DT EXPOSÉ OF CHINESE P4 BIOSAFETY LABORATORY – SEASON 2 (2)

0
106

DT excavator notes:

After clarifying the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, SARS coronavirus and SARS related coronavirus, our mystery scientist explained why the novel coronavirus must have originated from a laboratory instead of from nature. During further discussion he interpreted and analyzed news, information and other publicly available material relating to the coronavirus that DT unearthed, and highlighted the key points.

02 (discussion) Why SARS-CoV-2 could not have possibly be natural and must be a laboratory product?

Review:

DT: Before starting the discussion, let us review the key words and concepts from the last article.

  1. Novel coronavirus and SARS Coronavirus belong to the same viral family, the SARS associated coronavirus.
  2. Establishing that novel coronavirus and SARS coronavirus belong to the SARS associated coronavirus, and naming novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Novel coronavirus and SARS virus have a full-length genome sequence similarity of 80%.

While the S gene sequence similarity between novel coronavirus and SARS virus is only 73%

The pathogenicity of novel coronavirus is much more like a younger sibling when compared to that of SARS, with much lower rate of severe disease and mortality, but higher rate of spread. And novel coronavirus is more cunning than SARS virus, with its longer incubation period.

Novel coronavirus and SARS virus are different viruses.

Novel coronavirus is not a evolutionary or mutant version of SARS. It is not SARS 2.0, but rather a virus parallel with SARS virus.

Taxonomically they belong to the same family of coronavirus, but they are two distinctly different viruses. They are two siblings in the small family of SARS associated coronavirus.

Bat_CoV_RaTG13 is a manually modified viral gene sequence uploaded by Shi Zhengli. Shi claimed that the sequence was detected from this virus in 2013. But Shi does not have the actual virus.

Therefore, the closest relative to the CCP virus are the ZXC21 and ZC45, two Zhoushan bat coronaviruses mentioned in Luther’s program on the 19th of January.

In conclusion, the novel coronavirus is most closely related to ZXC21 and ZC45, the two Zhoushan bat coronaviruses exposed in Luther’s program on the 19th of January, 2020. Bat_CoV_RaTG13 is a manually created viral gene sequence uploaded by Shi Zhengli. Shi claimed that the viral sequence was detected from the virus in 2013. Shi however does not have the actual virus. The virus Shi claimed to have found in 2013 is nothing more than a viral gene sequence that was manually created. In other words, novel coronavirus did not come from a so-called natural bat virus found in 2013.

Before we finally conclude novel coronavirus cannot be naturally occurring, we have two fundamental questions to answer:

  1. How many coronaviruses are capable of causing infection in animals and in particular in human?
  2. When were they discovered and where were they found?

This has been comprehensively summarized in the table from the previous article

Let’s discuss in detail the SADS CoV coronavirus in detail. This virus began its outbreak in an a pig farm in Qingyuan, Guangdong on the 28th of October, 2016. It is worth noting that on the 17th of August, 2016, Zhao Yongfang, a key researcher from Laboratory of Macromolecules, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, died from an accident. The relationship between these two public events will be revealed.

Let’s have a look at a news report

Original title: Chinese scientists discovers a new coronavirus that caused over 20 thousand pig deaths, no evidence of human transmission

The ‘culprit’ of the death of 24,693 pigs in 4 Guangdong pig farms in 2016 has been discovered. Chinese scientists discover the virus that caused the fatal swine acute diarrhea came from bats. This research finding was published yesterday in Nature Magazine online.

Shi Zhengli, a researcher from Wuhan Viral Laboratory, Chinese Academy of Sciences said her research group found in a cave near the pig farm, a new coronavirus called SADS-CoV. This virus was carried by bats, the group found. The coronavirus has a gene sequence similarity of 98.48% to that of the 2016 coronavirus derived from the Chinese rufous horseshoe bats. “These pig farms are new adjacent to a hill. The hill is habitat to bats. The mode of transmission is through faecal contamination of the pig farm environment, finally infecting the pigs.” Shi Zhengli said “Currently there is no evidence of cross-species transmission to human, based on serological investigation of the pig farm staff, who had close contact to infected pigs.”

It is worth noting that there are many similarities between this virus and the SARS virus of 2003. Both originated from the same location, and came from horseshoe bat coronavirus. This shows that Southern China has a special status as a hotspot for new epidemics.

