Covid-19 Started in Italy, in September 2019, Not in China in December

xizhimen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
797
Likes
482
Country flag
Covid-19 Started in Italy, in September 2019, Not in China in December
Published November 18, 2020
By Eric Zuesse

he covid-19, or coronavirus-19, virus didn’t start in Wuhan China in December 2019, as has been widely reported till now. This new or “novel” virus was first infecting people in Italy, by no later than September 2019, according to researchers at the Italian Association for Cancer Research, and published on November 11th, as Current Research, by the National Tumors Institute of the Italian Ministry of Health.

This study is titled “Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the pre-pandemic period in Italy”. It reports that:

“The first surge of positive cases was identified in September-October 2019. Evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 functional NAbs identified positive samples in CPE-based microneutralization tests already collected in October 2019. Given the temporal delay between infection and antibody synthesis, these results indicate that the virus circulated in Italy well before the detection of the declared index patient in February 2020. In addition, most of the first antibody-positive individuals lived in regions where the pandemic started.”

In other words: though the first officially noticed covid-19-infected Italians were in February 2020, there had been covid-19-infected people in Italy starting by no later than September 2019. Consequently, one reason why Italy was one of the three most covid-19-infected nations as early as 1 March 2020 (right behind China and South Korea), might be that China and South Korea were the first two countries that noticed this new virus.

On 31 January 2020, Italy suspended all flights to and from China and declared a state of emergency, but 26 February 2020 was the first date when Italy reported covid-19 cases, and there were already 147 in Italy on that date. The Italian Government explained its sudden cessation of air-flights by saying that a Chinese couple from Wuhan had arrived in Italy on January 23rd and became diagnosed with the new disease on January 30th. China had started reporting cases already a month earlier, on 23 January 2020: 259 of them. Within two weeks thereafter, China’s leaders established total lockdown and intensive nationwide searches to find possible cases that they had previously missed; so, on February 12th, there was an enormous spike in China’s known cases, 14,108 of them, reported on that date. That number declined down to 573 new daily cases on February 29th. No number even close to that number (573) has been reported after that date in China.

Two weeks after 1 March, on 15 March 2020, Italy had by far the world’s highest intensity of coronavirus infections as calculated at that time, at the rate of 409.3 cases per million residents, and China had 56.2 cases per million. (U.S. had 11.1 per million.) However, the tiny nation of San Marino, which is surrounded within Italy, had 109 total cases, and only 34,232 population (which was too small for that nation to have been included among the ones which were then being calculated); so, that’s a per-million rate of 3,184 infections per million, which was actually (and by far) the world’s highest rate of covid-infections, at that time. Consequently: the first person who became infected by this virus could well have been a San Marinan, instead of an Italian.

As more research is done, regarding this virus, the actual geographical source of it could turn out to be any country, because international travel and tourism are now commonplace, which was not formerly so. Maybe the Italian cases in September 2019 had resulted from a foreign visitor, instead of from an Italian. In the future, global pandemics will likely be far more frequent than in earlier history, but technology (such as vaccines) and the world adjusts so that there might not be a higher percentage of the global population dying from plagues than has been so in the past. Making predictions on the basis of the latest prior mega-pandemic, which was the Spanish flu of 1918-1920, might not be entirely appropriate.

The Spanish flu most likely started in America, not in Spain, but, according to Wikipedia, “To maintain morale, World War I censors minimized these early reports. Newspapers were free to report the epidemic’s effects in neutral Spain, such as the grave illness of King Alfonso XIII, and these stories created a false impression of Spain as especially hard hit. This gave rise to the name ‘Spanish’ flu. Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify with certainty the pandemic’s geographic origin, with varying views as to its location.” In other words, what the masses of the public believe at any given time can be shaped by the government and by its newspapers and broadcasters, simply by hiding facts that the people who actually control the country don’t want the public to know.

Censorship is the core of dictatorship, and almost all countries are actually dictatorships, but the news-media there censor-out that fact, instead of publishing it. So, the reality of censorship is, itself, hidden from the public, in order for the people who control the government to control the masses so that the nation can be called a “democracy.” That’s important for them to do in order to minimize the percentage of the population they’ll need to imprison. However, the United States already has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other country; and, so, its news-media are especially highly censored, in order to be able to prevent an outright revolution. Forcing both the body and the mind could turn out to be too much, but apparently the individuals who are in control feel they need to go that far, in order to remain in control.

But, regardless, any politician who calls covid-19 “the Wuhan virus” or “the China virus” is expressing that person’s agenda, instead of anything about reality, since the actual first case of this disease could have appeared anywhere.

 

xizhimen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
797
Likes
482
Country flag
Coronavirus entered India from Europe, Middle East and not China, claims IISc study

The report used genomics to suggest that the virus spread through the most travelled countries.

New Delhi | Jagran News Desk: The novel coronavirus in India may have originated from Europe, the Middle East, Oceania and South Asia regions, according to a study by the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bengaluru.

The observation is a part of the findings of the IISc team comprising Kumar Somasundaram, Mainak Mondal and Ankita Lawarde after analysing 294 Indian viral genomes.

The objective of the study was to determine the genetic diversity among Indian SARS-CoV-2 viral isolates in comparison to the strains that are occurring worldwide.

"The potential origin appears to be countries mainly from Europe, the Middle East, Oceania and South Asia regions, which strongly implies the spread of virus through the most travelled countries," the team noted.

"Among different strains of the virus as identified by Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data, Indian SARS-CoV-2 viruses are enriched with G (50 per cent) and I (6.7 per cent) clades in addition to 40 per cent samples with unknown genetic variants," it stated further.

The team is also finding the functional impact of high occurrence non-synonymous mutations on the viral protein functions and use this information toward understanding immune escape mechanisms and also developing mutant specific therapies.

The team noted that while the novel coronavirus increased to more than five million worldwide, it has just crossed over one lakh in India.

The low infection rate in India, according to the team, could be due to long lockdown with effective social distancing, active identification of COVID-19 patients and quarantining them with proper treatment, presumed cross-immune protection and possibly variation in the viral strains that are introduced or prevalent in India.

