The Epoch Times has produced this well researched documentary on Covid-19. Both the genetic and and clinical data suggest the virus came from a laboratory source in Wuhan. The data on the high probability of lab escapes is given at the end of this article.
YouTube banned the documentary but has now re-instated it. Fortunately the documentary can still be seen at https://www.theepochtimes.com/coronavirusfilm so you can view it even if it is banned again.
The evidence has been clear for months that the Hua Nan market in Wuhan was NOT the source of the virus. The genetics show this: "Phyloepidemiologic analyses suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 source at the Hua Nan market was imported from elsewhere. The crowded market then boosted SARS-CoV-2 circulation and spread it to the whole city in early December 2019." (See Decoding evolution and transmissions of novel pneumonia coronavirus using the whole genomic data). In the first outbreak of Covid-19 in the first week of December 2019 three out of four cases had no connection to the food market:
A Chinese article in February that was subsequently withdrawn after pressure from China also considered that one or other of the two virology laboratories in Wuhan was the source because biosafety was appalling at these labs, the nearest genetic match to the COVID-19 virus in a bat lives 900km from Wuhan and they dont sell bats in the Wuhan market. See The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.
There have been two articles declaring that SARS-CoV-2 is natural. Both of these sources are heavily funded or controlled by China. One source looks like a Chinese Government publication and the other is the Scripps Institute which had been singled out as a threat to US security in 2016. See Note 1.
The really strange aspect of this story is that the UK broadcasters, especially the BBC, are protecting China. They are using a single "Science Daily" source quoting the Scripps Institute article that is inconsistent with much of the rest of the literature to claim categorically that the virus was not a lab escape and was entirely natural. All other research and reports on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 that point to a lab escape have been suppressed. This suppression of news is far worse than fake news.
The media disinformation campaign to suppress the truth about Covid-19 has been highly successful, they gave incredible coverage to the crazy ravings of a pop musician about 5G and Coronavirus to show that all theories about Chinese non-natural origins of Covid-19 are due to lunatics and are even lionizing Professor Shi Zhengli, the woman who demonstrated human infection by an artificial SARS-CoV-2 like virus and is probably at the centre of any lab escape. Who is running our media?
Stop Press: Professor Luc Montagnier, the winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering HIV says that Covid-19 is a lab escape - yes, SARS-CoV-2 has HIV protein inserted in it - see Evidence that Covid-19 was a bioweapon.
Some data on lab escapes
Labs keep quiet about escapes but here is some data about escapes
1972 Smallpox, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, England
1976 H1NI Influenza Fort Dix, USA
1977 H1NI Influenza, China
1978 Smallpox, Birmingham Medical School, England
1990 Marburg Virus Novosibirsk, Russia
1995 Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Faulty veterinary vaccine
2003 onwards six escapes of SARS-CoV from virology labs: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and four separate escapes at the same laboratory in Beijing
2003-2006 USA Report to Congress on releases of infective agents:
2 Newcastle disease virus
1 Francisella tularensis (lethal bacterial pneumonia)
2 Brucella
2007 Foot and Mouth Disease, Pirbright, England
The prevalence of UK and USA sources is probably a reflection of reporting rather than relative incidence.
Sources:
Threatened pandemics and laboratory escapes: Self-fulfilling prophecies
The risk of lab-created potential pandemic influenza
The Department of Agriculture and The Department of Health and Human Services Report to Congress on Thefts, Losses, or Releases of Select Agents or Toxins · February 7, 2003, to December 31, 2006
Most labs keep quiet about escapes, especially Chinese labs: "While the author has no evidence,it could be an unspoken policy in seasonal influenza research labs to not report infections of uncertain origin given that the infected person will be well in a week. It is difficult to believe that there were no LAIs (Lab acquired infections) from these highly contagious, airborne-transmissible viruses in 100 mostly BSL2 labs in 20 years, especially since they should cause LAIs more frequently asBSL2 researchers usually donot use respirators or HEPA face masks." The risk of lab-created potential pandemic influenza
Note 1: As the EU has noted, China is frantic to stop this story. Here is a summary of the two articles that are widely quoted to "dismiss" the lab escape theory. Both look like disinformation and neither addresses the possibility that COVID-19 was the result of lab escape of a natural virus collected by Wuhan researchers. Given that Wuhan researchers are famed for their bat virus collection this seems like an astonishing oversight.
A paper by the Scripps Institute, states clearly that the virus was not genetically engineered although the arguments are confused. This article was given considerable publicity by Science Daily and has been widely circulated. The following argument is given for Sars-CoV-2 not being genetically engineered: "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD (receptor binding) of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted." This argument is not convincing because it could also be used to suggest human genetic manipulation, the mutations being applied directly to the genes that specify binding to human cells. The fact that the argument against human intervention on Sars-CoV-2 is the same as might have been used to suggest human intervention makes one wonder; words like "whitewash" spring to mind because this technique can also be used for disinformation. (Note that it misses the fact that Zhengli Shi had already produced coronaviruses optimised for ACE2 binding).
