Chinese authorities have finally admitted SARS-CoV-2 did not originate in a Wuhan wet market,1 but that’s about as far as we’ve gotten to getting an official answer to the question about where the virus came from. Many valid questions are being raised, and have continued to be raised about the possibility that it is in fact manmade.
Evidence indicating it is an engineered virus include the Antiviral Research paper2 “The Spike Glycoprotein of the New Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Contains a Furin-Like Cleavage Site Absent in CoV of the Same Clade,” published in April 2020, and “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”3,4 posted in February 2020.
According to these papers, SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of SARS-CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of SARS-CoV-2’s genome.5,6 Attempts have, however, been made to introduce a furin cleavage site onto the spike of a coronavirus, and successfully so.7
While neither of these papers makes any claims about how this gain-of-function might have come about, others have pointed out that this novel function couldn’t possibly have arisen naturally. I summarized Chris Martenson’s8 and Yuri Deigin’s9 reviews of these findings in “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus.”
Others have pointed out that viruses can easily be manipulated and altered using low-tech methods that do not leave telltale signs of genetic insertion or interference. One such method is known as “passaging.” As reported by Independent Science News:10
“Passaging is the placing of a live virus into an animal or cell culture to which it is not adapted and then, before the virus dies out, transferring it to another animal or cell of the same type. Passaging is often done iteratively.
The theory is that the virus will rapidly evolve (since viruses have high mutation rates) and become adapted to the new animal or cell type. Passaging a virus, by allowing it to become adapted to its new situation, creates a new pathogen.
The most famous such experiment11 was conducted in the lab of Dutch researcher Ron Fouchier. Fouchier took an avian influenza virus (H5N1) that did not infect ferrets (or other mammals) and serially passaged it in ferrets. The intention of the experiment was specifically to evolve a PPP [potential pandemic pathogen].
After ten passages the researchers found that the virus had indeed evolved, to not only infect ferrets but to transmit to others in neighboring cages. They had created an airborne ferret virus, a Potential Pandemic Pathogen, and a storm in the international scientific community.”
Why SARS-CoV-2 Origin Matters
In a June 3, 2020, Telegraph interview,12,13 former MI6 chief (yes, folks the same MI6 in James Bond movies) Sir Richard Dearlove discussed a scientific report that suggests key elements of the virus were strategically inserted to make it infectious to humans.
According to The Telegraph,14,15 Dearlove “believes the coronavirus pandemic ‘started as an accident’ when the virus escaped from a laboratory in China.” If proven true, it could have significant economic ramifications for China. It may even be called on to pay reparations for the economic devastation caused by the pandemic around the world.
That said, it’s important to recognize that the issue of SARS-CoV-2’s origin is not a racial, cultural or political one. The real issue here is whether or not dangerous gain-of-function research is wise and whether it should be allowed to continue — anywhere.
For years, such research has been conducted all over the world, and it’s no longer a secret the U.S. funded the research in China that is now suspected of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of course, the U.S. doesn’t want to implicate its own agencies in the creation of this virus, which is why government officials focus on the source of the leak — China — rather than the fact that it’s engineered. Clearly, if it’s engineered, everyone associated with its creation, including those funding it, would be responsible.
So, please, when discussing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, let us be crystal clear on what the problem is, namely dangerous bioweapons/biodefense research, not the Chinese population or its government per se. We need to point the finger at ALL researchers — regardless of the location of the laboratory — involved in these kinds of experiments.
If SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered manmade virus, it is proof positive that gain-of-function research poses tremendous risks to humanity and that those risks far exceed any potential gain. Virtually all other threats to humanity — environmental toxins, pesticides, GMOs, pollution — pale in comparison to the danger posed by biodefense/bioweapons research.
Gain-of-Function Research Is Not Worth the Risk
“Gain-of-function” refers to experiments in which a pathogen is altered to give it new or added functionality, such as the ability to infect humans, when before it could not, or increased infectiousness or lethality, for example.
A decade ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.16
In reality, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses at all. As noted in the 2016 paper,17 “Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis,” even if gain-of-function research were to lead to improved and effective control measures, laboratory accidents or “malevolent action” in which souped-up pathogens are released can result in casualties numbering in the millions.
We’ve now also seen what it can do to economies around the world. Biosafety level 3 and 4 facilities around the world have suffered repeated safety lapses,18,19 so it was really just a matter of time before something got out that had the ability to rapidly spread.
As noted in a 2013 paper,20 “controllability of escape events is not guaranteed and, given the rapid increase of biosafety laboratories worldwide, this poses a serious threat to human health.”
Indeed, the risk of a laboratory release is rather immense. As reported in the paper “The Consequences of a Lab Escape of a Potential Pandemic Pathogen,” published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health in 2014:21
“The first Department of Homeland Security risk assessment for the planned National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas estimated a significantly higher escape risk, over 70% likelihood for the 50-year life of the facility, which works out to be a basic probability of escape, p1 = 2.4% per year.