"Comparison of viral genome sequences from different regions/countries allows us to identify the genetic diversity among viruses which would help in ascertaining virulence, disease pathogenicity, as well as origin and spread of SARS- CoV-2, between countries," the team added.

 

xizhimen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
797
Likes
482
Country flag
New York-area coronavirus outbreak originated primarily in Europe, not China: report
By Dom Calicchio | Fox News

Two separate studies show that the coronavirus outbreak in the New York City area – by far the most deadly in the U.S. – originated from Europe, not China, according to a report.

Researchers conducting one of the studies have detected seven separate lineages of viruses that have arrived in the New York City area and they expect to find more, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The two studies are being conducted by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the New York University School of Medicine.

Despite examining different examples of the outbreak, researchers from both teams reached largely the same conclusions about its origins, the Times reported.

“The majority is clearly European,” Dr. Harm van Bakel, a geneticist and co-author of the Icahn School’s study, told the newspaper.

Travelers likely carrying the virus had already been arriving in New York from Europe before Jan. 31, when President Trump limited entry by foreign nationals who’d been in China and March 11, when the president announced plans to block travelers from most parts of Europe, the Times reported.

On March 19, the newspaper reported that travelers arriving from Europe – where outbreaks in Italy and Spain were severe – were being asked at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport only if they had been to China or Iran, not if they had visited the hardest-hit nations in Europe.

“People were just oblivious,” Dr. Adriana Heguy of the NYU research team told the Times.

Researchers need to track the history of the virus so they will be able to develop vaccines and modify them as the virus mutates into other forms, the report said.

As of late Wednesday, the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, had infected 1.5 million people worldwide and killed nearly 88,000 people.

In the U.S., the virus had infected more than 420,000 people and killed more than 14,300.

In New York City, the virus had infected nearly 82,000 people (more than 19 percent of all U.S. cases) and killed more than 6,200 (nearly 44 percent of all U.S. deaths).

https://www.foxnews.com/science/new...iginated-primarily-in-europe-not-china-report
 

xizhimen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
797
Likes
482
Country flag
Most Australian coronavirus cases coming from USA: Scott Morrison
By Nick Pearson
10:56am Mar 20, 2020
The United States is the country of origin for most of the coronavirus cases in Australia, the prime minister has said.

Speaking on 2GB this morning, Scott Morrison said now was the right time to close the nation's borders.

"We were able to slow the virus' start and spread in Australia through these early periods," Mr Morrison said.

"The country which has actually been responsible for a large amount of these (coronavirus cases) has actually been the United States.

"At the end of the day, that's a function of the number of people who travel between the US and Australia."
Eighty per cent of coronavirus cases in Australia are people who have come in from overseas or have caught the disease directly from them.


Scott Morrison said most Australian coronavirus cases are connected to the United States. (AAP)

A failure to conduct adequate numbers of coronavirus tests meant the United States appeared to have many more infections in recent weeks than had been announced.
 

IndianYonko

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,337
Likes
5,265
Country flag
Go ahead. By the way, it's from European channel.
Stop lying and spreading propaganda; Another classic example of Chinese propaganda and manipulation of events.

And if this story is true; Chinese lied at even bigger scale, and indicates only one thing, i.e., This was indeed a bioweapon which they failed to contain and were forced to accept it. Now they are misinforming people by manipulating real events. But no problem when you have such tight control on media and eventually citizens thinking, who cares as long as enemy(i.e. everyone else other than CCP here) gets destroyed .

The Big Question is ?
Who ate the Bats containing virus?
 

xizhimen

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
797
Likes
482
Country flag
Stop lying and spreading propaganda; Another classic example of Chinese propaganda and manipulation of events.

And if this story is true; Chinese lied at even bigger scale, and indicates only one thing, i.e., This was indeed a bioweapon which they failed to contain and were forced to accept it. Now they are misinforming people by manipulating real events. But no problem when you have such tight control on media and eventually citizens thinking, who cares as long as enemy(i.e. everyone else other than CCP here) gets destroyed .

The Big Question is ?
Who ate the Bats containing virus?
All of these news are from foreign channels, of course you can accuse they all lied, including Indian media claiming Indian cases from Europe and middle east.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
From: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/chinas-devastating-lies/
The Comprehensive Timeline of China’s COVID-19 Lies

On today’s menu: a day-by-day, month-by-month breakdown of China’s coronavirus coverup and the irreparable damage it has caused around the globe.

The Timeline of a Viral Ticking Time Bomb


The story of the coronavirus pandemic is still being written. But at this early date, we can see all kinds of moments where different decisions could have lessened the severity of the outbreak we are currently enduring. You have probably heard variations of: “Chinese authorities denied that the virus could be transferred from human to human until it was too late.” What you have probably not heard is how emphatically, loudly, and repeatedly the Chinese government insisted human transmission was impossible, long after doctors in Wuhan had concluded human transmission was ongoing — and how the World Health Organization assented to that conclusion, despite the suspicions of other outside health experts.

Clearly, the U.S. government’s response to this threat was not nearly robust enough, and not enacted anywhere near quickly enough. Most European governments weren’t prepared either. Few governments around the world were or are prepared for the scale of the danger. We can only wonder whether accurate and timely information from China would have altered the way the U.S. government, the American people, and the world prepared for the oncoming danger of infection.

Some point in late 2019: The coronavirus jumps from some animal species to a human being. The best guess at this point is that it happened at a Chinese “wet market.”

December 6: According to a study in The Lancet, the symptom onset date of the first patient identified was “Dec 1, 2019 . . . 5 days after illness onset, his wife, a 53-year-old woman who had no known history of exposure to the market, also presented with pneumonia and was hospitalized in the isolation ward.” In other words, as early as the second week of December, Wuhan doctors were finding cases that indicated the virus was spreading from one human to another.

December 21: Wuhan doctors begin to notice a “cluster of pneumonia cases with an unknown cause.