Scripps is almost the only source of a clear statement that the virus is natural and did not mention its Chinese connection in its declaration of interests:
The article above, noting that Scripps could be a security threat is from 2016.
The leading paper that rebuts the idea that features of HIV have been added to coronaviruses as part of a "Gain of Function" experiment is: HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome by a group of Chinese researchers, published on 14th February, a mere 12 days after the article linking SARS-CoV-2 to HIV was published. Strangely the conclusion of the "rebuttal" is a declaration that the authors could not see how the HIV inserts could have occurred naturally and hence the virus was unlikely to be man made. This is the same argument as was used in the Scripps' paper that "proved" that the virus must be natural because it was so improbable. Of course, a highly improbable virus is most likely to be man made. Here is an excerpt from the "rebuttal" paper:
"We do not see any selection benefit or rationale for 2019-nCoV to obtain and mix structurally unrelated parts of HIV-1 to generate a unique structure for its enhanced receptor binding as indicated by the authors [of Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag] [8] . How the three bat CoV viruses obtain those inserts remains unknown. For any virus to obtain additional insert sequences from other organisms, it requires that it has direct interactions with other organisms,most likely through homologous or non-homologous recombination [11]. For bat CoV viruses to gain the gene fragments from HIV-1, it will require both viruses to co-infect the same cells. Because the host cells for bat CoV viruses and HIV-1 are different, the chance for both to exchange genetic materials is negligible. On the contrary, these motifs are widely present in various mammalian cells and so it will be more likely for bat CoV viruses to gain those motifs from the genomes of their infected cells if recombination indeed occurs. How-ever, extensive studies of more CoV viruses in wild and domestic animals are warranted to address this question."
BTW, the three bat CoV viruses did not contain all the HIV inserts. The best match was with RaTG13 which had but two of the four inserts. RaTG13 comes from Yunnan which is 900km from Wuhan. It is known that Wuhan virologists took samples from Yunnan to Wuhan and were performing "gain of function" experiments in Wuhan.
Pangolins: This paper: Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV-2Associated with the COVID-19 Outbreak shows that pangolins are less likely as a source of SARS-CoV-2 than bats and only the Malaysian pangolin was close. In this other paper: Evolutionary history, potential intermediate animal host, and cross‐species analyses of SARS‐CoV‐2 it is clear that pangolins were not the intermediate host.
12/4/2020
YouTube banned the documentary but has now re-instated it. Fortunately the documentary can still be seen at https://www.theepochtimes.com/coronavirusfilm so you can view it even if it is banned again.
The evidence has been clear for months that the Hua Nan market in Wuhan was NOT the source of the virus. The genetics show this: "Phyloepidemiologic analyses suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 source at the Hua Nan market was imported from elsewhere. The crowded market then boosted SARS-CoV-2 circulation and spread it to the whole city in early December 2019." (See Decoding evolution and transmissions of novel pneumonia coronavirus using the whole genomic data). In the first outbreak of Covid-19 in the first week of December 2019 three out of four cases had no connection to the food market:
 |
| Source: Lancet |
There have been two articles declaring that SARS-CoV-2 is natural. Both of these sources are heavily funded or controlled by China. One source looks like a Chinese Government publication and the other is the Scripps Institute which had been singled out as a threat to US security in 2016. See Note 1.
The really strange aspect of this story is that the UK broadcasters, especially the BBC, are protecting China. They are using a single "Science Daily" source quoting the Scripps Institute article that is inconsistent with much of the rest of the literature to claim categorically that the virus was not a lab escape and was entirely natural. All other research and reports on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 that point to a lab escape have been suppressed. This suppression of news is far worse than fake news.
The media disinformation campaign to suppress the truth about Covid-19 has been highly successful, they gave incredible coverage to the crazy ravings of a pop musician about 5G and Coronavirus to show that all theories about Chinese non-natural origins of Covid-19 are due to lunatics and are even lionizing Professor Shi Zhengli, the woman who demonstrated human infection by an artificial SARS-CoV-2 like virus and is probably at the centre of any lab escape. Who is running our media?
Stop Press: Professor Luc Montagnier, the winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering HIV says that Covid-19 is a lab escape - yes, SARS-CoV-2 has HIV protein inserted in it - see Evidence that Covid-19 was a bioweapon.
