Connecting the dots on COVID-19: The origin
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is yet to be definitively resolved.
Nevertheless, the following facts are indisputable:
- The animal reservoir for COVID-19 has yet to be identified, and computer modeling from Finders University showed that the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, "is most ideally adapted to infect human cells—rather than bat or pangolin cells."
- The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is the bat virus RaTG13. Unfortunately, nobody outside of China has ever observed a biological sample of RaTG13 because "no more sample" allegedly remained after the virus was sequenced.
- Based on in vitro binding studies RaTG13 viruses interact poorly with ACE2 receptors from bats and display a stronger affinity to receptors from mice and rats.
- The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 contains a sequence of 4 amino acids that enables removal of the S1 portion of the spike by "furin" (an enzyme found on cell surfaces). Cutting the spike at this "furin cleavage site" allows viruses to enter these cells via the ACE2 receptors.
- To date, no close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 are known to possess a furin cleavage site. Consequently, numerous scientists regard the anomalous presence of the FCS on SARS-CoV-2 as evidence this virus was engineered.
- For decades, genetic insertion of the furin cleavage site has been used as a means for studying its role on viral pathogenicity. This research is known as "gain-of-function."
- Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina pioneered numerous "gain-of-function" techniques for coronaviruses. This included both genetic engineering and "serial passaging" (a guided form of "natural selection").
- In 2002, Dr. Baric pioneered a gene slicing strategy known as "No See'm." This technique makes it possible for scientists to generate "seamless reconstruction of an exact sequence" by removing tell-tale "junctions" formed by standard splicing procedures. This minimizes evidence of genetic tampering.
- Numerous times prior to the pandemic Baric collaborated with Zhengli Shi (AKA "bat lady"). Dr. Shi also carried out gain-of-function research in Wuhan without Baric's involvement.
- On April 16, 2020, NIH director Francis Collins wrote in an email to NIAID director Anthony Fauci, "Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive (lab leak) conspiracy." Fauci went on to assure him by saying, "It is a shiny object that will go away in times."
- In October 2021, NIH grudgingly admitted to having funded gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2018–2019. These experiments generated coronaviruses that made infected mice much sicker. Most importantly, these mice had been genetically engineered to express human ACE2 receptors.
- A 19-base portion of the SARS-CoV-2 genome coincides with the reverse compliment of 19-base genetic portion of US Patent 9587003. Most importantly, this portion of the viral genome includes the aforementioned furin cleavage site (12 of the 19 bases). No other virus in the NIH contains this 19-base sequence. The probability that this exact 19-base sequence appeared my means of random mutation is less than one out of a trillion.
- On Dec. 12, 2019, Dr. Baric signed an agreement to investigate "mRNA coronavirus candidates that were developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna" (emphasis mine).
These facts raise the following questions:
- Why is SARS-CoV-2 so ideally adapted to infect humans?
- Where is the missing link that preferentially infects bats and pangolins?
- Where is the missing link with a partial furin cleavage site?
- Why does RaTG13 preferentially infect mice and rats?
- Was RaTG13 generated in a lab to support the "natural origin" narrative?
- Do the benefits of gain-of-function research ever outweigh the risks, or is it just an excuse for illicit bioweapons research?
- What is the purpose of developing technology for removing evidence of genetic engineering if you are not trying to hide anything?
- Why did lawyers need to obtain a FOIA request to obtain documents showing that NIH funded gain-of-function research in China?
- Why did Fauci repeatedly deny NIH funding of this dangerous research when he was questioned by Sen. Rand Paul?
- Why did Collins and Fauci collude to suppress legitimate questions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2?
- Why did NIAID choose a world expert in "seamless" gain-of-function technology and extensive ties to the lab that generated the virus to play a leading role in vaccine development?
- How did SARS-CoV-2 end up with a compliment of a 19-base sequence from Patent 9587003?
- Was this 19-base sequence inserted by means of genetic engineering?
- Was this 19-base sequence "accidently" picked up when the virus was cultured on a patented cell line?
- If a patented cell line was involved, were virus cultures subjected to the process of serial passaging?
- If any of these last three scenarios occurred, did they happen with or without Moderna's consent?
- A viral genome contains a 19-base sequence owned by the same company that is later first in line to make the vaccine. What are the odds this happened by chance?
- Why does Moderna have such a cozy relationship with NIH?
Prior to February, the homology between SARS-CoV-2 and Patent 9587003 was discussed on the fringes of Twitter and Substack. When this discovery was officially acknowledged in late February, it got minimal coverage in mainstream media. When Fox News host Maria Bartiromo boldly confronted Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel on the air, he shifted toward the more general topic of a "lab accident in China" before awkwardly claiming that his scientists were "looking into it to see if it was real or not." Now with the war in Ukraine serving as cover, nobody in mainstream media has followed up and Bancel has yet to release any official statement on Patent 9587003.
Anyone who still claims that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature at this point is either a liar or a fool. The legitimate questions at this point are whether or not the synthesis and/or release of SARS-CoV-2 were the result of an accident.
After witnessing two years of lies that were used to justify unprecedented cruelty to children and the elderly, I am no longer inclined to believe that the pandemic was brought about by a series of careless mistakes.
Dr. Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science. His older articles with graphs and images are available here. His website on COVID-19 is available here.
Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.