December 25:
Chinese medical staff in two hospitals in Wuhan are suspected of contracting viral pneumonia and are quarantined. This is additional strong evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Sometime in “Late December”: Wuhan hospitals notice “an exponential increase” in the number of cases that cannot be linked back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

December 30: Dr. Li Wenliang sent a message to a group of other doctors warning them about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), urging them to take protective measures against infection.

December 31:
The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares, “The investigation so far has not found any obvious human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infection.” This is the opposite of the belief of the doctors working on patients in Wuhan, and two doctors were already suspected of contracting the virus.

Three weeks after doctors first started noticing the cases, China contacts the World Health Organization.

Tao Lina, a public-health expert and former official with Shanghai’s center for disease control and prevention, tells the South China Morning Post, “I think we are [now] quite capable of killing it in the beginning phase, given China’s disease control system, emergency handling capacity and clinical medicine support.”

January 1: The Wuhan Public Security Bureau issued summons to Dr. Li Wenliang, accusing him of “spreading rumors.” Two days later, at a police station, Dr. Li signed a statement acknowledging his “misdemeanor” and promising not to commit further “unlawful acts.” Seven other people are arrested on similar charges and their fate is unknown.

Also that day, “after several batches of genome sequence results had been returned to hospitals and submitted to health authorities, an employee of one genomics company received a phone call from an official at the Hubei Provincial Health Commission, ordering the company to stop testing samples from Wuhan related to the new disease and destroy all existing samples.”

According to a New York Times study of cellphone data from China, 175,000 people leave Wuhan that day. According to global travel data research firm OAG, 21 countries have direct flights to Wuhan. In the first quarter of 2019 for comparison, 13,267 air passengers traveled from Wuhan, China, to destinations in the United States, or about 4,422 per month. The U.S. government would not bar foreign nationals who had traveled to China from entering the country for another month.

January 2: One study of patients in Wuhan can only connect 27 of 41 infected patients to exposure to the Huanan seafood market — indicating human-to-human transmission away from the market. A report written later that month concludes, “evidence so far indicates human transmission for 2019-nCoV. We are concerned that 2019-nCoV could have acquired the ability for efficient human transmission.”

Also on this day, the Wuhan Institute of Virology completed mapped the genome of the virus. The Chinese government would not announce that breakthrough for another week.

January 3: The Chinese government continued efforts to suppress all information about the virus: “China’s National Health Commission, the nation’s top health authority, ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease, and ordered labs to transfer any samples they had to designated testing institutions, or to destroy them.”


Roughly one month after the first cases in Wuhan, the United States government is notified. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gets initial reports about a new coronavirus from Chinese colleagues, according to Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar. Azar, who helped manage the response at HHS to earlier SARS and anthrax outbreaks, told his chief of staff to make sure the National Security Council was informed.

Also on this day, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released another statement, repeating, “As of now, preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.

January 4: While Chinese authorities continued to insist that the virus could not spread from one person to another, doctors outside that country weren’t so convinced. The head of the University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Infection, Ho Pak-leung, warned that “the city should implement the strictest possible monitoring system for a mystery new viral pneumonia that has infected dozens of people on the mainland, as it is highly possible that the illness is spreading from human to human.”

January 5: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission put out a statement with updated numbers of cases but repeated, “preliminary investigations have shown no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no medical staff infections.

January 6:
The New York Times publishes its first report about the virus, declaring that “59 people in the central city of Wuhan have been sickened by a pneumonia-like illness.” That first report included these comments:



Wang Linfa, an expert on emerging infectious diseases at the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, said he was frustrated that scientists in China were not allowed to speak to him about the outbreak. Dr. Wang said, however, that he thought the virus was likely not spreading from humans to humans because health workers had not contracted the disease. “We should not go into panic mode,” he said.
Don’t get too mad at Wang Linfa; he was making that assessment based upon the inaccurate information Chinese government was telling the world.

Also that day, the CDC “issued a level 1 travel watch — the lowest of its three levels — for China’s outbreak. It said the cause and the transmission mode aren’t yet known, and it advised travelers to Wuhan to avoid living or dead animals, animal markets, and contact with sick people.”

Also that day, the CDC offered to send a team to China to assist with the investigation. The Chinese government declined, but a WHO team that included two Americans would visit February 16.

January 8: Chinese medical authorities claim to have identified the virus. Those authorities claim and Western media continue to repeat, “there is no evidence that the new virus is readily spread by humans, which would make it particularly dangerous, and it has not been tied to any deaths.”

The official statement from the World Health Organization declares, “Preliminary identification of a novel virus in a short period of time is a notable achievement and demonstrates China’s increased capacity to manage new outbreaks . . . WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travelers. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available.”

January 10: After unknowingly treating a patient with the Wuhan coronavirus, Dr. Li Wenliang started coughing and developed a fever. He was hospitalized on January 12. In the following days, Li’s condition deteriorated so badly that he was admitted to the intensive care unit and given oxygen support.

The New York Times quotes the Wuhan City Health Commission’s declaration that “there is no evidence the virus can spread among humans.” Chinese doctors continued to find transmission among family members, contradicting the official statements from the city health commission.

January 11: The Wuhan City Health Commission issues an update declaring, “All 739 close contacts, including 419 medical staff, have undergone medical observation and no related cases have been found . . . No new cases have been detected since January 3, 2020. At present, no medical staff infections have been found, and no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.” They issue a Q&A sheet later that day reemphasizing that “most of the unexplained viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan this time have a history of exposure to the South China seafood market. No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission has been found.”


Also on this day, political leaders in Hubei province, which includes Wuhan, began their regional meeting. The coronavirus was not mentioned over four days of meetings.

January 13: Authorities in Thailand detected the virus in a 61-year-old Chinese woman who was visiting from Wuhan, the first case outside of China. “Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health, said the woman had not visited the Wuhan seafood market, and had come down with a fever on Jan. 5. However, the doctor said, the woman had visited a different, smaller market in Wuhan, in which live and freshly slaughtered animals were also sold.”

January 14: Wuhan city health authorities release another statement declaring, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.” Wuhan doctors have known this was false since early December, from the first victim and his wife, who did not visit the market.

