There can be no disputing that theĀ legacy media has been far more a source of propaganda, lies, and misinformation about the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which I label the CCPVirus, as this virus is a gift of the Chinese Communist Party to the world) and the related disease, COVID19, than they have been a source of relevant information. They have promoted a quasi-official narrative, and undermine competing narratives with suppression and censorship, calling such narratives "conspiracy theory" or even "misinformation" (irony abounds).
Facts and evidence are stubborn things, however, and never quite so easily dismissed. Eventually even the legacy media must bow to the inevitable and acknowledge when "conspiracy theory" has become substantive truth. Reluctantly, this they have done with theories which contradict the preferred narrative on the origins of CCPVirus and assert the virus is a man-made artifact from a Chinese virology lab.
The refusal of these theories to simply fade away leaves us with but one conclusion abut the CCPVIrus pandemic: it is a Chinese bioweapon, a deliberate effort by the Chinese Communist Party to inflict egregious harm upon the rest of the world.
In The Beginning, It Came From Bats...Or So We Thought
Initially, the legacy media coalesced around a number of "studies" purporting to show a "zoonotic" origin for the CCPVirus. Laboratory origins were specifically discounted.
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for human ACE2 receptor binding with an efficient binding solution different to that which would have been predicted. Further, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one would expect that one of the several reverse genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would have been used. However, this is not the case as the genetic data shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in a non-human animal host prior to zoonotic transfer, and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage in culture could have given rise to the same observed features.
It came from bats, we were told. Perhaps it passed through some other animal first, but CCPVirus was a naturally occurring pathogen, and all the evidence supported that.
A "wet" animal market such as in Wuhan, China
However, even this early attempt at shaping the narrative was forced to make an essential admission--these researchers could not rule out laboratory involvement in the genesis of the virus (emphasis added).
The genomic features described here may in part explain the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although genomic evidence does not support the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here, and it is unclear whether future data will help resolve this issue. Identifying the immediate non-human animal source and obtaining virus sequences from it would be the most definitive way of revealing virus origins.
What the researchers in this early study did not want to concede was that mere inspection of a virus' genetic sequences alone can not establish with absolute certainty that those sequences are the product of natural mutation and evolution, and not the result of human intervention. Quite simply, even the staunchest supporters of the zoonotic theory of CCPVirus origin were forced to admit that they truly did not know. Their conclusions were educated guesses but no more than that.
This lack of a definitive response and a definitive conclusion no doubt contributed to the refusal of the "conspiracy theory" of a lab origin for the virus to fade away into obscurity.
In The Beginning, Questions About The Wuhan Labs
At the same time the "zoonotic" researchers were being promoted by the legacy media, alternative media sites such as ZeroHedge were highlighting very real questions about Wuhan's virology labs, and their long term interest in bat coronaviruses.
In light of growing speculation, most of it within less than official circles, that the official theory for the spread of the Coronavirus epidemic, namely because someone ate bat soup at a Wuhan seafood and animal marketĀ is a fabricated farce, and that the real reason behind the viral spread is because a weaponized version of the coronavirus (one which may have originally been obtained from Canada), was released by Wuhan's Institute of Virology (accidentally or not), a top, level-4 biohazard lab which was studying "the world's most dangerous pathogens", perhaps it would be a good idea for the same Wuhan Institute of Virology to remove the following "help wanted" notice, posted on November 18, 2019, according to which the institute is seeking to hire one or two post-doc fellows, who will use "bats to research the molecular mechanism that allows Ebola and SARS-associated coronaviruses to lie dormant for a long time without causing diseases."Ā
This interest in the truth about the CCPVirus' origins would get ZeroHedge falsely accused by BuzzFeed and then subsequently banned from Twitter, but their journalism has withstood the test of time--researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had not only studied bat coronaviruses for some time, but were actively seeking graduate students to participate in that research as late as December, 2019.
Online job posting from the Wuhan Institute of VirologyĀ for graduate assitants to participate in bat virus research.
Questions Persist
By mid-March, the questions regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its research activities had increased to where they simply could not be ignored, as US intelligence officials revised their earlier assessments of the CCPVirus to include serious consideration of the lab's involvement.