The National Research Council overseeing the risk assessment remarked ‘The … estimates indicate that the probability of an infection resulting from a laboratory release of FMDv from the NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas approaches 70% over 50 years … with an economic impact of $9-50 billion.
The committee finds that the risks and costs could well be significantly higher than that…’ While the DHS subsequently lowered the escape risk to 0.11% for the 50-year lifetime, the NRC committee was highly critical of the new calculations:
‘The committee finds that the extremely low probabilities of release are based on overly optimistic and unsupported estimates of human error rates, underestimates of infectious material available for release, and inappropriate treatment of dependencies, uncertainties, and sensitivities in calculating release probabilities.’ We have more trust in the NRC committee conclusions, as they have no skin in the game.”
Yet another paper, published in May 2016 in The Journal of Infectious Diseases noted:22
“The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm …
Public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed … As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.”
Research Warns Vaccine Efforts May Be Destined for Failure
In his interview, Dearlove highlights a recent paper23 in the journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery by Norwegian and British researchers Sorensen, Susrud and Dalgleish.
Like the two papers previously mentioned, this one also claims to have identified inserted sections in the spike surface that allows it to bind to and enter human cells. According to the authors, “The SARS-CoV-2 spike is significantly different from any other SARS that we have studied.”
Importantly, Sorensen’s paper warns that current efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine are likely to fail simply because the etiology of the virus has been misunderstood. According to this paper:24
“These data reveal the biological structure of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and confirm that accumulated charge from inserts and salt bridges are in surface positions capable of binding with cell membrane components other than the ACE2 receptor.
We have also looked at the naked coronavirus spike protein as a concept for the basis of a vaccine, which we have rejected because of high risk of contamination with human-like epitopes.
Analysis of the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 shows 78.4% similarity with human-like (HL) epitopes. For the avoidance of confusion, a standard protein blast searches for functionalities and homologies to other proteins.
However, antibodies can only recognize 5-6 amino acids and therefore a 6 amino acid rolling window search for antibody epitopes was performed.
A search so tailored to match against all human known proteins will give a 78.4% human similarity to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, i.e if all epitopes on the 1255 amino acid long SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein can be used by antibodies then there will be 983 antibody binding sites which also could bind to epitopes on human proteins.
This is what we did and found … [I]n the present context, any vaccine design based on the whole Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 may not be immunogenic due its high human similarity compared to a vaccine with specifically selected NHL epitopes, such as Biovacc-19 does — and is.
Covid-19 candidate vaccines designed without appreciating these problems may run similar risks to those experienced with HIV vaccines that failed to show protection.
The possibility of inducing autoimmune responses or antibody-dependent enhancements, needs to be carefully guarded against because there is published evidence that an HIV candidate vaccine has actually enhanced infectivity:
‘Vaccinations were halted; participants were unblinded. In post hoc analyses, more HIV infections occurred in vaccinees vs placebo recipients in men who had Ad5-neutralizing antibodies and/or were uncircumcised. Follow-up was extended to assess relative risk of HIV acquisition in vaccinees vs placebo recipients over time.’
Such antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) has been observed for coronaviruses in animal models, allowing them to enter cells expressing Fc𝛾R. ADE is not fully understood: however, it is suggested that antibody-dependent enhancements may come as a result of amino acid variability and antigenic drift.”
They also point out that choosing an adjuvant after the primary vaccine design work has been completed, which is how vaccine development is typically done, may be yet another serious mistake that could make a COVID-19 vaccine really dangerous.
For all of these reasons, the researchers are now in the process of developing their own version of a vaccine, which will be produced by the Norwegian drug company Immunor AS. Dearlove believes this paper may finally shift the debate on SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
According to The Telegraph,25,26 in an earlier version the paper, which has reportedly been rewritten several times, Sorensen et al. claimed they had proven “beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID-19 virus is engineered.” That statement is no longer included in the paper.
Leading Journals Refuse to Publish Sorensen’s Findings
Perplexingly, the Journal of Virology and Nature both rejected the paper, stating it was “unsuitable for publication.” Meanwhile, Nature has accepted Chinese studies rife with conflicts of interest that denounce the claim that SARS-CoV-2 may be a lab-created virus.
Sorensen’s paper was eventually accepted by Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, a journal chaired by Stanford University and University of Dundee scientists.
Sorensen et al have also written an as-yet unpublished paper in which they reportedly claim SARS-CoV-2 has unique fingerprints that could not have evolved through natural means and are “indicative of purposive manipulation.” According to The Telegraph:27,28
“Entitled ‘A Reconstructed Historical Aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike,’ the new study, seen by The Telegraph, suggests the virus is ‘remarkably well-adapted virus for human co-existence’ and is likely to be the result of a Wuhan lab experiment to produce ‘chimeric viruses of high potency.’
