Wuhan Coronavirus Thread

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
16,932
Likes
56,188
Country flag
How hard is it for them whip up atleast a SQL database!!!
========
As a data scientist I find this astonishing. UK #covid19 test and trace missing records error was caused by the number of columns exceeding maximum allowed in an #Excel worksheet. The fact that such a critical system runs on Excel is just unbelievable.

https://t.co/EHUkrWVino?amp=1
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
Man-made coronavirus born in a Chinese lab, says virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan | Part I
Ever since she's claimed that the novel coronavirus has been a result of a man-made laboratory intervention in China, Dr Li-Meng Yan has been in the eye of a storm.

Her research paper has been termed 'unscientific' and one 'without evidence' by the Chinese authorities and she's had to flee from her home country of HongKong to take refuge in the US to keep herself alive. Her family is being "controlled and monitored closely" by the Chinese Communist Party and she's had to cut off all ties with them to protect them.

On a Friday evening, as she spoke over a video call from New York the bespectacled scholar and virologist from China Dr Li-Meng Yan looked every bit calm and composed, far removed from the present circumstance she finds herself in. Dressed in a black skater dress with a microphone plugged into her ears, as she connected for an interview with The Week, the tension and that desperate urge "to chase the truth and bring it in front of the world," was evident from the way she took on questions and answered each one with conviction.

Dr Yan has taken the bold step to go against her peers, colleagues, the government and the society when claiming that the Chinese government covered up the dissemination of information relating to SARS-CoV-2 and that it is a product of genetic engineering and manipulation. She's even gone against the WHO where her husband is currently employed. "The truth is important, not me," she says.

What is your current state of mind like?

From January to now I have been trying to fight lies and bring out the truth. But the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the others including the world Health Organisation (WHO), scientific world and the media are trying their best to suppress me. I don't want to push anyone to trust me. People can verify. But one must see both sides. The thing is I'm happy that more and more people realise that this is a problem. Over the past half year, many people just believed the authorities. They ignored this possibility, this fact that the virus came from the lab and is not a mere natural disaster. Now people started realising it and that's a good thing. They can now find more facts to support their investigation, discuss it, share the ideas. This way the Chinese Communist Party's suppression can be broken down. Also, I'm working on the second scientific report to show the world scientific evidence.

I'm also shocked that all the people who I have worked with in the past months have have been lying to the public about the origin of the virus, thereby ignoring the safety of the world at large. Now even when I put my scientific report out, the top experts in the field, lie. And people believe them because they are experts. For example, from the 19th January, Lu De's broadcast channel in Chinese helped me deliver a message that the virus was man made and important people in the government listened to that which went against the Chinese Communist Party. When the authorities watched the broadcast, they knew someone inside delivered the truth outside so that's why they admitted that there was indeed a transmission going on, it was human to human and that the cases had already tripled, were taking place all over China not only in Wuhan. Just a few hours after the broadcast, the chairman Xi Jinping published the first chairman statement of 2020 to upgrade the SARS 2 disease at the same level as SARS 1, as a very serious infectious disease. But despite us pushing to help people, this government allowed people to go all over the world, and WHO said that masks do not work, there's no need to be scared, there won't be pandemic, to not impose PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) on China, and later also said not to use Hydroxychloroquine. But as per my intelligence and research it was wrong and irresponsible to dismiss HCQ.

At present, I'm getting help from the US, from the people who support anti-Chinese communist party, and from leading scientists all over the world, who believe in the fact that the novel coronavirus was indeed man-made. But still the attacks from the Chinese government and its colleagues against me are going strong.

You say that you came to know of the human to human transmission in China as early as December 31. But China and WHO confirm such transmission only on January 20. Why do you think the delay happened?

Initially from December 31st, I was assigned to the WHO H5 reference lab at the Centre of Influenza Research at Hong Kong University (HKU) by my supervisor, Poon, Lit Man Leo (professor and division head at the University of Hong Kong) to track the new, unknown pneumonia happening in Wuhan because they lacked the information through Chinese official channels. At that time I already got confirmed information that sequence is isolated in Wuhan already. Over 40 cases had happened at that time but they claimed 27. A paper in the New England Journal admitting that they too knew it since December. But then the Chinese government came out with a white paper to impose their versions and make people quiet.

From local doctor to CDC (Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention) staff in a way in Hong Kong we are not allowed to know anything unless government tells us or gives the information. Nobody knew what was happening. Even those inside the hospitals were asked to remain quiet, unaware of the kind of treatment patients were given, what for, and what they were undergoing. It was highly suspicious.

The prime broadcaster from CDC postponed the results. Our government has many, many ways to hold the truth. They made sure everyone bought the theory that the seafood market was the problem and that was all one big lie.

