, backed by adequate government support, marketing, and diplomatic push could very well see Indian defense manufacturing making a big headway in the globally money-spinning security market and acquiring lucrative contracts.
That in turn, might also lead to greater political and diplomatic leverage for India in the global arena, helping it to secure its rightful place in the comity of nations.
Chinese military equipment lack quality, say experts
China is making significant headway in terms of international arms sales, with the country having surged into fifth place globally and now trailing only the USA, Russia, France and Germany respectively. However, there are numerous signs that the quality of Chinese military products is lacking...
China's Shocking Military Secret REVEALED
For more than 15 years, Chinese military hospitals across China have kept a closely guarded secret. Doctors at private hospitals know about it, and even participate. But no one dares reveal it to the public.
For more than 15 years, Chinese military hospitals across China have kept a closely guarded secret. Doctors at private hospitals know about it, and even participate. But no one dares reveal it to the public.