Just one day after the U.S. surpassed China to become the country with the highest number of Covid-19 cases, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency updated its assessment of the origin of the novel coronavirus to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from an infectious diseases lab, Newsweek has learned.Ā
The report, dated March 27 and corroborated by two U.S. officials, reveals that U.S. intelligence revised its January assessment in which it "judged that the outbreak probably occurred naturally" to now include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged "accidentally" due to "unsafe laboratory practices" in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where the pathogen was first observed late last year. The classified report, titled "China: Origins of COVID-19 Outbreak Remain Unknown," ruled out that the disease was genetically engineered or released intentionally as a biological weapon.
While still reluctant to speculate on the possibility the Wuhan Institute had engineered the virus, the potential for a containment breach within the lab was no longer an outlandish "conspiracy theory" worthy of banning its adherents from social media.
In large part this narrative change occurred because too many of the early CCPVirus victims in Wuhan had no contact with the "wet" animal market presumed to be where the outbreak began. Without that clear origin point, China's denials of a lab origin could not be grounded in provable fact.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology's focus on coronavirus research, and in particular on "gain of function" studies looked on with disfavor by many virologists, did not help China's case.
By March, the wild-virus theory was still the most likely explanation of the origin of SARS-CoV-2--but it was starting to look a little ragged around the edges. For one thing, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not far from the animal markets in downtown Wuhan, houses the world's largest collection of coronaviruses from wild bats, including at least one virus that bears a resemblance to SARS-CoV-2. What's more, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists have for the past five years been engaged in so-called "gain of function" (GOF) research, which is designed to enhance certain properties of viruses for the purpose of anticipating future pandemics. Gain-of-function techniques have been used to turn viruses into human pathogens capable of causing a global pandemic.
Ironically, much of this research was part of an international effort in the aftermath of SARS to steal a march on the next potential pandemic pathogen.
This is no nefarious secret program in an underground military bunker. The Wuhan lab received funding to do this work in part from a ten-year, $200 million international program called PREDICT, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and other countries. Similar work, funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, has been carried out in dozens of labs throughout the world. Some of this research involves taking deadly viruses and enhancing their ability to spread quickly through a populationāresearch that took place over the objections of hundreds of scientists, who have warned for years of the program's potential to cause a pandemic.
Is CCPVirus the "accidental pandemic" so many researchers feared? The question is seductively subversive. The question can not be answered in the negative.
Certainly the behavior of the Wuhan Institute itself invites the question. Why would the Institute take out a patent on Remdesivir, a drug first developed for Ebola with applications in treating coronaviruses, even before China admitted to the world the Wuhan outbreak was out of control and quarantined the entire city?
In January of this year, a few months ago as the coronavirus was first being reported in China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology applied for a patent on a US drug, Remdesivir, used for the treatment of Ebola and coronavirus infections.Ā Ā
Such behavior in hindsight makes the previously mundane support for PREDICT by the National Institutes of Health, which resulted in NIH funding the Wuhan Institute's research with grants of almost $4 million, seem quite scandalous.
Poor Science, Weak Scientists, And Worse Lab Controls
Even before the CCPVirus pandemic, the Wuhan Institute was the subject of a good deal of controversy, with more than a few reports calling into question its lab practices and the efficacy of its safety protocols. In 2018, just three years after the Institute achieved a BSL4 certification, a US diplomatic delegation visited the Institute and their findings resulted in two diplomatic cables voicing strong concern over the lab and its operations:
What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the labās work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.
Not only was the lab arguably poorly run, but it was engaged in research specifically on potential SARS-like pathogens and their pandemic potential. One of their leading researchers, Shi Zhengli, had been collecting bat coronaviruses for years, specifically looking for SARS analogs.
Shi Zhengli
As the cable noted, the U.S. visitors met with Shi Zhengli, the head of the research project, who had been publishing studies related to bat coronaviruses for many years. In November 2017, just before the U.S. officialsā visit, Shiās team had published research showing that horseshoe bats they had collected from a cave in Yunnan province were very likely from the same bat population that spawned the SARS coronavirus in 2003.
