Only the SARS-CoV-2 genesis story doesn’t seek to trick people.
Finding the virus’ roots should’ve been a priority. However, it was not. Why? Perhaps the purpose was to cover up complicit conduct, rather than regulate individuals.
Only “lab leak” and “wet market” are credible virus genesis explanations.
Rather than urging scientists to collaborate, Early in the epidemic, NIH Director Francis Collins emailed presidential medical advisor Anthony Fauci, “Wondering if NIH might assist in putting down this perilous plot.”
Seriously — how can a lab leak NOT be the default hypothesis for Covid origin given all the available observations? Does “extreme zoonotic coincidence” really better explain the outbreak of a CoV not native to Wuhan near a lab known for collecting and GoFing such CoVs? https://t.co/P1mdOYmL9z
— Yuri Deigin (@ydeigin) May 14, 2022
Why would Collins and Fauci “put down” the lab leak theory since SARS-CoV-1 emerged from a Chinese lab twice in the early 2000s?
Wuhan Lab’s Dangerous Activities
A 2016 PNAS article titled “SARS-like WIV1-CoV primed for human emergence” proved the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting dangerous research.
This publication attempts to extend monitoring beyond sequence analysis, building chimeric and comprehensive zoonotic coronaviruses to assess emergence possibilities.
The authors created new viruses and tested their ability to infect human cells. In May 2021, several scientists criticized the political origin of SARS-CoV-2 for Fauci, proposing a lab leak.
This may explain why, after a year of unknown refusals and postponements by journal editors, Nikolai Petrovsky’s lab research shows the oldest strains of SARS-CoV-2 that were incredibly human-adapted weren’t published until June 2021.
Before this openness, CNN compared a “lab leak” to a “comic book.” A group of academics led by Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona issued a report in February declaring the “lab leak” dead.
The article doesn’t report a SARS-CoV-2 sibling with a furin-cleavable spike protein.
It doesn’t explain why the initial SARS-CoV-2 strains favored human cells above bats and other species. It doesn’t show that an infected animal at the fish market affected a person.
Still, the article claims “dispositive proof” in support of the Wuhan market as the virus’ source.
First, a group of early cases was supposedly geographically oriented around the marketplace.
Second, creatures known to be sensitive to SARS-CoV-2 appeared to have been traded at the market.
Third, extremely sensitive PCR testing identified evidence of the virus in several samples collected at the market.
The samples were collected in 2020. By January, having had initial cases in Wuhan in early December, the disease spread for at least a month. The infection was global by mid-January.
Translation…The WHO spreading fear to pressure for an urgent need for countries to sign its recommendations/ treaty.
Just we should all remember that the WHO covered up the origin’s of covid 19 in Wuhan and only alerted the world in January 2020 two month later. https://t.co/MR9XCKZWbL
— Yazzie Edwardo (@EdwardoYazzie) May 20, 2022
Nothing in the authors’ studies removes the likelihood that an infected individual disseminated the virus on the market.
Per the WHO-China study, live viruses found on the market “likely represent infection from cases.” Infected people probably left the virus in these places, like the walls and floors.
The authors of the paper that reported the viral sampling mentioned by Worobey et al. came to the opposite conclusion.
According to experts, the market was a super-spreader, not the pandemic’s beginning.
What More Does China Hide?
Chinese researchers erased 13 SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA sequences from an NIH database. Jesse Bloom investigated the Google Cloud sequence.
Bloom’s findings show that because Worobey et al. didn’t include deleted data in their investigation, their findings give an incomplete picture of Wuhan’s infectious viruses early in the epidemic.
Worobey et al. co-authors reportedly tried to convince Bloom to withdraw his paper. What other crucial data did Chinese researchers remove?
How likely is it that a wet market near a facility generating “chimeric coronaviruses” was the source of this pandemic?
Both the “lab leak” and “market” viral origin ideas are still in play since neither side presented “dispositive proof” of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Politicized news stories continue to express wishful thinking. “Trump’s favorite COVID origin scenario of a Wuhan lab leak just demolished by a fresh study.”
Either through lab or market roots, anybody seeking to cover for China must remember that both are shameful. Both are very careless and dirty, especially when you consider pangolins are killed in wet markets for fake medicines.
The lab scenario involves significant U.S. interests. It’s easy to see why power-holders would want to stop the lab leak.
COVID led powerful people to respond to circumstances over which they had little control with false narratives. This epidemic is different because big tech is ready to restrict discussion and control the narratives.
Aldous Huxley’s truism that “facts don’t stop existing because they’re ignored” stands. The goal is to guarantee that individuals in our society are never too frightened to question powerful edicts.