Some data on lab escapes
Labs keep quiet about escapes but here is some data about escapes
1972 Smallpox, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, England
1976 H1NI Influenza Fort Dix, USA
1977 H1NI Influenza, China
1978 Smallpox, Birmingham Medical School, England
1990 Marburg Virus Novosibirsk, Russia
1995 Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Faulty veterinary vaccine
2003 onwards six escapes of SARS-CoV from virology labs: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and four separate escapes at the same laboratory in Beijing
2003-2006 USA Report to Congress on releases of infective agents:
2 Newcastle disease virus
1 Francisella tularensis (lethal bacterial pneumonia)
2 Brucella
2007 Foot and Mouth Disease, Pirbright, England
The prevalence of UK and USA sources is probably a reflection of reporting rather than relative incidence.
Sources:
Threatened pandemics and laboratory escapes: Self-fulfilling prophecies
The risk of lab-created potential pandemic influenza
The Department of Agriculture and The Department of Health and Human Services Report to Congress on Thefts, Losses, or Releases of Select Agents or Toxins · February 7, 2003, to December 31, 2006
Most labs keep quiet about escapes, especially Chinese labs: "While the author has no evidence,it could be an unspoken policy in seasonal influenza research labs to not report infections of uncertain origin given that the infected person will be well in a week. It is difficult to believe that there were no LAIs (Lab acquired infections) from these highly contagious, airborne-transmissible viruses in 100 mostly BSL2 labs in 20 years, especially since they should cause LAIs more frequently asBSL2 researchers usually donot use respirators or HEPA face masks." The risk of lab-created potential pandemic influenza
Note 1: As the EU has noted, China is frantic to stop this story. Here is a summary of the two articles that are widely quoted to "dismiss" the lab escape theory. Both look like disinformation and neither addresses the possibility that COVID-19 was the result of lab escape of a natural virus collected by Wuhan researchers. Given that Wuhan researchers are famed for their bat virus collection this seems like an astonishing oversight.
A paper by the Scripps Institute, states clearly that the virus was not genetically engineered although the arguments are confused. This article was given considerable publicity by Science Daily and has been widely circulated. The following argument is given for Sars-CoV-2 not being genetically engineered: "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD (receptor binding) of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted." This argument is not convincing because it could also be used to suggest human genetic manipulation, the mutations being applied directly to the genes that specify binding to human cells. The fact that the argument against human intervention on Sars-CoV-2 is the same as might have been used to suggest human intervention makes one wonder; words like "whitewash" spring to mind because this technique can also be used for disinformation. (Note that it misses the fact that Zhengli Shi had already produced coronaviruses optimised for ACE2 binding).
Scripps is almost the only source of a clear statement that the virus is natural and did not mention its Chinese connection in its declaration of interests:
The leading paper that rebuts the idea that features of HIV have been added to coronaviruses as part of a "Gain of Function" experiment is: HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome by a group of Chinese researchers, published on 14th February, a mere 12 days after the article linking SARS-CoV-2 to HIV was published. Strangely the conclusion of the "rebuttal" is a declaration that the authors could not see how the HIV inserts could have occurred naturally and hence the virus was unlikely to be man made. This is the same argument as was used in the Scripps' paper that "proved" that the virus must be natural because it was so improbable. Of course, a highly improbable virus is most likely to be man made. Here is an excerpt from the "rebuttal" paper:
"We do not see any selection benefit or rationale for 2019-nCoV to obtain and mix structurally unrelated parts of HIV-1 to generate a unique structure for its enhanced receptor binding as indicated by the authors [of Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag] [8] . How the three bat CoV viruses obtain those inserts remains unknown. For any virus to obtain additional insert sequences from other organisms, it requires that it has direct interactions with other organisms,most likely through homologous or non-homologous recombination [11]. For bat CoV viruses to gain the gene fragments from HIV-1, it will require both viruses to co-infect the same cells. Because the host cells for bat CoV viruses and HIV-1 are different, the chance for both to exchange genetic materials is negligible. On the contrary, these motifs are widely present in various mammalian cells and so it will be more likely for bat CoV viruses to gain those motifs from the genomes of their infected cells if recombination indeed occurs. How-ever, extensive studies of more CoV viruses in wild and domestic animals are warranted to address this question."
BTW, the three bat CoV viruses did not contain all the HIV inserts. The best match was with RaTG13 which had but two of the four inserts. RaTG13 comes from Yunnan which is 900km from Wuhan. It is known that Wuhan virologists took samples from Yunnan to Wuhan and were performing "gain of function" experiments in Wuhan.
Pangolins: This paper: Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV-2Associated with the COVID-19 Outbreak shows that pangolins are less likely as a source of SARS-CoV-2 than bats and only the Malaysian pangolin was close. In this other paper: Evolutionary history, potential intermediate animal host, and cross‐species analyses of SARS‐CoV‐2 it is clear that pangolins were not the intermediate host.
12/4/2020
Comments