What makes Dr. Shi's work of particular note, and what is particularly damning to China, is that it involved "gain of function" research, research which was explicitly banned by the US in 2014.
The research was designed to prevent the next SARS-like pandemic by anticipating how it might emerge. But even in 2015, other scientists questioned whether Shiās team was taking unnecessary risks. In October 2014, the U.S. government had imposed a moratorium on funding of any research that makes a virus more deadly or contagious, known as āgain-of-functionā experiments.
Gain Of Function: The Quest For The Frankenvirus
The theory behind "gain of function" research is that by studying how a virus actually mutates into a form able to infect human hosts and then pass human to human, virologists can anticipate future pandemic pathogens and be ready with potential therapies and vaccines. The idea and the controversy behind gain of function is largely the product of Ron Fouchier, a researcher at Erasmus University, and his efforts in 2009 to explore how H5N1 avian influenza might mutate into a human-transmissible form.
The continuing controversy over GOF studies was sparked by H5N1 studies led by Fouchier and Kawaoka a couple years ago. Fouchier's team used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to develop a mutant H5N1 virus that could spread among the animals without direct contact. Kawaoka's group used a slightly different approach and created an H5N1-H1N1 reassortant virus that was likewise capable of airborne spread in ferrets.
While Fouchier was successful in creating a specific hybrid influenza strain that was transmissible among ferrets (ferrets are often used as "stand ins" for humans in this sort of research, as they tend to be susceptible to similar diseases), other researchers were disturbed by this "Frankenvirus" approach to virology. Creating infectious disease seemed a paradoxical path towards eradicating infectious disease.
When preliminary word of the two studies leaked out in late 2011, it triggered a review by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), given the roughly 60% fatality rate in known human H5N1 cases. Out of concern that publishing the full details of the studies could lead to the release of a dangerous virus, the board recommended in December 2011 that key details be stripped from the papers before publication.
Nor was the concern purely hypothetical. There are virologists who suspect the H1N1 influenza strain that first emerged in 1977 and produced the 2009 pandemic may itself have been the product of an accidental lab release.
Lipsitch and Galvani assert that there is a "quantifiable possibility" that novel viruses produced in GOF studies like Fouchier's and Kawaoka's could be accidentally or deliberately released. Arguing that this risk is not merely hypothetical, they cite the suggestion that the H1N1 flu strain that circulated globally from 1977 until 2009 originated in a laboratory accident.
Moreover, the purported benefits of GOF research were directly challenged in 2014.
They say vaccine developers have denied the vaccine claim, noting that many vaccines have been developed without "a detailed molecular understanding of transmission." Further, the authors question the rationale that creating a potentially pandemic strain of H5N1 would be justified because it could permit the production of vaccines against that strain.
The net effect of the controversy surrounding GOF research was the US moratorium on such research. Given that moratorium, on what authority the NIH funded PREDICT--which explicitly utilized GOF--is uncertain.
The HIV Connection--Fact Or Fantasy?
One of the more controversial claims about the CCPVirus has been the reported appearance of HIV RNA sequences within the genome. In early February, a team of researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi released a non-peer-reviewed paper purporting to show a connection to the AIDS virus.
We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this virus
"With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus," explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-FranƧois Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, ā¦ the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.
Not only does Professor Montagnier validate the Indian research team's findings, he asserts this link to HIV can only be man-made.
In a challenging question Dr Jean-FranƧois Lemoine inferred that the coronavirus under investigation may have come from a patient who is otherwise infected with HIV. No, āsays Luc Montagnier,ā in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.
If Professor Montagnier is correct, the HIV-related genetic sequences are a "smoking gun" proving the CCPVirus was deliberately created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The key word in all of this is "if". While Dr. Montagnier is undeniably a leading authority--perhaps theĀ leading authority--on HIV, even his opinion that certain gene sequences within the CCPVirus came from HIV1 is still just an opinion. Testimonial evidence (opinion) can be quite compelling but it is never the same as fact. Regarding the presence of HIV sequences within CCPVirus, other researchers have argued that the sequences are not unique to HIV.