You said Professor Malik Peiris, a renowned virologist who has been researching emerging viruses at the animal-human interface, knew about the cover up but did nothing. How did you come to know of his involvement and what did he exactly cover up?

I knew him even before I came to that department. I came to the university of Hong Kong in 2012 July and I met my husband there. My husband is also another expert working for WHO for the emerging diseases sphere. He is on the staff of Professor Malik. They both come from Sri Lanka. We both know Malik for over ten years. Malik knows us quite closely and we even stayed at Malik's home. My supervisor was also on the staff of professor Malik earlier. So everything I discussed with the former, or with my husband is known to Malik immediately and I know it because I get feedback too. You see it's a very small group. So, although he knew everything he didn't act. So basically, I can tell you Dr Tederos and others in leading positions, including MariaVan Kerkhove who is the technical lead at WHO have very strong connections with Malik. And so nothing got done. Malik had strong connections with China government. So both, the Chinese and the WHO kept everything under the carpet. CCP insists that Wuhan Hunan seafood market and wild animal are the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning. But dont allow scientists to investigate the market and collect samples. They can't even provide any positive sample with suspicious animal hints like hair/shit/DNA. However, they still cleaned the market so that there would be no way for others to find out the evidence.

You said that your lab in the university of Hong Kong also knew it, your supervisor knew about it but nobody said or did anything.

My supervisor insisted that I do this in secret. Apart from the two of us, Malik knew it. But in this secret investigation, my supervisor warned me repeatedly that I should be careful because the Chinese government don't want to release these things so he said do not cross the red line and if you have, you will be in trouble. You will disappear. And when I report to him, he would keep silent and during early January to January 16 he even asked me to stop investigation and after that he directly contacted my friend in CDC, saying now I will be in touch with him. You go do your work because it is dangerous. I cannot have you work on this because the government does not want people to know.

You say that the virus is man-made and that it can be made in six months. Can you substantiate your claim because scientists world over are saying that your claims are unscientific and lack evidence.

First, scientists who reject the lab origin theory are lying. I take full responsibility. They can sue me if they want. I put my name here but other authors are anonymous because I have to protect them, but they are real and real experts. Of course, I can tell you that the first report before I publish it has been read by many well-known people in the US government including the top experts. I have my contacts and gave it to them for their reviews.

There are two theories: One is the nature theory and the other is the theory of lab origins. The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2. However, I contest the existence of RATG13 in nature. Also, we live in a time when viral genomes can be engineered and manipulated to create novel coronaviruses. There has been a highly probable pathway for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2and the evidence is present in the viral genome. Also, let me tell you that as per the natural evolution there may be a chance that the virus comes from animals through an intermediate host and jumps onto humans but that takes a very, very long time and coincidences such as bat meets a suitable intermediate host and bat virus luckily adapts to the new host, etc.

Meanwhile, nature origins can also be mimicked in laboratories. Here, the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories and the RBM that is, the receptor binding motif within the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 which determines the host specificity of the virus is suspiciously similar to that of SARS-CoV of 2003 and so between these two viruses there is a series of laboratory procedures that have happened. The genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated. Also, SARS-CoV-2 contains this unique furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction of the lineage B of Beta coronavirus is demonstrated in my report, which is otherwise completely absent in all other coronaviruses that can be found in nature. So then there is every possibility that this furin cleavage site has been inserted by man into the SARS-CoV-2 genome. So all that is needed is a backbone to create the virus and for this particular present novel coronavirus, a bat coronavirus ZC45 and/or ZXC21 come to be the closest backbone or shares the highest sequence identity with SARS-CoV2. Now, this backbone or template has already been existing with Chinese authorities ever since they were discovered in 2015 by labs in China. Once the template is available, it is just a matter of reconstruction of all the procedure of the virus from the bat coronavirus to the one that targets human beings. I'm also certain that although SARS-CoV-2 is created using Zc45/ZXC21, during its creation, changes must have been introduced to obscure the genetic connection between the two. From the very beginning, the scientific world tried to ignore the man-made lab origin theory. But they cannot explain why the bat coronavirus can travel into human and become much like humans. One very important fact is also that envelope (E) protein of SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 virus is 100 per cent identical, which never happened among cross-species coronaviruses.

But 'The Proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,' the paper which was published in Nature, said that the virus was natural and that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.

My second report, which is currently under progress will stress on this fact a bit more. The communist party influenced not only the Chinese scientists but also people overseas. Nature origin professor Dr Anderson attacked my report and me in the media saying that my paper is nonsense and that their analysis clearly shows that SARS-CoV-2 is neither a laboratory construct nor a purposefully manipulated virus. They are misleading people by way of these conceptions.

