Generalfox.com

Advanced Science Topics and Thought

Generalfox.com

So just what are the origins of COVID-19?

I’m sure everyone is aware that there are biological weapons labs across the globe. When I first heard about how virulent COVID-19 was and seen the amount of cleaning and disinfecting occurring in Wuhan I suspected that a biological weapon had been released. I do not understand for naturally occurring viruses to spread and rise in nature like COVID-19 did. But those were just my thoughts.

Initial reports

Of course, the media first advised that nobody knew where the virus originated from – then it seemed that it had crossed over from animals into humans – somehow – in Wuhan, China. Speculation was on the Seafood and Wild Animals markets. Then there was brief mention that it may have originated due to a lab-leak – but this idea seemed to be shut down quickly.

The lab-leak hypothesis usually points the finger at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is close to the Huanan Seafood Market, where the first major cluster of infections occurred. That institute has a history of analysing bat coronaviruses.

One of the theories regarding it crossing from animal to humans was that citizens were eating bats that were virulent with COVID-19. This, we were told, would allow the virus to cross-species (and affect humans). In Canada I can recall hearing on the news that Candians should not ‘blame’ individuals of Chinese heritiage for causing the disease (articles here, and here).

Just after the first notifications that this virus even existed, before it became a world-wide issue, there was some quiet news reported that the American Red Cross had found COVID-19 in blood samples – rendering the blood donations useless. Unfortunately I have lost the links to those original articles, however I have found some more recent information advising that researchers, including scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Red Cross, had found evidence that COVID-19 was present in the United States in December 2019 – well before even the first cases were announced in Wuhan, China. (Another article in Bloomberg news. Another with NPR News.) I have also found two research papers indicating that prior to the original media blast, COVID-19 was already ‘in the wild’ in various countries across the globe. Paper 1. Paper 2. With the virus having a lot of similar symptoms as the common cold, it would be difficult to detect it as anything but the flu.

Did it evolve in nature?

Viruses evolve naturally in nature – as this should be common knowledge I’m not going to cover that here. I’ll instead focus on the oddities that I have become aware of, that seem to point to COVID-19 as not being a naturally occurring variation of the CORONAVIRUS family.

Scientific Information

  1. The nature of gain-of-function research is to ‘tweak’ a virus’ genome to alter its properties – perhaps to make it more transmissible or more lethal. It is interesting to note that the one most commonly used genome pairings that can boost a virus’ lethality used in gain-of-function research is CGG-CGG, or double CGG, which is both found in COVID-19 and has never been found naturally amoung the entire group of Coronaviruses (including CoV-2 which causes COVID-19).
  2. Here is an opinion printed in the the Wall Street Journal where Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller had asserted that the genomic sequencing patterns of COVID-19 and large discrepancies in its genetic diversity compared to the other coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS. Here is the covering National Post article. In it, we are advised:
    • For COVID-19, the genome sequencing pattern is “CGG-CGG,’’ which is one of 36 different possible patterns. The presence of a double CGG sequence, which they said is evidence of gene splicing along with low levels of genetic diversity during the outbreak. “In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally” Quay and Muller said. “That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.”.
    • The researchers advised that instances of double CGG are naturally suppressed – but the opposite is true in laboratory settings. They suggest that those experts advising COVID-19 as originating naturally must explain why when it mutated or recombined, it just happened to pick such an uncommon combination.
    • Further, the researchers suggest that the viruses genetic diversity also points to it having originated in a lab. COVID-19 has drastically different genetic diversity when compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS, which were both naturally occurring and evolved as they spread across human populations, culminating in the most contagious form emerging. But COVID-19 was already in its most contagious form having no real adaptations occurring until the first variations were seen in England months later. The researchers advised that this rapid optimization of COVID-19 is unprecedented and indicates a long period of adaptation predating public transmission.
    • For these reasons, the researchers suggest that the lab-leak theory should be the highest weighted theory.
  3. Here is a link to a news report covering that British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen had written a study concluding that “the likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.”.
    • It was during their COVID-19 vaccine research that they noticed “unique fingerprints” indicating that the virus didn’t come from nature.
    • They noticed (a rare finding) in the COVID-carrying virus a row of four amino acids, which give off a positive charge and bond to negative human cells. During an interview with the Daily Mail, Dalgleish stated, “The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row, the only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it.”.
  4. COVID-19 was highly contageous, pretty much right from the start:
    • SARS and MERS evolved rapidly becoming more contageous through time until the most contageous forms dominated.
    • On the other hand, COVID-19 was already highly contageous, suggesting an unprecidented optimization not usually found in nature – only in gain-of-function research and development.

Systematic Information

I found it interesting to read a New York Post article outlining emails that show Dr. Anthony Fauci as:

  • having been warned that COVID-19 might have been engineered, and was taking these reports seriously,
  • while at the same time downplaying the notion that it had been created in a lab,
  • and having received a “Thank You” letter from the head of a non-profit that had used a USD $3.4 Million goverment grant to fund research at the Wuhan lab, for backing the ‘natural origin’ theory.