Associate Professor Ma Jingyun from the School of Animal Science, South China University of Agriculture said the research group had conducted three pathogenic tests to show that the virus is indeed the “culprit” causing the deaths of the pigs. At present, the virus can be controlled and prevented, with no new infections. “Due to over a decade of SARS research, this study only took 2 months.” Wang Linfa, the Director of Institute of Emergent Infectious Diseases, Duke-National University of Singapore, said “The successful identification of the viral source can be attributed to the cooperation and technological complementarity. A new generation of young scientists played a major role in this research.”

Shi Zhengli said that wild animals including bats carry various viruses as a result of natural evolution, a natural phenomenon. “This research shows that whether in the breeding industry and in the field of public health we would need to anticipate the need of prevention of zoonosis into human society. These pathogens exist in nature. But large scale outbreaks of infections can be prevented through early isolation, prevention and diagnosis.”

Xinhua News Beijing 5th April (Dong Ruifeng, Li Wei): A research group headed by Wuhan Virology Laboratory, Chinese Academy of Sciences recently confirmed that the “culprit” of the large scale outbreak of Swine Acute Diarrhoea in Guangdong a year ago was a new coronavirus originating from bats. The research shows mankind must actively monitor viral infections in bats and other wide animals. The findings were published online in the internationally prestigious academic journal Nature on the 5th of April Beijing time.

Between October 2016 and May 2017, 4 pig farms in Qingyuan Guandong experienced a major lethal outbreak, manifesting as acute diarrhea, vomiting and rapid loss of weight. This eventually caused the death of more than 24,000 pigs. Researchers studied viral sample from infected pigs and found that this is a new infection.

Researchers subsequently confirmed that the source of the outbreak was a coronavirus, and named it swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus, or SARDS virus. The genome similarity between this virus has a 98% similarity to that of the 2016 horseshoe bat coronavirus samples adjacent to the pig farms.

Wuhan Virology Research Institute researcher Zhou Peng said that SADS coronavirus is a cross species transmission from bat coronavirus. Meanwhile, based on the serological study on staff from these pig farms, there is no evidence that SADS coronavirus can infect human.

Wuhan Virology Research Institute researcher Zhou Peng said that SADS coronavirus is a cross species transmission from bat coronavirus. Meanwhile, based on the serological study on staff from these pig farms, there is no evidence that SADS coronavirus can infect human.

So is SARDS coronavirus a coronavirus? Is it the Zhoushan bat virus in Luther’s program? Let’s examine another paper:

Nature: Scientists discover that Swine Acute Diarrhoea Syndrome was caused by a new bat coronavirus

On the 4th of April, Wuhan Virology Research Institute, in conjunction with institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Institute of Military Medical Sciences, United Military Academy of Military Sciences, South China Agriculture University, Duke – National University of Singapore and Ecohealth Alliance of US confirmed that the cause for Swine Acute Diarrhoea Syndrome was caused by a new bat coronavirus. The research findings were published online on Nature, with the original title “Fatal Swine Acute Diarrhoea Syndrome caused by an HKU2-related Coronavirus of Bat Origin”.

In late October, 2016, a fatal swine disease outbreak was observed in a pig farm in Qingyuan, Guangdong province, China. Manifesting as severe acute diarrhea, vomiting and rapid loss of weight. the mortality rate of piglets under 5 days of age was 90%. Three other pig farms were subsequently affected. By May 2017, 24,693 piglets died. Based on clinical manifestations, researchers tested infected pigs for porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV- also a coronavirus), infectious gastroenteritis virus and other known swine diarrhea-related viruses. And yet during the height of the epidemic, extensive testing for other common swine viruses yielded no results, suggesting an outbreak of a novel disease. Subsequently, high-throughput sequencing results, virus isolation, and infection experiments on intestinal samples from sick pigs confirmed that the pathogen of the disease was a coronavirus, which was named porcine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus, or SADS coronavirus (swine acute diarrhoea syndrome coronavirus, SADS-CoV)

Following this, scientists provided clues to the origin of the virus by analyzing the genome sequence of SADS coronavirus: The SADS virus is highly similar to the bat coronavirus HKU2 genome sequence first discovered by the University of Hong Kong in 2007, and the full-length sequence identity is 95%. However, the amino acid sequence identity of the envelope protein (S protein) is only 86%. This shows that although HKU2 is not a direct progenitor of SADS coronavirus, they may have originated from a common ancestor, suggesting that SADS coronavirus is derived from bats. The research team then conducted SADS coronavirus specific quantitative PCR detection on 591 bat samples collected in Guangdong from 2013 to 2016. A total of 58 results were positive, and most of the positive samples were from horseshoe bats. One of the coronaviruses found in the bat cave near the pig farm has a genome-wide sequence identity of up to 98.48% and SADS virus, and the S protein amino acid sequence identity is over 98%. The results further showed that the SADS coronavirus that caused the outbreak of piglet diarrhea originated from the cross-species transmission of bat HKU2-related coronavirus (Figure 1). Serological investigations on farm workers who had close contact with sick pigs show no evidence that SADS coronavirus can infect human.