The SARS-CoV-2 does not like it in nature. That is why for thousands of years it never happened in this type of virus. To engineer and create a human targeting novel coronavirus, one would need to pick a bat coronavirus as the template or the backbone. This is not too much to ask for, because many research labs have been collecting samples of bat coronaviruses over the past two decades. The actual template could be ZC45 and/or ZXC21 or a close relative of them. Now to get this template bat virus to be converted into a coronavirus that can bind with human ACE2 receptor to infect humans, they would require to use molecular cloning to get the Spike protein to bind to human ACE2. Also, one would use reverse genetics to assemble the gene fragments of Spike, ORF1b and the rest of the backbone into a CDNA version of the viral genome. Then post carrying out the in vitro transcription to obtain the viral RNA genome, and transfection of RNA genome into cells we could have live and infectious viruses with the desired artificial genome.

All of this, when considered together is consistent with the hypothesis that the SARS-Cov-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as backbone or a template for genetic gain-of-function modifications. Besides, this article 'The Proximal ....' is full of problems. It admitted some of the unusual characters in SARS-CoV-2 genome, like RBD and furin cleavage site in S1/S2. But they intentionally ignore the possibility of man-made origin and Zhoushan bat coronavirus. Instead, they only emphasise on the nature origin theory.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
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.
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."
 

FalconZero

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
1,753
Likes
7,548
Country flag
The second report by Li Meng Yan, will read through it later in free time, posting it here :

SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon:
A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud
Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD)1, Shu Kang (PhD)1, Jie Guan (PhD)1, Shanchang Hu (PhD)1
1Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract
Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory
creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting
Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable
Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and
instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification.
Despite this and
similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is
fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses
published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin
coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARSCoV-
2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARSCoV-
2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these
novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition,
we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a
coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.
Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens
our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 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 to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.
Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is
well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing
of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define
SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.

We further suggest that 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.
Download it from here : https://mega.nz/file/2ZQADBAS#5lAHpIqzkxlL9BgvIvFKwKuAJcjNjJYFYMfvnjLug88
 
Last edited:

shade

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
3,976
Likes
20,006
Country flag
The biggest indictment of the Kung Flu being a bioweapon is how quickly China "recovered" from corona with around 80k infected in the start of the year.
of course they will recover since they already had a vaccine ready
 

FalconZero

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
1,753
Likes
7,548
Country flag
The biggest indictment of the Kung Flu being a bioweapon is how quickly China "recovered" from corona with around 80k infected in the start of the year.
of course they will recover since they already had a vaccine ready
Point is you need some proof, concrete proof, you know the results of the fact if it's proved that Chinese intentionally released this virus, numbers could be a total lie they don't matter but yeah, this is a big surprise that they recovered so fast.
 

shade

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
3,976
Likes
20,006
Country flag
Point is you need some proof, concrete proof, you know the results of the fact if it's proved that Chinese intentionally released this virus, numbers could be a total lie they don't matter but yeah, this is a big surprise that they recovered so fast.
It's not surprise, it's just as planned.
Infect the entire planet so that everyone's economy is whacked for atleast 1-2 years, while your economy booms and swims in investment.
With India and America getting the highest cases and most economic damage, it is a propaganda win also, "XIXIXXIXIXI ROOK AT ZHESE DEMOCRAZIES?!!?!?!! AND NOW ROOK AT CHAINA! CHAINA DEFEAT COLONAVIRUS, DEMOCRAZIES FAIL!!! XIXIXXIXI!!!!"

Also proof is a meme, everything depends on (((consensus))) "eminent" scientists will continue peddling the meme that covid19 is a 100% natural organic free-ranging virus and discredit this theory of Li Meng Yan.

To add insult to injury in another 2-5 years everyone will forget about the KungFlu and continue to consoom cheap Made in China products as usual
 

FalconZero

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
1,753
Likes
7,548
Country flag
It's not surprise, it's just as planned.
Infect the entire planet so that everyone's economy is whacked for atleast 1-2 years, while your economy booms and swims in investment.
With India and America getting the highest cases and most economic damage, it is a propaganda win also, "XIXIXXIXIXI ROOK AT ZHESE DEMOCRAZIES?!!?!?!! AND NOW ROOK AT CHAINA! CHAINA DEFEAT COLONAVIRUS, DEMOCRAZIES FAIL!!! XIXIXXIXI!!!!"

Also proof is a meme, everything depends on (((consensus))) "eminent" scientists will continue peddling the meme that covid19 is a 100% natural organic free-ranging virus and discredit this theory of Li Meng Yan.

To add insult to injury in another 2-5 years everyone will forget about the KungFlu and continue to consoom cheap Made in China products as usual
That's what I fear ngl. Trump is saying china will pay the price but when? Who knows.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
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.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
The second report by Li Meng Yan, will read through it later in free time, posting it here :

SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon:
A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud
Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD)1, Shu Kang (PhD)1, Jie Guan (PhD)1, Shanchang Hu (PhD)1
1Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract
Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory
creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting
Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable
Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and
instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification.
Despite this and
similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is
fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses
published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin
coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARSCoV-
2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARSCoV-
2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these
novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition,
we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a
coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.
Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens
our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 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 to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.
Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is
well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing
of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define
SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.

