Expert Scientists Testify on Virus Origin

Two scientists have been known as as witnesses on the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis listening to, held June 29, 2021.1 Their testimony provides proof that clarifies the origin of COVID-19, which they imagine leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, on account of controversial gain-of-function (GOF) analysis.

Many have said that we’ll by no means really know the origin, in need of China confessing or a whistleblower coming ahead. But as Richard Muller, Professor Emeritus of physics on the University of California, Berkeley, said throughout his testimony, “We have a whistleblower, the virus itself.”2

Muller, who has labored on scientific efforts which have gained Nobel Prizes, states that the virus, which got here out of China, carried with it genetic information about its origins.

“In my mind, there are five compelling sets of scientific evidence that allow us to reach this very strong conclusion that, yes, it was a laboratory leak,” Muller mentioned. Dr. Steven Quay, the primary scientist to testify, got here to the identical conclusion that COVID-19 has a laboratory origin, primarily based on “six undisputed facts that support this hypothesis.”

A abstract of the proof, which they evaluation intimately within the video above, follows, within the hope that, by revealing the true origin of COVID-19, we may also help to stop future pandemics and associated lack of life.

‘Could They Have Come From Our Lab?’

Quay is a doctor and scientist with a formidable background, together with a whole lot of printed articles which have been cited over 10,000 instances. Quay holds 87 patents throughout 22 completely different fields of medication, has invented seven FDA-approved medicines — and believes that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory in China.

I not too long ago interviewed Dr. Quay and we’ll submit it quickly. But in his analysis paper of 140 pages, which is extra like a guide, he makes a powerful argument that there’s nearly no likelihood that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is from nature. How unlikely? Imagine all of the atoms within the universe after which think about looking for the identical atom twice. That could be way more seemingly than the virus coming from nature.

As early as December 30, 2019, there have been indicators. This was the day Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also referred to as “bat woman,” was instructed a few novel coronavirus that had brought about an outbreak of pneumonia circumstances near WIV.

“Could they have come from our lab?” Shi, who had been learning bat-borne viruses since 2004, together with SARS-like coronaviruses, puzzled.3 Since then, proof has continued to build up that COVID-19 seemingly emerged from a laboratory in China after having undergone some form of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in people, often known as gain-of-function (GOF) research. According to Quay:4

“In the final 18 months, we’ve discovered an intense quantity concerning the origin of the pandemic, however one in every of my frustrations is that virologists and science writers around the globe appear to wish to ignore what has been discovered and the inevitable conclusion it reveals.

As inconvenient as it’s, I imagine the proof conclusively establishes that the COVID pandemic was not a pure course of, however as an alternative got here from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and that it has the fingerprints of genetic manipulation for a course of known as achieve of perform analysis.”

Quay: Six Undisputed Facts Suggest COVID Leaked From Lab

Quay said that six undisputed information assist the speculation that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab.5

1. COVID Didn’t Begin in a Seafood Market — In the early days of the outbreak, China instructed the world that the COVID-19 pandemic started on the Hunan Seafood Market, a moist market in Wuhan, as a result of half the preliminary circumstances have been related to that location. This is harking back to different coronavirus outbreaks, together with SARS-Cov-1 (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), each of which started in animal markets.

However, “after 18 months, we know it [COVID-19] did not begin in a market in Wuhan for three reasons,” Quay mentioned. First, not one of the early COVID sufferers from the Hunan market have been contaminated with the earliest model of the virus, that means that once they got here to the market, they have been already contaminated.

“Four patients with the earliest version of virus had one thing in common,” Quay mentioned. “None had exposure to the market.” Second, not one of the environmental specimens taken from the market had the earliest virus both, which implies additionally they got here into the market already contaminated.

In addition, 457 animals from the Hunan market have been examined, and all have been destructive for COVID. Another 616 animals from suppliers to the Hunan market have been additionally examined, and all have been destructive. Wild animals from southern China — 1,864 of them, of the sort discovered within the Hunan market — have been additionally examined and located to be destructive for the virus.

2. The Virus Has Not Been Found in an Animal Host — Scientists have examined 80,000 samples from 209 completely different species, however the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been present in a single specimen. “The probability of this for a community-acquired infection is about 1 in a million,” Quay mentioned. “This is what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”

3. No Cases of COVID Were Detected in Blood Samples Prior to December 29 — If the virus had emerged naturally from a wild animal, a small variety of circumstances would seemingly have already been in circulation. But, “after testing 9,952 stored human blood specimens from Wuhan hospitals from before December 29, there was not a single case of COVID in any specimen,” Quay mentioned.

“It was expected that between 100 and 400 would be positive. The probability of this for a community-acquired infection is also about 1 in a million, but this is what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”6

4. No Evidence of Multiple Animal-to-Human Transmissions — With prior coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and MERS, 50% to 90% of the early circumstances have been clearly linked again to numerous animal-to-human infections. For SARS-Cov-2, 249 early circumstances of COVID-19 have been examined genetically and so they have been all human-to-human transmission.

For a community-acquired an infection, Quay mentioned, “This is the probability of tossing a coin 249 times and getting heads every single time. This is, however, what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”

5. SARS-CoV-2 Has Two Unique Factors That Point to GOF — SARS-CoV-2 has a singular set off on the floor known as a furin cleavage web site and a singular code within the genes for that web site known as a CGG-CGG dimer. “These are two independent levels of uniqueness,” Quay famous. Furin is a protein coding gene that prompts sure proteins by snipping off particular sections.