Figure 1 Genome comparison of SADS coronavirus and bat HKU2-related coronavirus (A) and evolutionary analysis of envelope protein S1 gene (B)

SADS has many similarities with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2002-2003: both occurred in Guangdong and were both caused by new-onset coronaviruses, and were originated from the horseshoe bat. Bats are natural carrier hosts for various coronaviruses. The discovery of SADS coronavirus and the study of its origin have confirmed that certain coronaviruses carried by bats can spread to domestic animals across species and cause serious diseases. The discovery, identification and monitoring of bat coronavirus with potential threats to human and domesticated animal are of great significance for the prevention and control of new infections, and the safety of the animal industry.

Figure 2 The geographical location of pig farms (A-D) and bat sampling sites (black bats) during the outbreak in Guangdong Province. Among them, a bat coronavirus found at the sampling site of CONGHUA and the whole genome sequence of SADS-CoV that caused the outbreak of the farm were as high as 98.48%. Foshan City, marked with a red flag, is the location of the first confirmed person with SARS in 2002.

The research was sponsored by projects such as the Pioneer B Science and Technology Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Natural Science Foundation of China, and the National Institutes of Health of the US. Zhou Peng, a young researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virus Research, Fan Hang, an assistant researcher at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, and Associate Professor Lan Tian of South China Agricultural University are the first authors of the article. Researcher Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Viral Research institute, Professor Tong Yigang, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Academy of Military Sciences, Professor Ma Jingyun from the University, Academician Wang Linfa from the DUKE-NUS Institute of New Infectious Diseases in Singapore and Peter Daszak from the Ecoheath Alliance are co-corresponding authors. Participants also include Taishan Medical College, Guangdong Institute of Biological Resources Application, School of Public Health of Wuhan University, Guangdong Laboratory Animal Monitoring Institute and North China University of Technology.

Abstract: Cross-species transmission of viruses from wildlife animal reservoirsposes a marked threat to human and animal health1. Bats have been recognized asone of the most important reservoirs for emerging viruses and the transmissionof a coronavirus that originated in bats to humans via intermediate hosts was responsiblefor the high-impact emerging zoonosis, severe acute respiratory syndrome(SARS)2–10. Here we provide virological, epidemiological, evolutionary andexperimental evidence that a novel HKU2-related bat coronavirus, swine acute diarrheasyndrome coronavirus (SADS-CoV), is the aetiological agent that was responsiblefor a large-scale outbreak of fatal disease in pigs in China that has causedthe death of 24,693 piglets across four farms. Notably, the outbreak began inGuangdong province in the vicinity of the origin of the SARS pandemic.Furthermore, we identified SADS-related CoVs with 96–98% sequence identity in9.8% (58 out of 591) of anal swabs collected from bats in Guangdong province during2013–2016, predominantly in horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus spp.) that are knownreservoirs of SARS-related CoVs. We found that there were striking similaritiesbetween the SADS and SARS outbreaks in geographical, temporal, ecological andaetiological settings. This study highlights the importance of identifying coronavirusdiversity and distribution in bats to mitigate future outbreaks that couldthreaten livestock, public health and economic growth.

Link to original paper: http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0010-9

Our conclusion after examining available information:

1、Although this virus is also a coronavirus, it is different to CCP coronavirus and Zhoushan bat coronavirus. It is a different type of coronavirus.

2、It is very plausible that this virus originated from a laboratory. The CCP laboratories have always been isolating bat viruses from bat. The chance of a bat virus spreading cross species to pigs is very remote. The CCP declares that they found bat virus with 98% identity to the virus that caused the swine epidemic. But it is more plausible that the bat virus came from a laboratory and was released, followed by a subsequent discovery announcement. If bat viruses are really that dangerous, why biologists studying bats who captures bats from caves, let alone those isolating the viruses for the CCP, do not get infected by bat viruses?

3、It is unclear whether this virus has been modified. The receptor for the S protein of this coronavirus is unknown based on available information. Without the knowledge of the receptor the S protein cannot be the target of a genetic modification. However, the possibility of the virus being modified cannot be ruled out.