We further suggest that 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.
Download it from here : https://mega.nz/file/2ZQADBAS#5lAHpIqzkxlL9BgvIvFKwKuAJcjNjJYFYMfvnjLug88
Thanks, I will post my analysis soon.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
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
1,385
Likes
2,776
Dr. Li-Meng Yan reveals China’s fake science and the COVID-19 cover-up
WION
Washington
Oct 09, 2020, 05.27 PM(IST)
Written By: Lawrence Sellin

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party supported by some Western scientists and a politically-motivated media have desperately tried to convince the world that the COVID-19 virus originated as a bat beta-coronavirus which underwent a natural mutation process and was then acquired by humans after exposure to infected animals.

Undoubtedly, such subterfuge is meant to protect certain vested interests, including the potentially devastating political and economic consequences for China, global corporate and private investment in China and a negative effect on scientific collaboration and research funding of major Western research laboratories.

In her first article, “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,” Chinese scientist and whistleblower, Dr. Li-Meng Yan presented the biological evidence demonstrating that the COVID-19 virus was made in a laboratory.

Now, Dr. Yan has published her second scientific article “SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud,” which describes the extraordinary lengths the Chinese Communist Party has gone to cover-up the true laboratory origin of the COVID-19 virus in order to escape responsibility for the pandemic.

For months after the start of the outbreak, China flooded the scientific literature with subtle and sometimes not so subtle messages supporting its narrative that COVID-19 is a naturally-occurring disease that “jumped” from animals to humans in the Wuhan seafood market.

After endless media reports and scientific studies, the theory that the Wuhan seafood market was the source for animal–human COVID-19 transmission was totally discredited, even by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On February 3, 2020, “batwoman” Dr. Zheng-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology published an article suggesting that COVID-19 originated in bats and a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 was shown to be 96.2% identical to the COVID-19 virus, thus supporting the naturally-occurring theory.

Since then, literally hundreds of scientific articles have used RaTG13 as a basis for investigating the natural origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that RaTG13 exists only on paper because no live virus or intact genome of RaTG13 have ever been isolated or recovered.
Dr. Yan and her colleagues now make multiple arguments indicating that RaTG13 is a fabricated virus.

One way to determine if a virus is related to or evolved from another virus, in this case, RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus, is to compare the synonymous and non-synonymous mutations in the genetic code.

The DNA genetic code, which is composed of combinations of the nucleotides guanine, adenine, cytosine and thymine (G, A, C and T), determines the structure of proteins. It does so through groups of three nucleotides called codons that correspond to specific amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and that code is redundant.

For example, the amino acid arginine can be produced by codons CGT, CGA, CTC or CGG, meaning the third nucleotide in the codon is redundant or interchangeable and will still code for arginine. Any change in the first or second nucleotide will produce a different amino acid.

So, a viral genetic code can mutate, but still produce the same amino acid or a “synonymous” outcome. A mutation in the first or second nucleotide in a codon will result in different amino acid, a “non-synonymous” outcome.

In the absence of a major natural or artificial recombinant event, viruses that are naturally related or evolve from each other, as claimed for RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus, have roughly standard ratios comparing synonymous and non-synonymous mutations.

Dr. Yan’s data show that when the ratios of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations between a critical segment of the RaTG13 and COVID-19 viruses are compared, the result “is abnormal and a violation of the principles of natural evolution.”

The interpretation is that RaTG13 and the COVID-19 virus could not be related to each other through natural evolution and that RaTG13 is a likely fabrication.

In addition, a reconstructed RaTG13 receptor binding domain does not bind to the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptors in two species of horseshoe bats, implying that RaTG13 could not exist in a bat population from which it would mutate and infect humans, completely undermining the naturally-occurring theory.

Dr. Yan also questions the accuracy of China’s pangolin (scaly anteater) coronavirus data upon which dozens of scientific studies examining potential natural coronavirus recombination events are based.

In early June, another novel bat coronavirus, RmYN02, which shares a 93.3% sequence similarity to the COVID-19 virus, was identified and used to support the Communist Chinese Party’s argument that the pandemic was a natural outbreak.

In that weak attempt to buttress the naturally-occurring theory, the Chinese authors of the RmYN02 article claim that a proline-alanine-alanine (PAA) amino acid insertion represents an ancestor to the proline-arginine-arginine-alanine (PRRA) furin polybasic cleavage site found in the COVID-19 virus, but not found in any other related bat coronavirus.

The presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site is a marker for genetic manipulation and, therefore, countering that fact would be an important objective of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda machine.

