‘Damning’ science shows COVID-19 likely engineered in lab

“Damning” science strongly means that COVID-19 is a man-made monster, optimized in a lab for optimum infectivity earlier than hitting the surface to catastrophic impact, two consultants mentioned Sunday.

Writing in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller pointed to 2 key items of proof to assist the declare, which has more and more gained steam after lengthy being derided as little greater than hypothesis.

The first pertains to the character of gain-of-function analysis, in which microbiologists tweak a virus’ genome to change its properties, corresponding to making it extra transmissible or extra deadly.

Of the 36 potential genome pairings that may produce two arginine amino acids in a row — which ends up in boosting a virus’ lethality — the one mostly used in gain-of-function analysis is CGG-CGG, or double CGG, wrote Quay and Muller.

Virologist Shi Zheng-li, left, works with her colleague in the P4 lab of Wuhan Institute of Virology
Quay and Muller said the double CGG sequence has by no means been discovered naturally among the many complete group of coronaviruses that features CoV-2.
Barcroft Media by way of Getty Images

“The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG,” wrote Quay, the founding father of Atossa Therapeutics, and Muller, a former high scientist on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who now teaches physics on the University of California’s Berkeley campus.

“That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it,” they wrote. “An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.”

The pair famous that the double CGG sequence has by no means been discovered naturally among the many complete group of coronaviruses that features CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

But, in what Quay and Muller referred to as a “damning fact,” it was discovered in CoV-2.

“Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG,” they wrote. “Why did it replicate the selection the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

“At the minimum, this fact — that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers — implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.”

Recently revealed emails by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s main infectious illness skilled, present that he was warned as early as Jan. 2020 that the virus might have been “engineered.”

In a Senate hearing last month, Fauci admitted that he couldn’t be sure that the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China — the nation from which COVID-19 sprang in late 2019 — didn’t put a pre-pandemic $600,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health towards gain-of-function analysis.

The stated purpose of the grant was figuring out whether or not coronaviruses may very well be transmitted from bats to people, a situation popularly instructed because the origin of COVID-19.

Beyond obvious indicators of gain-of-function engineering, Quay and Muller wrote in the Journal that the proof “most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.”

SARS and MERS, which had been confirmed to be of pure origin, “evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated,” the pair wrote.

By distinction, COVID-19 proved to be extremely contagious from the purpose it was first detected.

“Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread,” wrote Quay and Muller. “Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research.”

The two items of proof led Quay and Muller to conclude that the likelihood that COVID-19 was engineered ought to be seen because the main concept.

“The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration,” they wrote. “The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.”

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.