Therefore there are two possibilities

  • A S protein receptor unknown (most likely), CCP test newly isolated bat viruses on pigs, Compared to the 2019 CCP virus it is a different coronavirus bioweapon system
  • B. S proten receptor known but deliberately concealed

CCP knew the identity of the S protein receptor but it is not published in papers. The targeted modification of the S protein cause the virus to acquire the ability to infect pigs (human).

It is possible that the same technique was used to modify the CCP virus.

Whatever the scenario, we can conclude that the 2016-17 Guangdong Swine Acute Diarrhoea Syndrome outbreak is more likely the result of a laboratory bat virus isolate, rather than a natural zoonosis from bats to pigs.

It would likely represent a virus transmission experiment and related research conducted on animals, participated by Fan Hang Assistant Researcher of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, South China Agricultural University, Singapore ’s DUKE-NUS Institute of New Infectious Diseases, American Ecological Alliance, Taishan Medical College, Guangdong Institute of Bioresource Applications , School of Public Health at Wuhan University, Guangdong Laboratory Animal Surveillance Institute, North China University of Technology and other teams (including international). We do not have enough relavant information to conclude whether this experiment resulted in human transmission.

On April 5, 2018, Nature published the latest relevant research online. Shi Zhengli, Tong Yigang, Ma Jingyun, Wang Linfa and the research team discovered the source of this SARS epidemic-a new type of HKU2-associated coronavirus whose genome is similar to the genome of a coronavirus carried by bats. This paper provides strong scientific evidence for our conclusion.

A key figure as important as Shi Zhengli emerged through this. His name is Wang Linfa!

Before further interpretation, a report dated 18th of March, 2020 drew the attention of the DT excavator

A new name emerged together with the name Wang Linfa: the coronavirus inhibitor. We will go into great detail in our subsequent discussion on Wang Linfa and the coronavirus inhibitor. DT would like to remind that there is a correlation between the new coronavirus inhibitor and the death of Zhao Yongfang in August 2016. (We will expose the link in our subsequent articles)

We will now revisit the table with a filter on non-bat origin coronaviruses

In this abbreviated version of the table, you will find that apart from MERS, almost all coronaviruses originating from bats are isolated and host reservoir were found in China. Hongkong accounts for most, with 6 viruses. And the Chinese Academy of Science system which includes the Wuhan Virology Research Institute only account for 3. Is this table a complete summary? Absolutely not. But IT IS in fact PERFECT TASK ALLCATION AND COOPERATION. The field team from Wuhan Virology Research Institute is responsible to the capture of wild bats worldwide. The laboratories in Wuhan Virology Research Institute carries out virus isolation. Part of what have been isolated is sent to the Hongkong team for testing. It was the isolation of a large number of bat viruses, and finding the perfect prototype for the development of genetic weapons in the isolated virus, which led to the deliberate concealment of a large number of coronaviruses that were discovered and isolated. To this end, another key figure, a virus tester who is as famous as Dr. Zhong Nanshan, Hongkong scientiest Yuan Guoyong comes to the fore. He is also a proponent of the theory that the virus is the result of zoonosis. But unlike Shi Zhengli and her bats, he favours the masked palm civet. Does he really believe the civet origin for this virus, as the famous civet theory early during the SARS outbreak? He uses ambiguous language to hint that the virus comes from eating wild animals whereas Shi Zhengli clearly points to bats. The similarity in history is striking.

Now, let us substantiate the claim that the CCP virus must have come from a laboratory:

If we were to substantiate the laboratory origin of the CCP virus, we simply need to analyse its formation. A detailed examination by a comrade of the whistleblower movement was published on (https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/). Comrade “Champion’s Daddy” provided an easy-to-understand version of this academic paper at https://gnews.org/zh-hans/169331/

Scientific interpretation

The Wuhan coronavirus is man-made

There is an article online <Scientific Evidence and Logic Behind the Claim that the Wuhan Coronavirus is Man-made> (https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/.Link shortened to <Coronavirus is Manmade>) which explained with facts and evidence from a scientific point of view why the CCP virus is man-made. This article is the most professional and most accurate article on the origin of the virus. Due to the amount of technical jargon and professional terms used in the article, it is difficult for readers without a medical or biological background. In this article, we will try to use easy-to-understand language to interpret the article above.