The RmYN02 hypothesis disintegrates under scrutiny because the PAA sequence is chemically neutral, not basic and it could not cleave anything.

RmYN02 does not even possess the arginine-serine (R-S) cleavage point found in the COVID-19 virus and all related coronaviruses and the published RmYH02 sequence seems to be out of alignment.

Dr. Yan’s second scientific article adds one more nail in the coffin of China’s false theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was naturally-occurring.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,385
Likes
2,776
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
1,385
Likes
2,776
I am posting the second part of the first report by Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan which gives evidence of the Covid-19 virus being created in the Chinese laboratory, Wuhan Institute of Virology. I've posted the first part earlier here. The second part gives the procedures used to create the Covid-19 virus in the lab. I am not including the figures and citations; the full report (in pdf format) with all figures and citations can be accessed via this link:

Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route

Li-Meng Yan (MD, PhD), Shu Kang (PhD), Jie Guan (PhD), Shanchang Hu (PhD)

Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.

Correspondence: [email protected]

2. Delineation of a synthetic route of SARS-CoV-2

In the second part of this report, we describe a synthetic route of creating SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting. It is postulated based on substantial literature support as well as genetic evidence present in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Although steps presented herein should not be viewed as exactly those taken, we believe that key processes should not be much different. Importantly, our work here should serve as a demonstration of how SARS-CoV-2 can be designed and created conveniently in research laboratories by following proven concepts and using well-established techniques.

Importantly, research labs, both in Hong Kong and in mainland China, are leading the world in coronavirus research, both in terms of resources and on the research outputs. The latter is evidenced not only by the large number of publications that they have produced over the past two decades but also by their milestone achievements in the field: they were the first to identify civets as the intermediate host for SARS-CoV and isolated the first strain of the virus; they were the first to uncover that SARS-CoV originated from bats; they revealed for the first time the antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of SARS-CoV infections; they have contributed significantly in understanding MERS in all domains (zoonosis, virology, and clinical studies); they made several breakthroughs in SARS-CoV-2 research. Last but not least, they have the world’s largest collection of coronaviruses (genomic sequences and live viruses). The knowledge, expertise, and resources are all readily available within the Hong Kong and mainland research laboratories (they collaborate extensively) to carry out and accomplish
the work described below.

2.1 Possible scheme in designing the laboratory-creation of the novel coronavirus

In this sub-section, we outline the possible overall strategy and major considerations that may have been formulated at the designing stage of the project.

To engineer and create a human-targeting coronavirus, they would have to pick a bat coronavirus as the template/backbone. This can be conveniently done because many research labs have been actively collecting bat coronaviruses over the past two decades. However, this template virus ideally should not be one from Dr. Zhengli Shi’s collections, considering that she is widely known to have been engaged in gain-of-function studies on coronaviruses. Therefore, ZC45 and/or ZXC21, novel bat coronaviruses discovered and owned by military laboratories, would be suitable as the template/backbone. It is also possible that these military laboratories had discovered other closely related viruses from the same location and kept some unpublished. Therefore, the actual template could be ZC45, or ZXC21, or a close relative of them. The postulated pathway described below would be the same regardless of which one of the three was the actual template.

Once they have chosen a template virus, they would first need to engineer, through molecular cloning, the Spike protein so that it can bind hACE2. The concept and cloning techniques involved in this manipulation have been well-documented in the literature. With almost no risk of failing, the template bat virus could then be converted to a coronavirus that can bind hACE2 and infect humans.

Second, they would use molecular cloning to introduce a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction of Spike. This manipulation, based on known knowledge, would likely produce a strain of coronavirus that is a more infectious and pathogenic.

Third, they would produce an ORF1b gene construct. The ORF1b gene encodes the polyprotein Orf1b, which is processed post-translationally to produce individual viral proteins: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), helicase, guanidine-N7 methyltransferase, uridylate-specific endoribonuclease, and 2’-O-methyltransferase. All of these proteins are parts of the replication machinery of the virus. Among them, the RdRp protein is the most crucial one and is highly conserved among coronaviruses. Importantly, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s laboratory uses a PCR protocol, which amplifies a particular fragment of the RdRp gene, as their primary method to detect the presence of coronaviruses in raw samples (bat fecal swap, feces, etc). As a result of this practice, the Shi group has documented the sequence information of this short segment of RdRp for all coronaviruses that they have successfully detected and/or collected.