The World Health Organization echoes China’s assessment: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.

This is five or six weeks after the first evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan.

January 15:
Japan reported its first case of coronavirus. Japan’s Health Ministry said the patient had not visited any seafood markets in China, adding that “it is possible that the patient had close contact with an unknown patient with lung inflammation while in China.”

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission begins to change its statements, now declaring, “Existing survey results show that clear human-to-human evidence has not been found, and the possibility of limited human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out, but the risk of continued human-to-human transmission is low.” Recall Wuhan hospitals concluded human-to-human transmission was occurring three weeks earlier. A statement the next day backtracks on the possibility of human transmission, saying only, “Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.

January 17:
The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection announce that travelers from Wuhan to the United States will undergo entry screening for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV at three U.S. airports that receive most of the travelers from Wuhan, China: San Francisco, New York (JFK), and Los Angeles airports.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission’s daily update declares, “A total of 763 close contacts have been tracked, 665 medical observations have been lifted, and 98 people are still receiving medical observations. Among the close contacts, no related cases were found.”

January 18: HHS Secretary Azar has his first discussion about the virus with President Trump. Unnamed “senior administration officials” told the Washington Post that “the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market.

Despite the fact that Wuhan doctors know the virus is contagious, city authorities allow 40,000 families to gather and share home-cooked food in a Lunar New Year banquet.

January 19: The Chinese National Health Commission declares the virus “still preventable and controllable.” The World Health Organization updates its statement, declaring, “Not enough is known to draw definitive conclusions about how it is transmitted, the clinical features of the disease, the extent to which it has spread, or its source, which remains unknown.”

January 20: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission declares for the last time in its daily bulletin, “no related cases were found among the close contacts.


That day, the head of China’s national health commission team investigating the outbreak, confirmed that two cases of infection in China’s Guangdong province had been caused by human-to-human transmission and medical staff had been infected.

Also on this date, the Wuhan Evening News newspaper, the largest newspaper in the city, mentions the virus on the front page for the first time since January 5.

January 21: The CDC announced the first U.S. case of a the coronavirus in a Snohomish County, Wash., resident who returning from China six days earlier.

By this point, millions of people have left Wuhan, carrying the virus all around China and into other countries.

January 22
: WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continued to praise China’s handling of the outbreak. “I was very impressed by the detail and depth of China’s presentation. I also appreciate the cooperation of China’s Minister of Health, who I have spoken with directly during the last few days and weeks. His leadership and the intervention of President Xi and Premier Li have been invaluable, and all the measures they have taken to respond to the outbreak.”

In the preceding days, a WHO delegation conducted a field visit to Wuhan. They concluded, “deployment of the new test kit nationally suggests that human-to-human transmission is taking place in Wuhan.” The delegation reports, “their counterparts agreed close attention should be paid to hand and respiratory hygiene, food safety and avoiding mass gatherings where possible.”

At a meeting of the WHO Emergency Committee, panel members express “divergent views on whether this event constitutes a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC.”


President Trump, in an interview with CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, declared, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.

January 23: Chinese authorities announce their first steps for a quarantine of Wuhan. By this point, millions have already visited the city and left it during the Lunar New Year celebrations. Singapore and Vietnam report their first cases, and by now an unknown but significant number of Chinese citizens have traveled abroad as asymptomatic, oblivious carriers.

January 24: Vietnam reports person-to-person transmission, and Japan, South Korea, and the U.S report their second cases. The second case is in Chicago. Within two days, new cases are reported in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Arizona. The virus is in now in several locations in the United States, and the odds of preventing an outbreak are dwindling to zero.

On February 1, Dr. Li Wenliang tested positive for coronavirus. He died from it six days later.


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 Chinese propagandists on this forum and elsewhere just don't get it. They are the ones that enable the criminal Chinese Communist Party government leadership that covered up the Covid-19 outbreak by accusing Dr. Li Wenliang and others of criminal activities, while lying that human-to-human transmission was not taking place. The Chinese Communist Party government leadership covered it up for at least six weeks and probably much longer, while allowing international travel, allowing the Covid-19 virus to spread everywhere. Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party government leadership is personally responsible for not only the deaths of Chinese people from Covid-19, but also millions of deaths worldwide due to spreading of Covid-19. Xi Jinping and Chinese Communist Party government leadership caused Chinese people's deaths by covering up that Covid-19 human-to-human transmission was taking place in order to spread the Covid-19 virus worldwide, thus using it as a bio-weapon.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
Chinese Whistleblower Li-Meng Yan Claims Coronavirus Lab Release Was in 'No Way an Accident' Amid Strict P3 and P4 Surveillance


Chinese Whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan has been making headlines for alleging that the coronavirus actually came from a laboratory in Wuhan as opposed to the previous belief that the virus came from a wet market. Li-Meng Yan alleged that the virus was manufactured inside a laboratory and that her seniors all knew about the virus but chose to keep it a secret.
Li-Meng Yan's allegations
According to her reports, the virus could have been stopped if they did not keep the information a secret when there were only five positive cases to begin with. She alleged that the deadly virus was already released but they only acknowledged it when it was too late.