First, let us understand what is a coronavirus. To use an example, you may think of the coronavirus as a very, very tiny soap bubble. The surface of the soap bubble is littered with proteins. The viral RNA genetic material is what the soap bubble contains. A human cell can be regarded as a large soap bubble. The process of a virus infecting a cell is the fusion of the small and the large soap bubbles, allowing the viral RNA genetic material to enter the cell. The fusion process is not random. The S protein on the viral surface will need to combine with the ACE-2 receptor protein like a key fits a lock.

Once the viral RNA genetic material enters the cell, the virus does three things:

1. Using the RNA genome as a template to produce viral proteins

2. Using the RNA genome as a template to copy new viral RNA genome

3. Using the new viral RNA genome and the new viral proteins to manufacture hundreds and thousands of new viruses capable of infecting other cells.

To achieve the 3 steps above, the virus must use the host cells. This is the reason why a virus cannot replicate without a host cell.

Why are people saying that this virus is manmade? Anyone with a little medical knowledge would know this is because of sequence analysis. To put simply, comparing of the sequence of a new virus with a known virus will yield information on the origin of the virus. Sequence analysis can be comparing the sequence of RNA or that of proteins. There are no fundamental differences between the two techniques.

The author of <Coronavirus is manmade> compared the protein sequence of the CCP virus and found: CCP virus has protein identify of 86% when compared to the 2003 SARS virus. This demonstrate that these two viruses belong to the same family. However the CCP virus did not originate from SARS virus. The closest relative to the CCP virus is Zhoushan bat coronavirus (ZC45 and ZXC21). On the 19th of January, Luther’s whistleblowing program showed this information provided by internal comrades. The CCP virus has an RNA identity of 89% when compared to the Zhoushan bat coronavirus. In terms of protein level (all protein), the two viruses have identify of 95%.

When comparing each individual viral protein, the author of <Coronavirus is manmade) said: “For most proteins in the sequence, this level of identity is common, and some are even higher. For example, the identity of the E protein sequence is 100%, that of the nucleocapsid protein is 94%, membrane protein 98.6%, and S2 protein (the latter half of the spike protein) 95%. But, what is very strange is that the S1 protein, or the first half of S protein, is very different. This is where the identity of the two protein sequences suddenly dropped to 69%.

This uniform distribution (95% of all other sites and only 69% of a specific protein) is extremely strange from a genetic evolution perspective.

In fact the logic here is very simple, if the CCP virus is a random mutation of the Zhoushan bat coronavirus, the probability of mutation in each protein should be similar and be distributed evenly. It will not result in an S1 protein completely different to the other proteins. The S1 part of the S protein of the CCP virus has a sequence identity of 69% when compared to the Zhoushan bat coronavirus, while the other proteins have a sequence identity of 95%. This fundamentally rules out a random mutation. If this is not the result of random mutation, then the virus must be the result of gene recombination. Is the gene recombination a natural phenomenon? Before we answer this question, we shall have a look at the structure and function of the S protein.

Coronavirus illustration. The red portions are the spike proteins. Image from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

The author of <Coronavirus is manmade> then analysed the S protein. As mentioned in the start of this article, The S protein is a key of entry into the host cell for the virus. It is divided into two parts, S1 and S2. In the article, the author summarised S1 and S2 in one sentence.

The structure of the SARS virus spike protein and how it binds to the receptor ACE2 on human cells. The production of this picture is based on the published structure PDB ID: 6acj (2).

A) Three spike proteins form a trimer, and each spike protein is composed of two parts of basically equal length, S1 and S2.

B) The S2 part (blue) is responsible for the formation of the trimer, while the S1 part determines the binding to the cell receptor. In SARS, the receptor is ACE2 receptor of human cells.

C) This figure further reveals the specific details of the combination of S1 and ACE2. The orange part is the most critical peptide chain in S1 that binds to ACE2. This orange part contains all the details of combining with ACE2. The most critical amino acids are marked with a stick-like structure. This orange sequence is mentioned later, as if it was “replicated” from the spike protein of SARS, and then “inserted” into the key peptide of the spike protein of Zhoushan bat virus. This “operation” can directly lead to the production of a new virus that can infect people.

“S1 is the most important part that combines with the receptor on the cell.

You can think of S1 like the part of the key that enters the ‘lock’.

It must perfectly and tightly fit the inner structure of the ‘lock’ (cellular receptor), to open the ‘door’ to the cell.

S1 protein determines whether or not a ‘lock’ can be unlocked by a particular spike ‘key’

In other words, S1 protein of a coronavirus determines what type of cell on what host it will infect. Whereas S2, much like that part of the ‘key’ that the hand holds. It does not enter the ‘lock’ but yet it is an indispensable part of the ‘key’.