Here, the genetic manipulation is less demanding or complicated because Orf1b is conserved and likely Orf1b from any ß coronavirus would be competent enough to do the work. However, we believe that they would want to introduce a particular Orf1b into the virus for one of the two possible reasons:

1. Since many phylogenetic analyses categorize coronaviruses based on the sequence similarity of the RdRp gene only, having a different RdRp in the genome therefore could ensure that SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are separated into different groups/sub-lineages in phylogenetic studies. Choosing an RdRp gene, however, is convenient because the short RdRp segment sequence has been recorded for all coronaviruses ever collected/detected. Their final choice was the RdRp sequence from bat coronavirus RaBtCoV/4991, which was discovered in 2013. For RaBtCoV/4991, the only information ever published was the sequence of its short RdRp segment, while neither its full genomic sequence nor virus isolation were ever reported. After amplifying the RdRp segment (or the whole ORF1b gene) of RaBatCoV/4991, they would have then used it for subsequent assembly and creation of the genome of SARS-CoV-2. Small changes in the RdRp sequence could either be introduced at the beginning (through DNA synthesis) or be generated via passages later on. On a separate track, when they were engaged in the fabrication of the RaTG13 sequence, they could have started with the short RdRp segment of RaBtCoV/4991 without introducing any changes to its sequence, resulting in a 100% nucleotide sequence identity between the two viruses on this short RdRp segment. This RaTG13 virus could then be claimed to have been discovered back in 2013.

2. The RdRp protein from RaBatCoV/4991 is unique in that it is superior than RdRp from any other ß coronavirus for developing antiviral drugs. RdRp has no homologs in human cells, which makes this essential viral enzyme a highly desirable target for antiviral development. As an example, Remedesivir, which is currently undergoing clinical trials, targets RdRp. When creating a novel and human-targeting virus, they would be interested in developing the antidote as well. Even though drug discovery like this may not be easily achieved, it is reasonable for them to intentionally incorporate a RdRp that is more amenable for antiviral drug development.

Fourth, they would use reverse genetics to assemble the gene fragments of spike, ORF1b, and the rest of the template ZC45 into a cDNA version of the viral genome. They would then carry out in vitro transcription to obtain the viral RNA genome. Transfection of the RNA genome into cells would allow the recovery of live and infectious viruses with the desired artificial genome.

Fifth, they would carry out characterization and optimization of the virus strain(s) to improve the fitness, infectivity, and overall adaptation using serial passage in vivo. One or several viral strains that meet certain criteria would then be obtained as the final product(s).

2.2 A postulated synthetic route for the creation of SARS-CoV-2

In this sub-section, we describe in more details how each step could be carried out in a laboratory setting using available materials and routine molecular, cellular, and virologic techniques. A diagram of this process is shown in Figure 8. We estimate that the whole process could be completed in approximately 6 months.

Step 1: Engineering the RBM of the Spike for hACE2-binding (1.5 months)

The Spike protein of a bat coronavirus is either incapable of or inefficient in binding hACE2 due to the missing of important residues within its RBM. This can be exemplified by the RBM of the template virus ZC45 (Figure 4). The first and most critical step in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 is to engineer the Spike so that it acquires the ability to bind hACE2. As evidenced in the literature, such manipulations have been carried out repeatedly in research laboratories since 2008, which successfully yielded engineered coronaviruses with the ability to infect human cells. Although there are many possible ways that one can engineer the Spike protein, we believe that what was actually undertaken was that they replaced the original RBM with a designed and possibly optimized RBM using SARS’ RBM as a guide. As described in part 1, this theory is supported by our observation that two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, exist at either end of the RBM in the SARS-CoV-2 genome(figure 5A) and by the fact that such RBM-swap has been successfully carried out by Dr. Zhengli Shi and by her long-term collaborator and structure biology expert, Dr. Fang Li.

Although ZC45 spike does not contain these two restriction sites (Figure 5B), they can be introduced very easily. The original spike gene would be either amplified with RT-PCR or obtained through DNA synthesis (some changes could be safely introduced to certain variable regions of the sequence) followed by PCR. The gene would then be cloned into a plasmid using restriction sites other than EcoRI and BstEII.

Once in the plasmid, the spike gene can be modified easily. First, an EcoRI site can be introduced by converting the highlighted “gaacac” sequence (Figure 5B) to the desired “gaattc” (Figure 5A). The difference between them are two consecutive nucleotides. Using the commercially available QuikChange Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit, such a di-nucleotide mutation can be generated in no more than one week.
Subsequently, the BstEII site could be similarly introduced at the other end of the RBM. Specifically, the “gaatacc” sequence (Figure 5B) would be converted to the desired “ggttacc” (Figure 5A), which would similarly require a week of time.

Once these restriction sites, which are unique within the spike gene of SARS-CoV-2, were successfully introduced, different RBM segments could be swapped in conveniently and the resulting Spike protein subsequently evaluated using established assays.

As described in part 1, the design of an RBM segment could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3), yielding a sequence that resembles the SARS RBM in an intelligent manner. When carrying out the structure-guided design of the RBM, they would have followed the routine and generated a few (for example a dozen) such RBMs with the hope that some specific variant(s) may be superior than others in binding hACE2. Once the design was finished, they could have each of the designed RBM genes commercially synthesized (quick and very affordable) with an EcoRI site at the 5’-end and a BstEII site at the 3’-end. These novel RBM genes could then be cloned into the spike gene, respectively. The gene synthesis and subsequent cloning, which could be done in a batch mode for the small library of designed RBMs, would take approximately one month.