Dr. Yan announced that she has been treated harshly by the Chinese Communist Party and has even experienced cyber attacks. Dr. Yan's original social media account was previously deleted but she has been able to make a new Twitter account that has not yet been taken down.
Click to expand...
Just recently, Dr. Yan also alleged that her mother back in China was arrested by the Chinese Communist Party in an attempt to threaten and silence her. However, the Chinese virologist is still very firm about sharing her story in hopes that the truth will be revealed.
The virus could not have been released by accident?
In another recent video that went out just last week regarding Dr. Yan's coronavirus story, she revealed even more information about the events surrounding its release. According to her, the virus was intentionally released due to how strict the laboratory was and how impossible a mistake could have happened.
Dr. Li-Meng Yan described the working environment saying that the P3 lab, where she worked, as well as the P4 lab, was under strict protocols and they were all put under strict surveillance and that only employees have passes. It would have been impossible to sneak out the virus without being detected unless it was an inside job.
She stated that they all have 24 hour 7 days a week surveillance cameras within the lab so if someone were to smuggle the virus outside of the lab, they would have been caught. There was supposedly an exam that was taken and that all of the researchers supposedly went through strict training in order to make sure the team was filtered. She then stated that "there is no way for these kinds of accidents to be released."
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
Chinese Whistleblower Li-Meng Yan's Second Report Alleges COVID-19 Used a CCP Template Virus That Only Has 1.7% Bacteria

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.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
COVID-19 AN ‘UNRESTRICTED BIOWEAPON’
Li-Meng Yan, A Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who worked in a WHO reference lab and fled her position at the University of Hong Kong, has published a second co-authored report, alleging that SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was not only created in a Wuhan lab, it’s an “unrestricted bioweapon” which was intentionally released.
BY TYLER DURDEN FOR ZERO HEDGE


“We used biological evidence and in-depth analyses to show that SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product, which was created by using a template virus (ZC45/ZXC21) owned by military research laboratories under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government,” reads the paper.

SARS-CoV2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). 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.
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 tot he reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

The report also claims that the RaTG13 virus which Wuhan “Batwoman” Dr. Zhengli Shi and colleagues say they obtained in bat feces in 2013 (and which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2), is fraudulent and also man made.

Since its publication, the RaTG13 virus has served as the founding evidence for the theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have a natural origin. However, no live virus or an intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered. Therefore, the only proof for the “existence” of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank.

The report goes on to say that the RaTG13 genome could easily be fabricated, and that “an entry on GenBank, which in this case is equivalent to the existence of an assembled viral genomic sequence and its associated sequencing reads, is not a definitive proof that this viral genome is correct or real,” and that the process for sequencing DNA itself “leaves room for potential fraud.”

If one intends to fabricate an RNA viral genome on GenBank, he or she could do so by following these steps: create its genomic sequence on a computer, have segments of the genome synthesized based on the sequence, amplify each DNA segment through PCR, and then send the PCR products (may also be mixed with genetic material derived from the alleged host of the virus to mimic an authentic sequencing sample) for sequencing.The resulted raw sequencing reads would be used, together with the created genomic sequence, for establishing an entry on GenBank. Once accomplished, this entry would be accepted as the evidence for the natural existence of the corresponding virus. Clearly, a viral genomic sequence and its GenBank entry can be fabricated if well-planned.



RaTG13 has ‘multiple abnormal features,’ according to the report. For starters, it’s claimed that it was a fecal sample – yet just 1.7% of the raw sequencing reads are bacterial, when fecal swab samples are typically 70-90% bacterial. Second, the genomic sequence for RaTG13 contains segments of non-bat origin, including fox, flying fox, squirrels and other animals.

What’s more, China destroyed all evidence of RaTG13. “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. Notably, this information was known to a core circle of virologists early on and apparently accepted by them.”

Meanwhile, another coronavirus which shares a ‘100% nucleotide sequence identity with RaTG13’ – RaBtCoV/4991 – on a ‘short, 440-bp RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene segment.’

RaBtCoV/4991 was allegedly discovered by Shi and colleagues in 2012 and published in 2016, and colleagues have been asking if it’s the same virus as RaTG13.

Given the 100% identity on this short gene segment between RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13,the field has demanded clarification of whether or not these two names refer to the same virus. However,Dr. Shi did not respond to the requestor address this question for months. The answer finally came from Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and long-term collaborator of Shi, who claimed that RaBtCoV/4991 was RaTG1327.

Three suspicious facts

First, it makes no sense that ‘Batwoman’ Shi and her team wouldn’t have conducted whole genome sequencing of RaBtCoV/4991 before 2020, as it was suspected in the deaths of miners who suffered from severe pneumonia after clearing out bat droppings in a Chinese mineshaft.

Given the Shi group’s consistent interests in studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses and the fact that RaBtCoV/4991 is a SARS-like coronavirus with a possible connection to the deaths of the miners, it is highly unlikely that the Shi group would be content with sequencing only a 440-bp segment of RdRpand not pursue the sequencing of the receptor-binding motif (RBM)-encoding region of the spike gene. In fact, sequencing of the spike gene is routinely attempted by the Shi group once the presence of a SARS-like bat coronavirus is confirmed by the sequencing of the 440-bp RdRpsegment25,32, although the success of such efforts is often hindered by the poor quality of the sample.

“Clearly, the perceivable motivation of the Shi group to study this RaBtCoV/4991 virus and the fact that no genome sequencing of it was done for a period of seven years (2013-2020) are hard to reconcile and explain.

Meanwhile, genomic sequencing of RaTG13 was conducted in 2018.

Second, why did Shi delay publication on RaTG13 until 2020 when it’s got a Spike protein that can bind with human ACE2 receptors?

…if the genomic sequence of RaTG13 had been available since 2018, it is unlikely that this virus, which has a possible connection to miners’ deaths in 2012 and has an alarming SARS-like RBM, would be shelfed for two years without publication. Consistent with this analysis, a recent study indeed proved that the RBD of RaTG13(produced via gene synthesis based on its published sequence) was capable of binding hACE2

Third, there has been no follow-up work on RaTG13 by Shi’s group.

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

Direct genetic evidence proving RaTG13 is fraudulent

Yan’s group closely examined the sequences of specific spike proteins for relevant viruses – specifically comparing mutations, and found that the spike genes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 do not contain evidence of natural evolution when compared to other coronaviruses which naturally evolved.

A logical interpretation of this observation is that SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 could not relate to each other through natural evolution and at least one must be artificial.If one is a product of natural evolution, then the other one must be not. It is also possible that neither of them exists naturally. If RaTG13 is a real virus that truly exists in nature, then SARS-CoV-2 must be artificial.

More:

It is highly likely that the sequence of the RaTG13 genome was fabricated by lightly modifying the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to achieve an overall 96.2% sequence identity. During this process, much editing must have been done for the RBM region of the S1/spike because the encoded RBM determines the interaction with ACE2 and therefore would be heavily scrutinized by others.