The paper concludes: ‘Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before asserting that their evidence is persuasive, most especially when, as we also show, there are puzzling errors in their use of evidence.’”
Will COVID-19 End Vaccine Dogma by Inducing Mass Death?
A vaccine is now the most coveted “cure” for COVID-19, but mounting evidence suggests a mass vaccination campaign might ultimately end the vaccine dogma altogether by causing mass casualties.
As reported in “Newborns To Be Separated From Parents for COVID-19 Testing,” Bill Gates recently stated on his blog29,30 that “the COVID-19 vaccine might become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.” This, despite the fact that COVID-19 presents virtually no risk to children and only three children have died from alleged COVID-19 illness in the U.S. — and even those deaths, as of June 8, 2020, had not yet had COVID-19 confirmed as the likely cause of death.31
While many have expressed concern about testing the fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine on children, the University of Oxford in partnership with the drug company AstraZeneca have announced their plan to do just that.32 The vaccine, known only as AZD1222, is a recombinant adenovirus vaccine.
Phase 2 of the trial will include “a small number” of children between the ages of 5 and 12.33 Disturbingly, a meningococcal vaccine — not an inert placebo — will serve as the control, and participants are only asked to log symptoms occurring in the week after vaccination. According to Fierce Biotech:34
“… it will take longer to gauge whether the shot can prevent people from becoming infected with the coronavirus. The researchers are trying to accelerate that process by enrolling healthcare workers and other people who are more likely to be exposed to the virus.
Depending on the extent to which SARS-CoV-2 is present in the U.K., it is expected to take two to six months for enough infections to happen to show whether the vaccine is working.
Neither the university nor AstraZeneca are hanging around to see if that is the case before preparing for widespread use of the vaccine. The phase 2/3 trial is getting underway despite the university being yet to share phase 1 data, and AstraZeneca is already racing to equip itself to ship 1 billion doses.”
As discussed in “Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccine — What Could Go Wrong?” and stressed in Sorensen’s Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery paper35 discussed earlier, if the vaccine ends up having the same problem as previous coronavirus vaccines, they could make exposure to the wild virus all the more dangerous, actually raising your risk of very serious infection and death by inducing paradoxical immune enhancement.
Questionable Results Emerging in COVID-19 Vaccine Studies
Indeed, as reported in “Expect Coronavirus Vaccine Failures and Reactions,” we’re already seeing early indications of vaccine failures and severe reactions in adults,36 although none have reported outright lethal effects in the short term.
One vaccine, referred to only as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, developed at the University of Oxford Jenner Institute, uses a “replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver a SARS-CoV-2 protein to induce a protective immune response.”37
Six rhesus macaque monkeys received the vaccine and were then infected with SARS-CoV-2 28 days later. The monkeys that received the vaccine had the same amount of coronavirus in their noses as three unvaccinated monkeys used as controls.38,39,40 In other words, all the vaccinated animals were infected to the same degree as the unvaccinated ones.
Equally concerning, the titer of neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, was extremely low. While neutralizing antibodies from effective vaccines can be diluted by 1,000-fold and still be active, the neutralizing antibodies in this study could only be diluted up to 40-fold before becoming inactive.
This raises serious questions about its long-term effectiveness. If a vaccine stops working in months or weeks, then what’s the point? Despite all of these questions, the health law section of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is calling for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for all New Yorkers. As reported by NYSBA May 28, 2020:41
“The Health Law Section said a rapid mass vaccination plan should be launched in New York as soon as a safe and viable vaccine becomes available, citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
The plan should also prioritize vaccines for essential health care workers and vulnerable New Yorkers who are at highest risk of infection, the report states.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you have any concerns about mandatory COVID-19 vaccination at all, be sure to sign up for the National Vaccine Information Center’s Advocacy Portal — a free online communications tool that monitors vaccine-related state legislation and alerts residents when proposed bills are moving in their state.
They also provide fact-based talking points you can share when contacting your legislators. As a nation, we must stand up against government overreach and defend our right to medical freedom of choice.
By now, I’m sure you’ve all noticed that our rights are being ripped away at increasing speed, so even if you think a particular vaccine might be a candidate for forced vaccination, remember there is literally no limit to the number and types of vaccines the government can impose on us if we lose the right to choose.
There also will be nothing to stop them from seeking to expand mandates into other areas of medicine. How would you like to be forced to take a specific drug or have a particular medical procedure done if you’re diagnosed with a condition?
It is important to remember that, although the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, affirmed the constitutional authority of elected representatives in state legislatures to pass public health laws requiring vaccination, state legislators also have the constitutional authority to choose NOT to mandate vaccines and/or to include flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions in state public health laws.
Leave A Comment