To achieve entry into your cells, the virus should first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit should be proteolytically cleaved (reduce). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would merely connect to the receptor and never get any additional. “The furin site is why the virus is so transmissible, and why it invades the heart, the brain and the blood vessels,” Quay defined.7

While furin cleavage websites do exist in different viruses like Ebola, HIV, zika and yellow fever, they’re not naturally present in coronaviruses, which is one purpose why researchers have known as the furin cleavage site the “smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. The whole group of coronaviruses to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs doesn’t include a single instance of a furin cleavage web site or CGG-CGG code, Quay mentioned.

Quay’s Bayesian evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 origins revealed that discovering a CGG-CGG codon pair within the furin web site of SARS-CoV-2 is “a highly improbable event,” and this can be utilized to regulate the chance that SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin to solely 0.5%, whereas the chance of laboratory origin is 99.5%.8

Further, since 1992, WIV and different laboratories around the globe have inserted furin websites into viruses repeatedly as a part of GOF experiments. “It is the only sure method that always works and always makes them more infectious,” Quay mentioned. WIV was additionally identified for his or her broad use of CGG-CGG codon pairs.

Quay wrote in his evaluation, “Scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology provided the scientific community with a technical bulletin on how to make genetic inserts in coronaviruses and proposed using the very tool that would insert this CGGCGG codon.”9

6. SARS-CoV-2 Optimized for Human Transmission — Quay’s final level centered on SARS-CoV-2 being preadapted for human-to-human transmission. “Specifically,” he mentioned, “the part of the virus that interacts with human cells was 99.5% optimized. When Sars-1 first jumped into humans, it had only 17% of the changes needed to cause an epidemic.” How was SARS-CoV-2 “taught” to contaminate people so effectively in a laboratory?

A generally used GOF technique to optimize SARS-CoV-2, Quay defined, would have been serial passage in a lab on a humanized mouse to develop human-like pneumonia. In quick, researchers infect the humanized mouse with the virus, wait per week, then recuperate the virus from the sickest mouse. That virus is then used to contaminate extra mice, and the method is repeated till you get a virus that may kill the entire mice.

The problem is to create the humanized mice to start the method within the first place, but it surely’s identified that a part of WIV’s GOF analysis concerned utilizing humanized mice for experiments to find out which coronaviruses may infect people, in addition to analysis to make viruses that weren’t in a position to infect people just do that.10

Other experiences additionally claimed that WIV was finishing up analysis infecting humanized mice with novel bat SARS coronaviruses in 2019, and years earlier video was launched exhibiting WIV scientists working with little or no protecting gear whereas working with reside viruses.11

What’s extra, in accordance with Quay, WIV acknowledged they’ve been working with humanized mice, developed by Ralph Baric, Ph.D., on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.12

Five More Signs That Point to a Lab Origin

Muller largely agreed with Quay’s testimony and added 5 factors of his personal, which additional solidify the excessive chance that COVID-19 got here from a lab.13

1. Absence of prepandemic infections — Like Quay, Muller discovered the absence of prepandemic infections in additional than 9,000 samples taken in Wuhan to be extremely suspect. “It’s unprecedented,” he mentioned. “It didn’t happen with MERS or SARS.”

2. Absence of a number animal — Muller introduced up the February 2020 Lancet letter,14 by which a gaggle of 27 scientists, together with Peter Daszak, who has shut ties to WIV, condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

If you take a look at The Lancet letter, Muller mentioned, they are saying you possibly can dismiss a lab origin as a result of China recognized the host animal and even went as far as to reward China for its openness. “This paper, The Lancet, does not read well when we look at it 16 months later,” Muller mentioned, noting {that a} host animal hasn’t been discovered.

3. Unprecedented genetic purity — Echoing Quay, Muller additionally mentioned that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive genetic footprint is not like that of different coronaviruses like MERS and SARS, in addition to that of different sorts of pure viruses. But, he mentioned, “It is exactly what you would expect if you’d gone through gain of function.”

4. Spike mutation — Muller additionally highlighted the distinctive mutations within the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. “The fact that there’s no known way for that spike mutation to get there other than a gene insertion in a laboratory is a very powerful argument,” Muller mentioned.

5. Virus was optimized to assault people — This is one thing that has by no means occurred in pure virus releases, Muller mentioned, “but it does happen if you run it through gain of function.”

While there isn’t a proof in favor of a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, “each one of these things is compelling by itself,” Muller mentioned. “If we had any one of the five things, we should conclude that the evidence strongly favors the lab origin.” And now we have not one of many 5, however all of them. Muller additionally shared an anecdote that occurred with a colleague of his — a narrative he says is “as horrifying and more frightening than almost anything else in my life.”

In the early days of the pandemic, he known as on an knowledgeable virologist pal to assist him evaluation literature suggesting there could have been a lab leak. The pal mentioned no, so he requested if somebody in his laboratory may do it. But the reply was no once more. Muller pressed him on the refusal, to which he responded:

“If anyone in my laboratory is discovered to be working on a laboratory leak hypothesis, China will label us enemies of China and the laboratory will be blacklisted and we will no longer be able to collaborate. We collaborate all the time with China. Nobody will take that risk.”

“The idea that China has managed to interfere, to break United States’ freedom of expression, freedom of investigation, freedom of thought through this collaboration is really scary,” Muller mentioned, calling it “one of the most chilling conversations I’ve had in my life.” Ultimately, nonetheless, the reality will prevail so long as the long-censored lab-leak idea and proof in assist of it proceed to go mainstream.


Source Link –

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six + nine =

Back to top button