In early 2020, there was much talk about the origin of the virus, later called SARS-CoV-2. In an excellent and detailed article written earlier this month for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade described how two short articles published in March 2020, one in The Lancet and one in Nature Medicine , determined how this story would be channeled to the public.
These two extraordinarily influential pieces, each published under the title “correspondence,” were repeated over and over again by the mainstream media for a year. Both were clearly intended to shut down any discussion of the possibility that the virus originated in a laboratory .
In the March 2020 Lancet and Nature articles, it was immediately apparent that each was designed as a propaganda tool. Neither was based on science.
Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who had blogged on March 26, 2020 about the Nature article, suggesting that the article should put an end to conspiracy theories about the origin of the lab.
Either way, this study leaves little room to disprove the natural origin of COVID-19. And that’s good because it helps us stay focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene , practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated health professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this important public health challenge.
Why would five otherwise credible scientists sign their names to the Nature article, and why would Collins endorse the conclusion of the article, when the arguments presented in the article did not make sense . The authors had been coerced into writing the article as evidenced by emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci . Months ago, in another email obtained by US Right to Know , it was learned that Peter Daszac , executive director of the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance , was the lead but hidden author of the Lancet article.
Daszac was also the primary beneficiary of the article’s conclusion, that the virus evolved in nature, as his organization had been used as a transfer medium to send money from the Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. (Some might consider this method of grant-making to be a fancy form of money laundering.)
Daszac, like Fauci, earned more than $400,000 a year. He was also a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID origins research team and had been selected as head of the Lancet COVID origins research team, which now appears to be dead.
WHO and the Lancet appear to be co-conspirators, choosing Daszac to protect the theory that COVID evolved in nature.
Wednesday’s release of Fauci’s emails , obtained by BuzzFeed News through the Freedom of Information Act, helps to further clarify some of the mystery behind why five well-known scientists co-authored a fabricated account, which Nature magazine published, and which was then used as the basis for supporting the natural origin theory.
One of the emails clearly indicates that Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute, lead author of the Nature paper, knew he was participating in a scam. In a February 1, 2020 email to Fauci, Andersen expressed his own concerns about some of the “unusual features of the virus.” Andersen appears to be concerned that these characteristics suggest laboratory manipulation.
But Andersen then assures Fauci that these “unusual features of the virus constitute a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look very closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered. “
In another e-mail to Fauci , Andersen thanks three incredibly important people, Fauci, Collins and Sir Jeremy Farrar, for their “advice and leadership” regarding the paper. All three are medical researchers who distribute more money for medical research than anyone else in the world, with the exception perhaps of Bill Gates.
Fauci heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Farrar is the director of the Wellcome Trust . Farrar also signed the Lancet letter. And he is chair of WHO’s Scientific Advisory Group for R&D Projects, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO Solidarity trial, in which 1,000 unwitting subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine to sink the use of that drug for COVID.
Farrar had worked in Vietnam, where there was a lot of malaria, and had also been involved with SARS-1 there. In addition, he was instrumental in setting up the UK recovery trial , where 1,600 subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine.
Even if Farrar had no idea of the proper dosing of chloroquine drugs from his Vietnam experience, he, Fauci and Collins would have learned of such overdoses after Brazil told the world how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a chloroquine trial for COVID-19. The revelation was made in an article published in JAMA in mid-April 2020. Thirty-nine percent of subjects in Brazil who received high doses of chloroquine died, at the average age of 50. However, Solidarity and Recovery’s hydroxychloroquine trials continued through June, and stopped only after their extreme doses were exposed.
Fauci made sure to monitor the treatment guidelines for COVID that emerged from the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also canceled the first large-scale trial of early-stage hydroxychloroquine treatment after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects enrolled.
What does it all mean?
There was a conspiracy among the five authors of the Nature paper and the heads of NIH, NIAID and Wellcome Trust to cover up the laboratory origin of COVID.
There was a conspiracy involving Daszac, Fauci and others to push the natural origin theory. (See other emails in the recent drop ).
There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other idea as conspiracy theory. The publication of Collin’s blog is another part of this story.
Farrar was intimately involved in the two large hydroxychloroquine overdose trials, in which approximately 500 subjects died in total.
Farrar, Fauci and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials on the use of chloroquine and ivermectin drugs and other repurposed drugs that could have reversed the pandemic.
Are the four individuals mentioned here (Fauci, Daszak, Collins and Farrar) intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and inappropriate treatments used during the pandemic?
For more background, read two previous posts on this topic from March and April 2020. Dan Sirotkin noted and wrote about the Nature article and wrote lucidly about it.
But the most compelling reason for lab leakage is firmly grounded in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the new coronavirus responsible for Covid-19 disease.
So asserts an essay that is damning because it claims that sequencing of the COVID-19 genome strongly suggests that the virus was generated inside a Chinese laboratory. The work was done by Drs. Stephen Quay, CEO of biopharmaceutical company Atossa Therapeutics Inc, and Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley, in The Wall Street Journal.
In the gain-of-function overload case, other sequences could have been spliced. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as a “double CGG”) telling the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, it would get the same lethality by splicing any 35 of the other two-word combinations to get double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say by recombination, then one of those other 35 sequences is much more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.
In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means that the common method of viruses acquiring new abilities, called recombination, cannot work here. A virus simply cannot detect a sequence from another virus if that sequence is not present in any other virus.
Although the double CGG is naturally suppressed, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a lot of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence over the other 35 possible options: it creates a useful beacon that allows scientists to track the insertion in the lab.
Now for the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the new coronavirus, when mutating or recombining, chose its least favorite combination, the double CGG.
That the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers-implies that the leading theory of coronavirus origin must be a laboratory escape.
When Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the partial genome of the virus, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the accompanying data; was it omitted in the hope that no one would notice this evidence of the origin of the gain-of-function?
But within weeks, virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. The double CGG is there; you just have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein containing it “may provide a gain-of-function capability” to the virus, “for efficient spread” to humans.
There is additional scientific evidence pointing to the origin of CoV-2 gain-of-function. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2 compared to the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.
Both were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 did not work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted to an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “enhancement” occurred until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.
This early optimization is unprecedented and suggests a long period of adaptation prior to public dissemination. Science knows of only one way to achieve this: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus in human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to promote adaptation.
The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests an acceleration of gain-of-function. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus developed in a laboratory.