These engineered Spike proteins might then be tested for hACE2-binding using the established pseudotype virus infection assays. The engineered Spike with good to exceptional binding affinities would be selected. (Although not necessary, directed evolution could be involved here (error-prone PCR on the RBM gene), coupled with either an in vitro binding assay or a pseudotype virus infection assay, to obtain an RBM that binds hACE2 with exceptional affinity.)

Given the abundance of literature on Spike engineering and the available high-resolution
structures of the Spike-hACE2 complex, the success of this step would be very much guaranteed. By the end of this step, as desired, a novel spike gene would be obtained, which encodes a novel Spike protein capable of binding hACE2 with high affinity.

Step 2: Engineering a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction (0.5 month)

The product from Step 1, a plasmid containing the engineered spike, would be further modified to include a furin-cleavage site (segment indicated by green lines in Figure 4) at the S1/S2 junction. This short stretch of gene sequence can be conveniently inserted using several routine cloning techniques, including QuikChange Site-Directed PCR, overlap PCR followed by restriction enzyme digestion and ligation, or Gibson assembly. None of these techniques would leave any trace in the sequence. Whichever cloning method was the choice, the inserted gene piece would be included in the primers, which would be designed, synthesized, and used in the cloning. This step, leading to a further modified Spike with the furin-cleavage site added at the S1/S2 junction, could be completed in no more than two weeks.

Step 3: Obtain an ORF1b gene that contains the sequence of the short RdRp segment from RaBtCoV/4991 (1 month, yet can be carried out concurrently with Steps 1 and 2)

Unlike the engineering of Spike, no complicated design is needed here, except that the RdRp gene segment from RaBtCoV/4991 would need to be included. Gibson assembly could have been used here. In this technique, several fragments, each adjacent pair sharing 20-40 bp overlap, are combined together in one simple reaction to assemble a long DNA product. Two or three fragments, each covering a significant section of the ORF1b gene, would be selected based on known bat coronavirus sequences. One of these fragments would be the RdRp segment of RaBtCoV/4991. Each fragment would be PCR amplified with proper overlap regions introduced in the primers. Finally, all purified fragments would be pooled equimolar concentrations and added to the Gibson reaction mixture, which, after a short incubation, would yield the desired ORF1b gene in whole.

Step 4: Produce the designed viral genome using reverse genetics and recover live viruses (0.5 month)

Reverse genetics have been frequently used in assembling whole viral genomes, including coronavirus genomes. The most recent example is the reconstruction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome using the transformation-assisted recombination in yeast. Using this method, the Swiss group assembled the entire viral genome and produced live viruses in just one week. This efficient technique, which would not leave any trace of artificial manipulation in the created viral genome, has been available since 2017. In addition to the engineered spike gene (from steps 1 and 2) and the ORF1b gene (from step 3), other fragments covering the rest of the genome would be obtained either through RT-PCR amplification from the template virus or through DNA synthesis by following a sequence slightly altered from that of the template virus. We believe that the latter approach was more likely as it would allow sequence changes introduced into the variable regions of less conserved proteins, the process of which could be easily guided by multiple sequence alignments. The amino acid sequences of more conserved functions, such as that of the E protein, might have been left unchanged. All DNA fragments would then be pooled together and transformed into yeast, where the cDNA version of the SARS-CoV-2 genome would be assembled via transformation-assisted recombination. Of course, an alternative method of reverse genetics, one of which the WIV has successfully used in the past, could also be employed. Although some earlier reverse genetics approaches may leave restriction sites at where different fragments would be joined, these traces would be hard to detect as the exact site of ligation can be anywhere in the ~30kb genome. Either way, a cDNA version of the viral genome would be obtained from the reverse genetics experiment.
Subsequently, in vitro transcription using the cDNA as the template would yield the viral RNA genome, which upon transfection into Vero E6 cells would allow the production of live viruses bearing all of the designed properties.

Step 5: Optimize the virus for fitness and improve its hACE2-binding affinity in vivo (2.5-3 months)

Virus recovered from step 4 needs to be further adapted undergoing the classic experiment – serial passage in laboratory animals. This final step would validate the virus’ fitness and ensure its receptor-oriented adaptation toward its intended host, which, according to the analyses above, should be human. Importantly, the RBM and the furin-cleavage site, which were introduced into the Spike protein separately, would now be optimized together as one functional unit. Among various available animal models (e.g. mice, hamsters, ferrets, and monkeys) for coronaviruses, hACE2 transgenic mice (hACE2-mice) should be the most proper and convenient choice here. This animal model has been established during the study of SARS-CoV and has been available in the Jackson Laboratory for many years.