Here is another article / video segment that advises some of the content of those emails contains information suggesting that it very well have been created in a lab, and that it appeared individuals did not wish for that information to be publicized. I offer some points mentioned in the video:

  • During January of 2020 Dr. Fauci was warned COVID-19 may have been leaked from a Chinese government run lab in China, Wuhan.
  • Later in January 2020, Dr. Fauci was advised that the lab had been indirectly funded by the NIH through EcoHealth Alliance, a US Based non-profit that had been working with Coronaviruses.
  • Later still in January 2020, Dr. Kristian Andersen, a virologist working at Scripps Research, privately advised Dr. Fauci that after discussion with his collegues, that some of the ‘features’ of COVID-19 (potentially) look engineered, and that the genome is inconsistent with expectations of evoluntionary theory.
  • Fox news reports that Dr. Fauci called a meeting with top-level virologists and, through documents obtained they believe the documents reveal suspicions that a lab-leak was the cause of COVID-19 was suppressed because public revelations of Chinese involvement would do “Great potential harm to science and international harmony.”, and that “Further debate about such accusations would un-necessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”.
  • Dr. Michael Farzan, also from Scripps Research stated, “I think it becomes a question of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature – accidental release or natural event? I am 70:30 or 60:40.”.
  • Dr. Robert Garry from Tulane’s School of Medicine said, “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4 amino acids 12 nucleotide that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function – that and you don’t change any other amino acid in S2? I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature… Of course, in the lab it would be very easy to generate the 12 base insert that you wanted.”.
  • Dr. Fauci and others pointed to that the virus originated in the Wuhan Seafood and Wild Animal Food Markets, which had since been closed and disinfected – making it difficult to establish it as a point of origin. Access to the Wuhan lab has also been restricted.
  • And Dr. Garry’s statements seem to support this, “1. Don’t try to write a paper at all – its unnecessary; or 2. If you do, write it don’t mention a lab origin as that will just add fuel to the conspiracists.”.
  • It also seems that also during this meeting, Dr. Fauci is warned by US State Department warnings of laxed safety protocols inside the Wuhan lab.
  • It is interesting that through all this, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director, advises, “I am coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely. But I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence inspiring framework (WHO seems really the only option) is needed, or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate.”. Following this, four days later, individuals on the prior call who privately advised it more probable to have been a lab leak now provided documents stating the opposite. It is unclear as to what evidence changed their views so quickly, however it was found that the papers were sent to Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci for editing and approval. These papers are published online in February.
  • There is more information, both on the page and the video – I encourage you review it all!

And more interesting articles:

Investigations

I have read that the WHO had investigated the origins of the virus, and that their results had been questioned by scientists. It was reported that the WHO team had a “really difficult job….the Communist party of China want to project it out of China”. I have read that China embarked on a blame-shifting propaganda campaign, with their trying to relocate the virus’s origin to be outside of China. Makes sense, after-all, who wants to be associated with releasing a deadly virus, having long-term ill effects, that cannot be contained, and that is highly virulent in nature?

Project Veritas has also investigated this, and seems to have un-covered some documents pertaining to ECOHeath Alliance approaching DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct Gain of Function research of bat borne coronaviruses.

Finally, through investigation and interview, it would seem that the US NIH, of which Dr. Anthony Fauci is head over, did in fact fund the Wuhan lab to perform gain-of-function research, as was clearly outlined in an exchange between US Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci. I found it interesting that Dr. Fauci had prior denied that funded gain-of-function research had been taking place at the lab. Here is an article. It seems that there was another document provided by the NIH stating that EcoHealth did indeed “fail to report” findings required by the terms of the NIH grant, and the biohacking of viruses obtained by EcoHealth that fall under the prior definition of gain-of-function experiments was conducted at the Wuhan Lab. The Intercept acquired over 900 pages of documents regarding the funding of the Chinese laboratory.

Yet another definition change! This time “Gain-of-function Research”.

Prior to watching this video, I had also not realized that during October 2021 the definition of gain-of-function research had been changed on the NIH website during the pandemic! Article here, and here. Am I the only one finding it really odd that the definitions all seem to be changing in consideration of this particular pandemic?

Was COVID-19 a bio-weapon?

I believe if it was, then it would be a Class A bio-weapon. I have researched military tactics including biological weapon warfare, and can see how individuals would believe COVID-19 to be a bio-weapon released into the wild throughout the world in specific urban centers, and with a more major ‘release’ happening in Wuhan. Sounds ‘far out’? While I am not a military tactical expert by any means, I have read up on tactics relative to the release of toxic agents near major metropolitan areas considering disbursement methods, wind currents, and seasonal influence in the consideration of maximizing coverage and effect on populations – with attack plans even considering the cultural habits of those being infected and the longevity of the virus (virus half-life). In fact, here is a great article regarding how the US Military has conducted dangerous biowarfare experiments on Americans. Notice during these experiments, the people being experimented on were not ‘at war’, or terrorists, or etc., these were peaceful and unaware citizens just living their lives.

Richard Fleming suggests that COVID-19 could be considered a bio-weapon. As of this time, I have not read any firm reports advising that COVID-19 was constructed as a bio-weapon. If you believe that it was, then you would need to have firm answers to the following:

  • Motivation – what would be the motivation to create one? Of course, countries do make them, even though treaties are in-place that are meant to stop their creation. In this case, perhaps a combination of political, financial, power, control, and outcome?
  • Who had the power and influence to do this – personnel reach, cover-ups, etc.
  • The spread pattern:
    • who was affected – which cultures or races were harmed the most?
    • the percentage of populations for those affected – which countries, is the spread logical, etc.?
  • The response patterns – did some countries or regions handle the outbreak differently? If so, why – what scientific merit was associated with the response?
  • Who benefitted from this – who could benefit from this? This one is hard to discuss as most people associate money as the driving benefit and stop there because it is an easy conclusion. But you’ll always find people financially benefitting from other’s hardships – so money does not have to always be the driving motivation – especially if those orchestrating the change are already wealthy.

I was very interested to hear that Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist, fled to the USA from China after publishing a paper in September claiming that China had created the coronavirus in a research lab, and that it was developed as a bioweapon (articles here, here, here, here, and here). She has defended her paper (another here), which drew a fair bit of attention and garnered some reviews – I felt this review sarcastic, emotionally driven, and thus un-professional in dialogue. I have no doubt that there are issues with the paper, and read that she was going to offer an update to the original paper which I would look forward to reading.

Read the next section “Brief mRNA History“.