Essentially, the scientists found that yes, there are some additions in the nCoV coronavirus originating in Wuhan that other coronaviruses donāt have, which are similar to pieces of sequence found in HIV. But, the kicker here is that these pieces of genetic code are also found in countless other viruses and thereās no reason to believe they specifically came from HIV, at all.Ā
"The authors compared very short regions of proteins in the novel coronavirus and concluded that the small segments of proteins were similar to segments in HIV proteins. Comparing very short segments can often generate false positives and it is difficult to make these conclusions using small protein segments," said Banerjee.
Thus, while Professor Montagnier's assertion the CCPVirus was engineered in a lab is intriguing and impossible to ignore, the fundamental challenges to the accuracy of the underlying research leave his assertion well short of being a damning indictment of China or the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Smoking Gun?
While Professor Montagnierās HIV claims about CCPVirus are problematic, we may yet have the necessary āsmoking gunā needed for even the legacy media to declare the CCPVirus a man-made bioweapon.Ā After months of simmering just beneath the surface, the "lab manufacture" question resurfaces again, this time in the form of a Chinese doctor and virologist,Ā Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who presents aĀ detailed argumentĀ for the CCPVirus having been deliberately engineered in a laboratory--presumably one situated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.
I will inject a vital disclaimer here: I am not a virologist, and do not claim to critique the scientific evidences presented in Dr. Li's paper. Those with the proper education and background will have to speak to the quality of her research. However, her assertions are pertinent to any discussion of CCPVirus, and their existence must not be ignored.
Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to being a result of natural evolution. The alternative theory we suggest is that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template. The Spike protein, especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect humans. This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus. These transformations have then staged the SARSCoV-2 virus to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen.Ā
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.Ā
Within the paper itself, she presents not one but three lines of evidence indicative of a lab origin for the CCPVirus. Some of these evidences have been presented elsewhere, but her presentation synthesizes these evidences and provides documentation to substantiate them.
While we cannot here comment on the accuracy of her research, we can and should examine the credentials of Dr. Li herself. Part of any consideration of how trustworthy we should regard her claims hinges on her possessing the relevant background and experience to speak knowledgeably on these matters. She most assuredly ābrings receiptsā to support her claimsābut is she the sort of person whom we should regard as credible? Her curriculum vitae suggests the answer to that question is āYesā.
Dr. Li is both an MD and a PhD, having been a researcher at the University of Hong Kong for a number of years. She has published fourteen papers covering several aspects of respiratory viruses, including influenza virus as well as on SARS and CCPVirus. Her work has been cited by other researchers 573 times.Ā
Given the citations made of her other research, and given her position within a research faculty clearly acknowledged by the international community to be of substance and significance, it would be fatuous to dismiss Dr. Li as anything but a serious and substantial expert on infectious respiratory disease. While credentials alone cannot guarantee her research conclusions are correct, her credentials do require us to take her research seriously, and to consider her conclusion soberly.
Her credentials also make it difficult to dismiss her stated fears for her own life and her reasons for abruptly leaving Hong Kong in April of this year and fleeing to America, where she now resides.Ā In an appearance on the British interview show "Loose Women",Ā Dr. Li states that she fled Hong Kong in AprilĀ to escape persecution for attempting to call out Beijing for its handling of the pandemic and for covering up the true origins of the CCPVirus.
Dr. Li also commented on her claims that Beijing deliberately tried to cover up the outbreak when it first learned of the killer virus, effectively allowing it to escape China and infect the world. When she sounded the alarm about human-to-human transmission in December last year, her former supervisors at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, a reference laboratory for the World Health Organization, silenced her. After a while, she "could not keep silent", and decided to flee.Ā
In April, Dr. Li reportedly fled Hong Kong and escaped to America in an effort to evade persecution and to 'spread the truth' about the pandemic.
"From the beginning, I decided to get this message out in the world and it was very scary in the world because I'm a doctor and I knew if I don't tell the truth to the world I will regret it myself in the future."Ā
"I never thought this would happen when I did the secret investigation, I [thought] I would speak to my supervisor and they would do the right thing on behalf of the government."Ā
"But what I saw was nobody responding to that. People are scared of the government but this was something urgent, and Chinese New Year time, [I knew] this was a dangerous virus and all these things meant I could not keep silent, there are human beings and global health [at risk]."