The paper concludes: All fabricated coronaviruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45 and ZXC21

Evidence herein clearly indicates that the novel coronaviruses recently published by the CCP-controlled laboratories are all fraudulent and do not exist in nature. One final proof of this conclusion is the fact that all of these viruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC21, which, as revealed in our earlier report1, should be the template/backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2. Despite its conserved function in the viral replication cycle, the E protein is tolerant and permissive of amino acid mutations. It is therefore impossible for the amino acid sequence of the E protein to remain unchanged when the virus has allegedly crossed species barrier multiple times (between different bat species, from bats to pangolins, and from pangolins to humans). The 100% identity observed here, therefore, further proves that the sequences of these recently published novel coronaviruses have been fabricated.

Unrestricted bioweapon?

Yan notes that while it’s not easy for the public to accept that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon due to its relatively low lethality, it indeed meets the criteria of a bioweapon.

In 2005, Dr. Yang specified the criteria for a pathogen to qualify as a bioweapon:



  1. It is significantly virulent and can cause large scale casualty.
  2. It is highly contagious and transmits easily, often through respiratory routes in the form of aerosols. The most dangerous scenario would be that it allows human-to-human transmission.
  3. It is relatively resistant to environmental changes, can sustain transportation, and is capable of supporting targeted release.
All of the above have been met bySARS-CoV-2: it has taken hundreds of thousands lives, led to numerous hospitalizations, and left many with sequela and various complications; it spreads easily by contact, droplets, and aerosols via respiratory routes and is capable of transmitting from human to human, the latter of which was initially covered up by the CCP government and the WHO and was first revealed by Dr. Li-Meng Yan on January 19th, 2020 on Lude Press; it is temperature-insensitive (unlike seasonal flu) and remains viable for a long period of time on many surfaces and at 4°C (e.g. the ice/water mixture).

What’s more, COVID-19 spreads asymptomatically, which “renders the control of SARS-CoV-2 extremely challenging.”

“In addition, the transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 also resulted in panic in the global community, disruption of social orders, and decimation of the world’s economy. The range and destructive power of SARS-CoV-2 are both unprecedented.

“Clearly,SARS-CoV-2 not only meets but also surpasses the standards of a traditional bioweapon. Therefore, it should be defined as an Unrestricted Bioweapon.”
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan laboratory: Professor Giuseppe Tritto

Coronavirus which is killing and infecting people all over the world was created in a Lab in China's Wuhan, such an idea would have been labelled a conspiracy theory until a few weeks ago.

But earlier this week, a Chinese virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan, in an exclusive conversation with WION claimed that the deadly coronavirus was developed in a government laboratory in Wuhan. She also said that Chinese government was aware of the COVID-19 spread.

And now Professor Giuseppe Tritto, an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology in his book 'China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world' has said that he believes the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is behind the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), leaving little doubt that this viral “chimera” was artificially created as a bioweapon.

Earlier today — we spoke to professor Tritto, he says China has the capability to modify viruses — and develop bioweapons that — the Wuhan institute of virology — didn't follow the global standards for safety for a long time and — Chinese scientists were specifically working on bat coronaviruses — a project that was supervised by the military's top scientist She Zheng-lee.

Professor Tritto raises serious questions about the Wuhan lab it is called Asia’s largest virus bank scientists classify it as a "P-4" facility.

A lab that is supposed to follow the highest level of biosafety precautions, almost all major countries have a lab like this including India.

They follow global standards for safety and — these labs are open to inspection by the world but — not the Wuhan lab China does not follow global rules this facility has a checkered safety record professor Tritto told us — that the Wuhan lab only notified its safety measures last year. In 2019 it's been around since 2014 this lab was conducting studies on bat coronaviruses.

And interestingly, it is headed by china's leading expert on bioweapons-- the PLA's Major General Chen Wei what professor Tritto told us today— is what the world has long feared. He spoke to us from Rome.
Link for interview below:
Gravitas: Global biomedical expert: Virus could have leaked in Wuhan
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
Newspaper investigation claims China hoarded face masks in early January

If true this goes to show China knew about human-to-human transmission when denying it to the world

Before the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global pandemic, Chinese consulates in Canada and around the world asked Chinese nationals to stockpile as much personal protective equipment (PPE) as possible for hospitals in China, according to an investigation by Canada's Global News.
In an article titled "United Front groups in Canada helped Beijing stockpile coronavirus safety supplies," published on Thursday (April 30), investigative reporter Sam Cooper shared his findings with Jorge Guajardo, Mexico's former ambassador to Beijing, and Canadian lawmaker Erin O'Toole.
Guajardo claimed that China had engaged in a "surreptitious" state-level operation to secure global PPE supply at low prices and did so before the deadly virus had made its way to Western countries, in early March. He said a source in the Mexican supply chain had told him in mid-January that factories were receiving large orders to send N95 respirators to China.
According to O'Toole, China had been hoarding face masks and epidemic safety equipment since Jan. 14, back when Beijing claimed there were no cases of human-to-human transmission. However, O'Toole said the Canadian government did not respond to China's acquisition campaign despite it being well-known among military and emergency service circles.
According to Cooper, while Canada was shipping more than 14,500 kilograms of protective clothing, face masks, goggles, and gloves to China, Chinese community organizations and business groups in Canada bought and shipped at least 90,700 kg of medical supplies to China. He added the stockpiling operation was launched by The United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a department in charge of managing potential opposition groups in China and important foreign missions.
Cooper pointed out that China's early suppression of accurate information about the outbreak was the main cause for it becoming a pandemic, a belief shared by international media, including the Associated Press. He said that Beijing's decision to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus has resulted in millions of individuals infected around the world.


The Chinese government allowed the virus to spread around the world by allowing international travel while stocking up on masks and PPE for itself. All the while lying to the world through WHO that there is no human-to-human transmission. But the Chinese government knew there was human-to-human transmission because they were buying up masks and personal protective equipment to protect themselves from human-to-human transmission of the Covid-19 virus they created in a lab, they leaked out, and they allowed to spread around the world (by allowing international travel of infected people).
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
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.