The procedure of serial passage is straightforward. Briefly, the selected viral strain from step 4, a precursor of SARS-CoV-2, would be intranasally inoculated into a group of anaesthetized hACE2-mice. Around 2-3 days post infection, the virus in lungs would usually amplify to a peak titer. The mice would then be sacrificed and the lungs homogenized. Usually, the mouse-lung supernatant, which carries the highest viral load, would be used to extract the candidate virus for the next round of passage. After approximately 10~15 rounds of passage, the hACE2-binding affinity, the infection efficiency, and the lethality of the viral strain would be sufficiently enhanced and the viral genome stabilized. Finally, after a series of characterization experiments (e.g. viral kinetics assay, antibodies response assay, symptom observation and pathology examination), the final product, SARS-CoV-2, would be obtained, concluding the whole creation process. From this point on, this viral pathogen could be amplified (most probably using Vero E6 cells) and produced routinely.

It is noteworthy that, based on the work done on SARS-CoV, the hACE2-mice, although suitable for SARS-CoV-2 adaptation, is not a good model to reflect the virus’ transmissibility and associated clinical symptoms in humans. We believe that those scientists might not have used a proper animal model (such as the golden Syrian hamster) for testing the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak of COVID-19. If they had done this experiment with a proper animal model, the highly contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2 would be extremely evident and consequently SARS-CoV-2 would not have been described as “not causing human-to-human transmission” at the start of the outbreak.

We also speculate that the extensive laboratory-adaptation, which is oriented toward enhanced transmissibility and lethality, may have driven the virus too far. As a result, SARS-CoV-2 might have lost the capacity to attenuate on both transmissibility and lethality during its current adaptation in the human population. This hypothesis is consistent with the lack of apparent attenuation of SARS-CoV-2 so far despite its great prevalence and with the observation that a recently emerged, predominant variant only shows improved transmissibility.

Serial passage is a quick and intensive process, where the adaptation of the virus is accelerated. Although intended to mimic natural evolution, serial passage is much more limited in both time and scale. As a result, less random mutations would be expected in serial passage than in natural evolution. This is particularly true for conserved viral proteins, such as the E protein. Critical in viral replication, the E protein is a determinant of virulence and engineering of it may render SARS-CoV-2 attenuated.
Therefore, at the initial assembly stage, these scientists might have decided to keep the amino acid sequence of the E protein unchanged from that of ZC45/ZXC21. Due to the conserved nature of the E protein and the limitations of serial passage, no amino acid mutation actually occurred, resulting in a 100% sequence identity on the E protein between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21. The same could have happened to the marks of molecular cloning (restriction sites flanking the RBM). Serial passage, which should have partially naturalized the SARS-CoV-2 genome, might not have removed all signs of artificial manipulation.

3. Final remarks

Many questions remain unanswered about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Prominent virologists have implicated in a Nature Medicine letter that laboratory escape, while not being entirely ruled out, was unlikely and that no sign of genetic manipulation is present in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. However, here we show that genetic evidence within the spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 genome (restriction sites flanking the RBM; tandem rare codons used at the inserted furin-cleavage site) does exist and suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 genome should be 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.

Motives aside, the following facts about SARS-CoV-2 are well-supported:
1. If it was a laboratory product, the most critical element in its creation, the backbone/template virus (ZC45/ZXC21), is owned by military research laboratories.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. SARS-CoV-2 caused a world-wide pandemic, taking hundreds of thousands of lives and shutting down the global economy. It has a destructive power like no other.
Judging from the evidence that we and others have gathered, we believe that finding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 should involve an independent audit of the WIV P4 laboratories and the laboratories of their close collaborators. Such an investigation should have taken place long ago and should not be delayed any further.

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 is an unusual scientific behavior, which needs an explanation for. What is not thoroughly described in this report is the various evidence indicating that several coronaviruses recently published (RaTG13, RmYN02, and several pangolin coronaviruses) are highly suspicious and likely fraudulent. These fabrications would serve no purpose other than to deceive the scientific community and the general public so that the true identity of SARS-CoV-2 is hidden.
Although exclusion of details of such evidence does not alter the conclusion of the current report, we do believe that these details would provide additional support for our contention that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory-enhanced virus and a product of gain-of-function research. A follow-up report focusing on such additional evidence is now being prepared and will be submitted shortly.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,012
Likes
27,915
Country flag

COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan laboratory
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,012
Likes
27,915
Country flag
Japanese Man Assaulted by 8 Youths Outside NYC Subway for Being 'Chinese'




This is becoming a issue in large cities in USA . Orientals are being mistaken for being
chinese and becoming victims .(similar to what happened to sikhs during war on terror in usa)
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top