Given China's documented efforts to conceal the truth of the virus and to weaponize its pandemic potential, Dr. Li's claims of persecution are impossible to dismiss out of hand.
For reasons about which we can only speculate, Big Tech has determined that Dr. Liās research is not to be scrutinized, not by lay people nor by experts within her own field. Given the extreme persistence Big Tech Social Media has displayed in seeking to slience Dr. Li, we are left to ponder the obvious question: āWhat are they trying to hide?ā
Ironically, the extent of efforts to silence Dr. Li only serve to lend credibility to her claims. If there were no substance to her charges, if her research could be shown to be demonstrably flawed, there would be no need for such suppression and censorship. An effective rebuttal would put an end to her accusations
Why The Coverup? While China quite naturally denies any culpability by the Wuhan Institute for either the genesis of the CCPVirus or its release into the world, their denials are fundamentally tainted by one unalterable truth: they are actively concealing as much information about the CCPVirus and its origins as they can.
In mid February, China issued a "wartime order" to put a stop to "lab leakage" of deadly pathogens.
In mid February, China dispatched Chen Wei, the nation's top biochemical weapons defense expert, to take control of the BSL4 (P4) lab at the Wuhan Institute.
Nor should the world ever forget the tragic case of Li Wenliang, who on December 30 attempted to warn the world about the CCPVirus, only to be silenced and humiliated by the Chinese government. Dr. Li would die from the virus on February 6.
Dr. Li Wenliang
Why is China being so doggedly non-transparent about this disease? Why are they suppressing research and silencing anyone who attempts to say anything at all about the CCPVirus? The extent of their documented efforts at censorship over this issue more than sufficient to establish beyond any and all doubt that China is covering up "something".Ā
China, by their behavior, makes clear they have a secret--perhaps several secrets--about the CCPVirus. What are those secrets?
A Bioweapon In Effect At The Very Least
China will no doubt continue to claim a lack of an actual "smoking gun" evidence proving conclusively the CCPVirus was created specifically as a bioweapon, designed for the particular purpose of doing harm to other nations. Big Tech Social Media will continue to deny any veracity to Dr. Liās claims, seeking to thus lend credence to that claim. The legacy media will, in all probability, treat Chinaās claim as conclusive, even though based on the evidence it is anything but.
However, at best Chinaās claim the virus was not manufactured merely renders the top count of a multi-count indictment against China unproven. China stands indicted and well nigh convicted of numerous other malfeasances and even crimes against humanity.
It is established fact that China was engaged in demonstrably dangerous "gain of function" research on bat coronaviruses, including several SARS analogs.
It is established fact the Wuhan Institute of Virology had poor safety protocols and a shoddy track record on compliance.
It is established fact that China deliberately suppressed and withheld vital information about the virus, revealing it only after the window of opportunity for containment had passed.
It is established fact that China lied about human-to-human transmission up until the Wuhan quarantine.
It is established fact that China sought to deprive other nations of their stores of medical supplies and personal protective equipment during the period they were lying to the world about the need for such items.
Moreover, in light of what is now known about the CCPVirus, by far the most probable explanation of its origins is that it emerged in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It quite possibly was deliberately engineered, or a "gain of function" experiment went off the rails in some fashion.Ā
Even if Dr. Liās claims should be refuted by credible counterfactual research, the body of evidence now available makes a lab origin for the CCPVirus a virtual certainty. Unless Dr. Liās claims are refuted by credible counterfactual research, we must concede that, in all probability, the CCPVirus was intentionly and deliberately created.
Whether or not China developed this virus specifically with evil intent, it is unequivocally established that, once the virus escaped into the environment, China acted with provably evil intent. Once the outbreak began, China sought specifically and deliberately to harm the rest of the world.
China may attempt to claim they did not weaponize the CCPVirus. Even so, China did weaponize the pandemic which followed its release.
China acted with malice and with forethought. That is enough to declare the case for CCPVirus as a bioweapon made.
14 September 2020: Updated to discuss Dr. Li-Meng Yan proofs of lab manufacture for CCPVirus.
16 September 2020: Updated to incorporate Dr. Li-Meng Yan's banning from Big Tech Social Media and to better frame the context of her research.