“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 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.

“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 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.

“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.”
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 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.
“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.

“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.
“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.”
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
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):

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.

“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.”
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.

“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.”
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.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
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.



“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 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 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.
The four scientists say that the theory that SARS-Cov-2 has a natural origin, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.



“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.
“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.



“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.
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.



“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.
“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.



“Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”
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.



“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.
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.



“Such an investigation should have taken place long ago and should not be delayed any further,” Yan et al. say in their report.
“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.



“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 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.



“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. 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.



“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.”
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.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
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, 2 and 3 are above; Part 4 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 4):

Andre Watson, who is the founder and CEO of the regenerative medicine and pandemic defence biotechnology company Ligandal, which is based in San Francisco, says that a number of other coronaviruses have more than 60% sequence similarity to SARS-CoV-2 and they include viruses that cause neurological, vascular, gastric, and respiratory symptoms. Some of them have been studied for decades, “since the 1970s and earlier”, Watson says.


SARS from 2003 was only 80% similar to SARS-CoV-2 and MERS from 2012 was only 64.3% similar to SARS-CoV-2.


In 2017, the EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the WIV and the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore on research that was funded by the NIH, NIAID, the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats programme (under the umbrella of the PREDICT project), and by funding sources in China.


The scientists published a paper about research done in bat caves. Researchers drew blood from the bats, or took nasal swabs or fecal samples. They identified 11 new viruses that they called SARS R (SARS-related viruses) in bats, Watson notes. Of these 11 viruses, three of them had spike proteins that had a high affinity for human ACE2.


The authors said: “In this study, we confirmed the use of human ACE2 as receptor of two novel SARSr-CoVs by using chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S gene of the newly identified SARSr-CoVs.”




Watson (pictured left) says this means that the researchers admit to doing recombination work with higher-binding ACE2 spike proteins on various SARS-CoV-2-related viral scaffolds.


“Furthermore, overlapping authors published a study in 2015 in which they admitted to discovering ‘SARSr-CoVs’ that had immunological cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-1 antibodies,” he said.


The 2015 paper is the one Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson refer to in their June 2 article. The paper’s authors include Zhengli and Baric.


Watson said: “They have still not published the sequences of viruses taken from those infected with the virus.


“The authors directly admit to doing genetic engineering of the viruses, which means that they were taking bits and pieces of one type of virus and mixing it with bits and pieces of other clades and strains of virus.”


Vineet Menachery, Zhengli, Baric et al. said in their article that both wild-type and chimeric viruses were derived from either the epidemic SARS-CoV Urbani strain or the corresponding mouse-adapted (SARS-CoV MA15) infectious clone.


“Plasmids containing spike sequences for SHC014 were extracted by restriction digest and ligated into the E and F plasmid of the MA15 infectious clone,” they wrote.


Menachery et al. go on to explain that plasmids containing wild-type, chimeric SARS-CoV and SHC014-CoV genome fragments were amplified, excised, ligated, and purified.


“In vitro transcription reactions were then preformed to synthesise full-length genomic RNA, which was transfected into Vero E6 cells … The medium from transfected cells was harvested and served as seed stocks for subsequent experiments.”

. . .

The EcoHealth Alliance researchers and their Chinese colleagues took an RNA strand from each of the viruses they identified and converted it to DNA, Watson says. They then put the DNA into a plasmid, where it could replicate.


“When you want to do genetic engineering, you don’t do it on RNA, you do it on DNA,” Watson explained. “A plasmid is stable. You can put it in the fridge or the freezer and put it in some cells and they’ll produce RNA.”


The researchers took spike proteins and combined them with envelope and nucleic acid proteins.


“Basically you’re holding the core of the virus stable, and you’re swapping out the pieces on the outside to get one that binds more strongly to human cells,” Watson said.


“They did not publish any of those sequences, but they admitted that they did that work.


“The nature of studying these viruses in cells is that there are going to be mutation events; evolutions are going to happen – especially if you are optimising the virus for infectivity of ACE2-expressing cells with human ACE2.”



The researchers also admitted to infecting humanised mice that had the human ACE2 receptor, Watson says. “It’s clear that they were doing gain-of-function studies.”
. . .

Watson suspects that, in 2019, a SARS virus escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.


“There’s clear evidence that the first infections were not from people coming from the wet market in Wuhan, but that the virus was brought to the wet market.


“It’s awfully suspicious that Wuhan would be home to the only known biosafety level-4 research facility in China, and they worked on these viruses there.”

Watson says that, throughout the progression of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there have been consistent efforts by officials and the mainstream media to repress factual information about the severity, transmission dynamics, origins, and physiological effects of SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19.


“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.”
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
Continued from my last post . . .
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, 2, 3 and 4 are above; Part 5 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 5):
Evidence of possible manipulation


Andre Watson explains that there is a way that small sequences of HIV may have been inserted into SARS-CoV-2 that would have made the manipulation less noticeable. There could, he says, have been a forensic cover-up.


Watson says it’s very odd that all four of the inserts in question have been found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.


“One thing that has made this forensically difficult to investigate is that the genomic sequences don’t match. If you line up the RNA letters in those inserts with HIV, they don’t match.


“However, there is something called sense mutation. If I were trying to put a HIV sequence into something, and my job was to cover it up, I wouldn’t use the same genetic sequence, I would get the same protein sequence. I would change the genetic sequence.”


Three DNA or RNA letters create one amino acid, but there are multiple combinations of three that will create a given amino acid, Watson says. “So, you can scramble the genetic letters around and still get the same protein letters to come out.”


Two of the domains that have been found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are also present in the HIV-1 gp120 surface domain, which, Watson says, is part of HIV’s “viral fusion machinery with CD4+T cells”. (T cells, also called T lymphocytes, are a type of white blood cell. They are an essential part of the body’s immune system.)


Watson says gp120 is known to interfere with dendritic cell function during HIV infections, and also modulates the activity of CD4+ T cells, which interact with dendritic cells to sense and respond to various pathogens.