Next, the author conducted a detailed sequence analysis of the S protein. This part is relatively difficult for readers without some professional background knowledge, but can be basically summarized with the following figure:

In this diagram, colors represent sequence similarity. The Zhoushan bat virus is drawn in blue and the SARS virus, red. Most of the S protein of the CCP coronavirus is similar to the Zhoushan bat virus. Only the part that binds to the cell surface receptor ACE-2 is similar to the SARS virus (red part), and retains the chemical characteristics of several key amino acids that bind to the SARS virus and ACE-2. And this recombination is the key determinant that the CCP coronavirus can infect human because Zhoushan bat virus is unlikely to infect people directly. The author’s evaluation of the characteristics of this sequence is: “The most critical segment in SARS was” copied “and then” pasted “into the Zhoushan bat virus, thus creating the Wuhan coronavirus.

If we use the key analogy, the S protein of the CCP virus did not change handle, but the part of the ‘key’ that enters the lock was changed to something that can unlock a human cell.

Attentive eaders may have also noticed the green star between S1 and S1 in the schematic CCP coronavirus. This is the second trick of the CCP coronavirus. A furin cleavage site was inserted between S1 and S1 proteins. Regarding this cleavage site, the author of <Coronavirus is manmade> evaluates: “with this unique sequence, the S protein of Wuhan coronavirus can be cleave by human furin protease at this site.

This type of cleavage has been shown to enhance the infectivity of influenza viruses (containing similar spike proteins). It should be noted that, except for the Wuhan coronavirus, no other coronavirus in the same lineage (lineage B) or beta-like coronaviruses found in nature have such furin cleavage sites.” In other words, this cleavage site is likely to enhance the infectivity of the CCP coronavirus. Similarly, using the key analogy, this furin cleavage site makes the key easier to hold.

So, can this recombination happen as a natural process? We can then analyze the conditions that must be met for this to be a naturally occurring recombination.

Put simply, two recombination are required. When a Zhoushan bat coronavirus and a SARS like virus are in the same cell, first a recombinant S1 protein is accurately inserted (the red segment of the CCP virus in diagram 1). Next, the modified virus must co-exist with a virus containing a furin cleavage site and the furin cleavage site accurately substituted. I would like to also add that even if two viruses are in the same cell, the probability of genetic recombination between the viruses is very small. Because the principle of viral gene recombination is that an error during RNA replication, which itself is a small probability event, not to mention the exact recombination of a small exact segment.

The author evaluates: “Now, what are chances for both of these next-to-impossible recombination events to take place? My answer is NO CHANCE. This Wuhan coronavirus cannot be coming from nature.” I totally agree with this conclusion.

Next the author explained why he had to exclude some literature when analysing the origin of the virus. It is because these so called evidence (supporting a natural origin of the Wuhan coronavirus) are likely fabricated.

After the major outbreak of the CCP coronavirus, and especially after Luther’s program exposed the origin of the virus on the 19th of January, Shi Zhengli claimed that she discovered in 2013 a bat coronavirus RaTG13 that is highly similar to the CCP coronavirus. Based on the sequence analysis the CCP coronavirus is an evolutionary product of RaTG13. However, the author of <Coronavirus is manmade> mentioned in the article “Shi Zhengli has admitted to several individuals in the field that she does not have a physical strain of this RaTG13 virus.”

In other words, this so-called RaTG13 virus is nothing more than some ATCG sequence made up on a computer. It is extremely easy to fabricate this sequence.

To summarize the logic chain: First, Luther’s program exposed that the CCP coronavirus originated from the laboratory-modified Zhoushan bat virus. Subsequently, Shi Zhengli was suspected to be the virus maker. Against this background, Shi Zhengli had to come out and publish a “7-year-old virus sequence”, and yet she didn’t have a physical strain of the actual virus. Based on these evidences, we have sufficient reason to suspect that the sequence of RaTG13 was forged by Shi Zhengli by modifying the existing virus sequence. Therefore, RaTG13 must not be used as a scientific basis for analyzing the origin of the virus. Similarly, similar questions also apply to pangolin virus.

Based on the above factual evidence, the author uses scientific and logical methods to deduce and conclude: “The CCP coronavirus was made in the laboratory.”

Now we can definitively conclude that the CCP virus is made in the laboratory.

What kind of conditions enables the making of this CCP virus? SO EASY!

We will explain in the next chapter.

Edited by 【Himalaya Hawk Squad

0
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments