The History of the Development of Coronaviruses as Abioweapon

1
2287

A Series of Twits Using Professional Analysis to Expose the CCP’s Wuhan P4 Lab and Their Key Coronaviruses Researches

Twitter-ID: @WlKD6iuxiZqBvm7

Using a professional view point, the long tweets will analyze and reveal the Wuhan P4 lab of the CCP and the history of the development of the coronavirus biochemical weapons.

At first, the research of virology includes the structure, classification, evolution and transmission of viruses; the development of the methodology for reproduction in host cells; the physiology and immunology and the interactions between viruses and their hosts; pathogenesis; techniques in isolation and cultivation; and the applications in research and treatment.

The purpose of studying virus is to eliminate viruses. Let’s use this as the standard to evaluate the CCP’s real purpose through their publications about coronavirus and other viruses since 2003.

1. Starting in 2003, the year of SARS outbreak, scientists began to find the possible source of the virus (I am not sure if they have other purposes). Therefore, these people (author names with star are leaders of the Lab), including Shi Zhengli, began to isolate viruses from bats. This article was the earliest paper that claimed they have isolated coronavirus from bats and published in Science in 2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16195424).

2. The second article was published in Journal of Virology in 2008, titled Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin (https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/4/1899.

The one thing needed to point it out is that both SARS virus and the CCP coronavirus in 2019 use ACE-2 receptor (on human cells) to infect human cells.

(Translator note: Wuhan P4 Lab held a ground-breaking ceremony in July 2016 and completed and certified in January 2018!)

3. This paper has three essential conclusions:

1. Viruses from bats can enter human cells through ACE-2 receptors.

2. Human SARS virus can’t bind with the bat’sACE-2 receptors.

3. If the small sequence (310-518, it is about 200 amino acids) which can bind with human ACE-2 receptor is taken out from human SARS virus and recombined into S protein of bats’virus,then the recombined bat virus can infect human cells.

This indicates they have masteredthe methods and techniques to transform bat virus to infect human.

4. Regarding to the importance of these experiments, the author wrote in the discussion that bat virus can’t infect human through human ACE-2 receptors. This indicated SARS was not derived from bats directly and there must have an intermediate host. Therefore, we should keep searching viruses from other animals.

5. What will I (or a normal scientist) be thinking after seeing this conclusion? I would find the preserved region from the S protein of bat viruses, because this part played important role during the virus evolution. It can also be used as targets for design and development of vaccine or therapeutic drugs for SARS to understand how to inhibit the virus entering human cells. But the first thing coming in the mind of these scientists of the Wuhan P4 lab was to isolate more viruses from more wild animals.

6. Can isolating more viruses proof its intermediate hosts? For example, you isolate a virus from X (for example, one of the Zhongnanhai’s senior CCP leaders) can infect both human and bats. This could only indicate there exists an evolution path from bat virus to SARS virus and you would never be able to infer the SARS virus came from X. So, I believe this is just their excuse to find various viruses to enrich its biochemical weapons “arsenal”.

7. The highlighted part showed their plan to isolate more viruses in the discussion of the article.

8. Shi Zhengli’s team published another paper in NATURE in 2013, titled Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711). They isolated a virus from bats, a virus that can use the ACE-2 receptor to infect human cells. But is this virus really isolated from a bat virus?

9. Look at figure below, this is a comparison of the newly isolated bat virus which can infect humans according to the paper, the bat virus previously found (right of the yellow vertical line, such as Rs672 and its right), and the human SARS virus (left to the yellow line, such as GZ02 to SZ3)

10. Look at the similarities of the ORF7a, ORF7b, and ORF3 (at bottom part of the chart). This indicated that this newly isolated virus is more similar to the bat coronavirus (right to thevertical yellow line showing larger percentile of similarity). There exist several proteins has 100% similarity which indicates it is a virus with a bat origin. The ORFs (S1 and S2) at the top part of the chart can be translated into S protein which is responsible for binding to human cell’s ACE-2 receptor and these showed more similar to human SARS virus. Therefore, the virus demonstrated an important characteristic of a “recombinant” virus.

11. Did the recombination happen through nature evolution and then be isolated from bats or did the recombination was man-made in CCP’s P4 lab but was reported as if isolated from bats?

At first, Shi Zhengli mentioned in the last article that SARS virus can’t enter bat cells through bat ACE-2 receptors. This inferred that human ACE-2 receptors and bat ACE-2 receptor have significant differentstructures. So, even ifthe bat virus evolved to have the ability to bind with bat ACE-2 receptors, it is still hard to enter human cells via human ACE-2 receptors.

12. Assuming the virus indeed evolved in bats naturally and can infect human cells through humans ACE-2 receptors. Hence, a similar S protein is required to be similar to that of the SARS virus since both use ACE-2 receptors to enter human cells. The next question is why all ORF-3A and ORF-3B as well as S protein showed much similar to those of the human SARS virus than those of the bat viruses.

13. Let me help the CCP to provide an explanation here. Bats modified their own DNA and was infected with SARS virus, and then they flew to Yunan province. After 10 years, the recombined virus in the bat was accidently found in Wuhan’s P4 lab of the CCP. How likely is this?

So, from my point of view, this is a virus recombined in lab. The publication was just foreshadowing this biochemical weapon that in future, they can refer to the paper for supporting evidence that the virus does exist in bats in nature environment.

14. What is the next step after the CCP holds this biochemical weapon? Of course, the next step is to test it out in the real life for its effectiveness. And then the following article is published.

They found someone to help for the verification (why would anyone want to collaborate with them? This is because the publication in high impact journal can tempt some scientists. )

15. This paper was completed at University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and published in 2015, titled A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence (https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985). This virus was recombined with S protein, mentioned in 2013 Shi Zhengli’s paper, and adapted SARS virus that can infect mouse. The virus can infect human very easily. It was found in this mouse experiment that the virus cause lung damage to mice. This research caused concern from other scientists because of its potential risk of outbreak by leaking “artificially”.

16. The CCP media attacked the US insanely recently and said it was recombined in the US lab referring to this article. The truth is the most critical S protein was given by Shi Zhengli and was from the research in Shi Zhengli’s 2013 paper.

17. In summary, these are 4 key articles describing the history of the development this coronavirus biochemical weapon. They completed: 1. The discovery of bat viruses
2. The recombination technology
3. The construction of recombined virus and the cover-up for its existence
4. Animal testing model. This is a streamline from scratch to delivery.

18. My last 2 points here are:

  1. All data I referred here were all from papers published by the CCP’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. They can’t cover up the truth and they know how much data they haven’t been published.
  2. The creation of CCP’s biochemical weapon is definitely not an individual action. Wang Qishan and Guo Deyin, theactual bosses of the Wuhan P4 lab, not Shi Zhengli, should be held accountable for its ultimate liability.

Reference

Twitter Link

Edited by HimalayaHawkSquad

2
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JEC
JEC
5 months ago

Found the exact same documents separate from this article. Whats critical in the “Bat SARS-Like” article is the wording..IN VITRO. That mean laboratory testing, and the test site was Wuhan, China, a site 300 meters from the ‘wet market.’

0