- Oct 6, 2020
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.“What we see is that an area that you could observe in the first SARS coronavirus has been moved, so that the parts of the virus that are particularly well suited to attach to humans have become part of the spike protein that the virus uses to penetrate human cells.”
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”.“SARS-CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is very small,” the authors state.
“The spike has six inserts which are unique fingerprints with five salient features indicative of purposive manipulation.”
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”.“Such a result is typically the objective of gain of function experiments to create chimeric viruses of high potency. Therefore this is a strong indicator of manipulation.”
“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.”“They used an HIV pseudovirus to express seven bat ACE2 receptors and compared their binding properties to human ACE2 receptors in order to pick the best for further optimising a SARS-like coronavirus’s ability to bind to human cells”, Sørensen and his co-authors write.
“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.”“In 2015 scientists from the ‘Special Viruses’ section of the Wuhan Institute of Virology were engaged in ‘gain-of-function’ experiments jointly with a majority team from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,” they write.
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.“However, in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the putative original host species, bats, or for any potential intermediary host species.”
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.“The spike was supplied by the Shi lab. They put this bat/human/mouse virus into cultured human airway cells and also into live mice. The researchers observed ‘notable pathogenesis’ in the infected mice.”
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.“Furthermore, the proven concepts, well-established techniques, and knowledge and expertise are all in place for the convenient creation of this novel coronavirus in a short period of time,” Yan et al. state.
The four scientists say that the theory that SARS-Cov-2 has a natural origin, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.“The characteristics and pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented. The virus is highly transmissible, onset-hidden, multi-organ targeting, sequelae-unclear, lethal, and associated with various symptoms and complications,” they state.
“In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory.”“The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus.
The four researchers present three main arguments to support their contention that SARS-CoV-2 was manipulated in a laboratory.“Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV is significant and should be investigated thoroughly and independently,” they write.
“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.”“Within the lineage B of β coronaviruses and with the exception of SARSCoV-2, no viruses contain a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction [of the spike protein],” they write.
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.“Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”
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’”.“While suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21,” Yan et al. say.
“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.”“Such an investigation should have taken place long ago and should not be delayed any further,” Yan et al. say in their report.
“The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health.
“As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.”
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.“In this report, we provide genetic and other analyses, which, when combined with recent findings, prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their genomic sequences are results of fabrication.”
Yan et al. suggest that the fabrication of RaTG13 was planned and executed in coordination with the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2.“The evidence presented both here and from recent literature collectively prove that RaTG13 does not exist in nature and its sequence has been fabricated,” they add.
“If the RaBtCov/4991 virus is equivalent to RaTG13, then RaBtCoV/4991 must be fraudulent as well.”
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|D||Is Putin Really Considering a Military Alliance With China?||China||0|
|W||Pakistan's military shopping in China fuels LoC infiltration fears||Pakistan||18|
|India-China 2020 Border Dispute - Military and Strategic Discussion||Indian Army||19501|
|V||Non-Military implications of India-China Standoff 2020||China||61|