iSmartNetwork Magazine The online magazine for you…
As were mentioned in “Bioweapon Labs Must Be Shut Down and Scientists Prosecuted, ” there’s mount proof proposing SARS-CoV-2 may have been divulged( whether inadvertently or not) from the biosafety level( BSL) 4 laboratory in Wuhan, China.
Secretary of State( and former CIA chief) Mike Pompeo has gone on record stating “the coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan, ” and has accused China of covering up the divulge. 1,2
I’ve also interviewed bioweapons expert Francis Boyle and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, both of whom have cited proof that strongly points toward SARS-CoV-2 being an escaped laboratory creation.
Why Was Wuhan Lab Shut Down?
Fueling hunches that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the lab in Wuhan — and that it began far earlier than admitted — is an analysis3 of commercial telemetry( i.e ., cellphone) data showing a significant and unusual reduction in device activity in and around the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s( WIV) National Biosafety Laboratory during October 2019.4, 5,6
According to the open generator telemetry report, 7 “Beginning on October 11, there was a substantial decrease in activity, ” and “the last time a device is active prior to October 11 is October 6. ”
Between October 14 and October 19, “they dont have” device activity in the area around the laboratory at all. “During this time, it is believed that roadblocks were put in place to prevent traffic from coming near the facility, ” the report states. What’s more, between October 7 and October 24, “they dont have” activity within the facility itself.
While not concrete proof of a biohazard divulge, the absence of cellphone traffic in and around the laboratory in October 2019 recommends the laboratories may have been shut down for a period, and the roads around it blocked off. The question is why?
Amid accusations that the World Health Organization helped suppress information about the pandemic on behalf of China, a review of its handling of the COVID-1 9 pandemic will be carried out, 8 although it is still unclear which torso will conduct the review and when. Many are also questioning just how independent such a review will or can be.
What Kinds of Experiments Were Done at Wuhan Lab?
A crucial piece of the lab release hypothesis that is missing from media reports and scientific ruling is a clear description of the experimentations being conducted at the WIV. WIV researchers have engineered chimeric viruses where the gene for the cell entryway protein( S protein receptor-binding domain) from one virus is replaced by that of another virus.
In a May 16, 2020, section, 9 Fabio Carisio, founder and editor-in-chief of the Italian Christian news locate, GospaNews, examined, in chronological order, experimentations involving chimeric superviruses conducted at WIV and the governments that funded them.
As described in one 2017 study published in PLOS Pathogens, 10 “Cell entry studies demonstrated that three recently identified SARSr-CoVs with different S protein strings are all able to use human ACE2 as the receptor, further exhibiting the close relationship between strains in this cave and SARS-CoV.”
The goal of these experiments has been to identify what determines a virus’ ability to enter into a human cell. The extension of these experiments is to infect living swine with these chimeric viruses to evaluate the factors that determine disease symptoms and spread.
One of the writers of that 2017 PLOS Pathogens study was Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, head of WIV, also known as the “bat woman, ” as she’s been China’s producing researcher of at-bat coronaviruses. 11 Zheng-Li and WIV have had a long-standing collaboration with Peter Daszak, Ph.D ., and the EcoHealth Alliance Inc. in New York City, which Daszak is also the chairperson of. 12
EcoHealth Alliance is a U.S. pandemic prevention group. Daszak is also chairperson of the Forum on Microbial Threats at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 13 a private nonprofit that advises government on scientific matters and is funded by Congress, federal agencies and philanthropic organizations. 14
Daszak is currently contributing a project to continue these potentially dangerous animal experimentations, 15 and it’s worth noting that he has also been one of the biggest and vocal commentators of the lab release hypothesis.
On a back tone, 60 Times recently reported1 6 the White House Administration cut Daszak’s funding in late April 2020 — fund that, according to Daszak, had been instrumental during Gilead’s development of the antiviral drug Remdesivir, 17 which is now being promoted as a therapy for COVID-1 9.
Remdesivir’s development was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases( NIAID ), which is led by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci is also a board member1 8 of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board( GPMB ).
GPMB is an organization that claims to be an independent monitoring and accountability body but is in reality part and parcel of the World Health Organization and The World Bank, and receives funding from the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation. 19 You can learn more about these sordid associates, and why they matter, in “Global Health Mafia Protection Racket.”
Another Paper Questions Natural Evolution Theory
As mentioned, a number of experts have weighed in on the science of SARS-CoV-2’s origin by analyzing its genetic code. Perhaps two of the clearest explanations on this have been published by Chris Martenson, 20 Ph.D ., and Yuri Deigin. 21 Another newspaper prepublished May 2, 2020, ahead of peer-review, points out: 22
“In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late period of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous modifications for human dissemination.
Our observations therefore seems that by the occasion SARS-CoV-2 was first identified in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However , no precursors or branches of growth stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected.
The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and avoid very near future re- arrival. Any existing pools of SARS-CoV-2 progenitors would be particularly dangerous if similarly well adapted for human transmission …
Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely.”