“While I have yet to see structural modelling data of these domains interacting with known HIV binding motifs and this isn’t damning in and of itself, it does raise several questions, especially when coupled to the known immune-evasive properties of SARS-CoV-2, which includes T cell exhaustion and antibody avoidance in a number of patients,” Watson said.


Watson says he hasn’t a clue what the gp120 domains are doing, “but they are there”.


It’s also very strange, Watson says, to see a malaria sequence on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.


He says the malaria sequences don’t match the known binding domain of malaria to CD147 (malaria’s entry receptor into red blood cell precursor cells and red blood cells).


“However, there is speculation and computational modelling suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 also binds to CD147 and, in our own experiments, we have preliminarily seen some binding responses in the ~100–300 nanomolar range, which need to be further validated.



“What are the odds, if there was not laboratory manipulation, of having four little inserts that match protein sequences from HIV on solvent-accessible domains on the surface of the spike, along with a malaria sequence?”
Watson says he doesn’t want to make claims that cannot be proven, but the presence of the four inserts, and the malaria sequence, need to be investigated – and “certainly line up with the gain-of-function work that is suggested by the plasmid recombination experiments and insertion of higher binding affinity ACE2-binding spike proteins into infectious clones”.


It is important, Watson says, to remember that American and Chinese researchers were doing genetic engineering work in 2015, and admitted that they were doing it.


When a virus is randomly evolving, there is usually a fixed ratio of change if there is mutation, Watson says.


“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, when compared to the 2013 RaTG13 virus that was 96.11% similar to the current outbreak, there is an entire region where the virus has mutated in a way that is statistically impossible,” he said.



“It is virtually impossible for these particular mutations to have happened naturally. And this has happened in the same region of the virus – the spike protein – on which American and Chinese researchers have admitted doing recombination work.”
If SARS-CoV-2 were mutating accidentally, it would have a constant ratio of sense and missense mutations that is typically 5:1, Watson says.


“However, for nearly 2,100 RNA letters, there are virtually no missense mutations, as would be expected naturally between two viruses that are experiencing some form of genetic drift.


“The RNA letters are changing, but most of the protein letters are not – and it’s just in the part of the virus that was known to be spliced around in the SARS-related viral recombination experiments.”


The SARS-CoV-2 research was done in collaboration between the US and China, as well as other global actors, Watson points out.


“To say that we didn’t know what this was when it appeared in December is to outright lie about biological research that we knew was happening. We knew what SARS-CoV-1 did in 2003.”

Quote from previous section:
“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 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 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.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,128
Likes
4,254
Continued from my last post . . .
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, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are above; Part 6 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 6):
In a paper published on the pre-print repository ViXr.org in May, independent researcher Murat Seyran from Vienna says that the host tropism (the infection specificity of certain pathogens to particular hosts and host tissues) and the infection pattern of SARS-CoV-2 have three fundamental differences compared to the previous six human pathogenic coronaviruses.


“The unnatural flat pattern of SARS-CoV-2 S protein NTD [N-terminal domain] is conflicting with the evolutionary host tropism strategy of not only the human CoVs but also many different human pathogenic viruses,” Seyran said.


Why have we not seen any pandemic caused by coronaviruses before? Seyran asks. Why did pandemics not emerge in places where people rely on water sources shared with bats or bats are consumed as bushmeat?


Seyran also says that, in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the S Protein RBD is not a high-frequency positive selection site, unlike in other coronaviruses.


The SARS-CoV-2 genome is almost identical to the bat coronavirus, but it is only mutated on the RBD, Seyran says. “Why only the RBD had mutations meanwhile the rest of the genome was almost unaltered?”


It is argued that the presence of a furin cleavage spike in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is evidence that the virus did not develop naturally.


A furin cleavage site is a segment of four amino acids that enables a virus to use furin in the human body as an enzyme to dissolve its coating so that it can release its genetic material to infect cells. Furin cleavage sites tend to be more infectious than cleavage sites that use other enzymes.


Seyran is one of 18 scientists who wrote a letter to the editor of the Journal of Medical Virology, which was published on September 3.


The scientists, who are from the US, Austria, Iran, Sudan, India, the UK, New Zealand, Egypt, Switzerland, and Jordan, wrote about the unnatural shape of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein.



“The SARS-CoV-2 host tropism/adaptation pattern has significant discrepancies compared to other CoVs, raising questions concerning the proximal origin of SARSCoV-2,” Seyran et al. wrote.
“The flat and non-sunken surface of the sialic acid-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein) conflicts with the general adaptation and survival pattern observed for all other CoVs.”


Seyran et al. say that SARS-CoV-2 recombination presumably occurred between the S1/S2 domains of the S protein, enabling host furin protease utilisation.



“Although millions of recorded cases have been recorded globally, SARS-CoV-2 S protein does not have any apparent further recombination, placing it in conflict with the recombination models of other CoVs,” the scientists wrote.
“Similarly, the S protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 has not accumulated high-frequency non-synonymous substitutions, differentiating SARS-CoV-2 from other CoVs that have positive selection/adaptation mutations in their RBDs.”


Clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolates to date have only a single high frequency non-synonymous mutation, D614G, in their S protein, Seyran et al. say.



“Based on currently known mutation rates and patterns in clinical isolates of SARS-CoV-2, the S protein does not appear to be a mutational ‘hot spot’ for SARSCoV-2, unlike other human CoVs.”
Seyran et al. say that the furin recognition motif present at the SARS-CoV2 S1/S2 junction has no analogy in other “linage B” beta-coronaviruses, including neither pangolin-CoV nor RaTG13.


They say evidence suggests that the addition of a motif for S1/S2 site furin cleavage constituted a unique recombination occurrence.



“The CoV-unique insertion of 4 amino-acids creating a novel RRAR furin cleavage site introduces two arginine codons CGG-CGG, whose usage is extremely rare in CoVs, further supporting the hypothesis of a unique recombination occurrence.”
Quote from previous section:
“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.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top