Anonymous Scientist Accuses Zheng-Li of Scientific Fraud
Getting back to Zheng-Li, she increasingly appears to be a key figure in the discussion as to whether SARS-CoV-2 is of natural beginning or not. January 23, 2020, she published a paper2 3 in the publication Nature, named “A Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin, ” in which she compared the genetic string of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses and delineated its evolutionary path.
According to Zheng-Li and her co-authors, SARS-CoV-2 “is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a at-bat coronavirus” called RaTG1 3. They further claim they could find “no evidence for recombination events was detected in the genome of 2019-nCoV. “2 4 The disturbing thing about this bat coronavirus, RaTG1 3, is that it appears to have the ability to infect humen.
These findings currently being rebuked by an anonymous — possibly Chinese — researcher who has published2 5 an alternative theory in a blog called Nerd Has Power and refers to him or herself as “A nobody scientist.”2 6
The blog post in question has been discussed by GM Watch, 27 Australian science columnist Joanne Nova2 8 and Steven Mosher, 29 president of the Population Research Institute( a nonprofit experiment group that discloses human rights abuses and the story of overpopulation3 0 ), who noticed … … that 😛 TAGEND
“Because he wrote his raw data, I and others have been able to check and substantiate his work.” Mosher goes on to present “a summary of one of the blogger’s critiques, in the hope of making the blogger’s general path of statement accessible to the layman.”
The unnamed blogger writes, in part: 31
“As stated in the paper, RaTG1 3 was discovered from Yunnan province, China, in 2013. According to believable sources, Shi has admitted to several men in the field that she does not have a physical transcript of this RaTG1 3 virus.
Her lab allegedly compiled some bat feces in 2013 and analyzed these samples for possible existence of coronaviruses based on genetic prove. To set it into plainer words, she has no physical proof for the existence of this RaTG1 3 virus. She only has its string knowledge, which is nothing but a string of notes alternating between A, T, G, and C.
Can the sequence of such a virus be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a string( less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one “youre trying” generate.
Once the typing is finished, one can upload the string onto the public database. Contrary to general perception, such database does not really have a way to corroborate the authenticity or correctness of the uploaded sequence.
It relies entirely upon the scientists themselves — upon their honest and consciences. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can contribute positively legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.”
Was Evidence for Natural Evolution Fabricated?
In other terms, this anonymous individual allegations Zheng-Li made the genetic code of the RaTG1 3 virus, and that it doesn’t actually exist. The blogger indicates only that had Zheng-Li in fact discovered a at-bat coronavirus in 2013 capable of infecting humans, it would have been a groundbreaking discovery.
Alas, she never wrote such a newspaper. Instead, she “made her fame in the coronavirus domain by publishing in Nature3 2 two bat coronaviruses( Rs3367 and SHC0 14 ), ” the unnamed blogger writes. 33 That paper, be made available in 2013, presented SARS was likely of at-bat root, and that it uses the ACE2 receptor for cell entryway.
” … she only needed to take one peek at the string of RaTG1 3’s RBD[ RNA binding domain] and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humen.
If Shi’s public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humen, how could she maybe overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG1 3?
If this RaTG1 3 was detected SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding more quickly and yet let the ‘less-attractive’ viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a string only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?
None of these shapes sense. These realities merely add to the suspicion — Zhengli Shi either was directly concerned by the creation of this virus/ bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both. Of track, these facts also add to the claim that RaTG1 3 is a fake virus — it exists on Nature( the journal) but not in nature, ” the anonymous blogger writes. 34
The blogger then goes on to dissect the genetic sequence RaTG1 3’s spike protein, which “reveals clear evidence of human manipulation.”( Again, Mosher offers a layman’s overview3 5 of the data .) Martenson3 6 and Deigin’s3 7 reviews of the viral genome likewise focus on the S2 spike protein, but they both focus on the spike protein found in SARS-CoV-2( not the RaTG1 3 spike ).
According to Martenson, the fact that SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein has a furin cleavage site is “the smoking gun” that proves it was created in a lab. I invite you to review his easy-to-follow analysis in “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus.”
If the Nerd Has Power blogger is correct, and the bat virus RaTG1 3 was actually fabricated in order to give the natural growth hypothesi of SARS-CoV-2 some credence, then the evidence for a man-made pandemic becomes all the more compelling. There’s also other evidence that raise serious questions about the origin of this pandemic virus.
Other Evidence of Manipulation
In an earlier blog post, dated March 15, 2020, Nerd Has Power explains the highlighted the importance of the S1 and S2 spikes of a given virus. 38 In that post, the blogger also details significant changes found in the S1 portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, “which dictates which host a coronavirus targets, ” whereas much of the rest of the spike is very similar to the bat coronaviruses ZC45 and ZXC2 1. According to the blogger: 39
” … the details of these changes and the behavior the human and the at-bat viruses differ from each other here in S1, in my and many other people’s eyes, practically spell out the beginning of the Wuhan coronavirus — it is created by people , not by nature.”
In my opinion, the strongest articles of prove so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 has become a laboratory invention. How it got released, however, and why, remains to be specified.
The fact that the people responsible would want to cover it up is obvious, nonetheless, when you consider that the penalty in such an occurrence could include life in prison for infringing the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.40
Read more: articles.mercola.com
