How The US, China, The NIH And Dr Fauci Promulgated The Coronavirus

Last Updated on January 12, 2022 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • The development of the Coronavirus was a joint US, Chinese affair that required the authorities, including Dr. Fauci, to overturn precautions against gain of function research during the Obama Administration.

Introduction

For over a year, the “authorities” have promoted an unproven but established hypothesis that the coronavirus came from a wet market in the Wuhan Province of China. This is the approved hypothesis of the CCP, the US government, and of the establishment media. Donald Trump called into question this hypothesis and was slammed for doing so by establishing Democratic-leaning media in the US and media globally. However, it now turns out that Trump was partially correct, but that there was much he did not know. More likely than not, however, Dr. Fauci knew the entire time.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Dr Fauci’s Background

Dr. Anthony Fauci has served in many US Administrations. He is highly respected in the field, is head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is within the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Fauci’s background is immunology and specifically infectious diseases. This makes it impossible for Fauci to deny knowledge around the gain of function research that will be the article’s topic.

Dr. Fauci and the Truth

The media and the public often refer to Dr. Fauci as a scientist. That is true, but one does not survive through the number of administrations that Dr. Fauci has and led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases without also being a politician. And being political and politically motivated contradicts following a scientific approach. Being political means achieving an objective, and those objectives usually contradict scientific truth.

Repeated interviews and testimony from Dr. Fauci have revealed a willingness to bend the truth to meet political objectives. One of the first political analysts to pick up on this was Jimmy Dore. Dore critiqued Dr. Fauchi back in 2020 for providing contradictory information about wearing masks. It is important to note that back in mid-2020, no one in mainstream media was questioning Dr. Fauchi.

However, within the establishment media in the US, Dr. Fauci has been untouchable. Depending upon the group one is speaking with, it can get you branded as “anti-science.”

The Rand Paul, Dr. Fauchi Interaction

Observe the analysis of Dr. Fauchi’s interaction with Rand Paul.

Note that further, YouTube is at a degree of censorship that Jimmy Dore stated he could not cover the story unless it had first been covered elsewhere. YouTube has been suppressing Jimmy Dore’s channel because YouTube is financially and politically connected to the Democratic Party in the US, and Jimmy Dore critiques the Democratic Party.

Therefore, they retaliate by restricting the growth of subscribers to his channel. This is not hypothetical or an evidence free claim. I have noticed the way that Jimmy Dore’s subscriber numbers never increase, but his views are still high.

Second Coverage

This issue was also covered by the following video produced by The Hill.

It is of note that neither of these is establishment media outlets. 

This is Fox News. Fox News is not a good news source. It was run for many years by Roger Ailes and is, of course, part of the cesspool that is News Corp owned by Rupert Murdoch. However, sometimes truthful things appear on the news channel. This is one of those times.  

A Conspiracy Theory?

Notice the response from one establishment media entity on the exchange.

“Senator Paul didn’t directly accuse Dr. Fauci of engineering the pandemic, but that seemed at times to be his implication; it’s a line of questioning that appeared to play to conspiracy theories that circulate on the internet. Although Dr. Fauci has had plenty of practice fending off Senator Paul’s attacks in past encounters, this exchange seemed to unnerve him.” – MSN News

Rand Paul cannot ask questions that diverge from the official explanation, the wet market hypothesis, without being called a conspiracy theorist. Also, why in a theory that circulates on “the internet” a problem? This MSN article was published on “the internet.” You are reading this article right now on “the internet.” Should we be reading and sharing theories by mail and not “the internet?” How is the internet both our collective source of so much information, but then to be discredited when the author of a piece wants to do so?

What Unnerved Fauci About Rand Paul’s Questions?

The reason it “unnerved” Dr. Fauci is because this is the first time Dr. Fauci was confronted with so much damning evidence of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ involvement in funding the creation of the coronavirus. And this is not a testimony that Dr. Fauci wants the world to see.

Observe this following strange quotation.

“One potential reason for Dr. Fauci’s discomfort is that the prospect of a virus accidently being released from a lab and starting a pandemic is entirely plausible—so plausible, in fact, that scientists have warned about it for years.

Scientists in laboratories all over the world have for the past decade been collecting dangerous viruses and making them even more dangerous by performing “gain-of-function” experiments on them—manipulating the viruses to make them more infectious or deadly or both. The work is undertaken for the best of intentions—to understand and anticipate future pandemic viruses that could arise in nature—and much of this work has been done in the U.S. and abroad with funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Dr. Fauci leads.”

Wait that sounds like a statement of fact.

However, didn’t MSN just say that the idea the virus leaked from a lab performing gain of function research is a conspiracy theory? Isn’t MSN now playing into this conspiracy theory by admitting that it is plausible?

The quote continues.

Some scientists who study pandemic viruses have lobbied the NIH to curb GOF research, but the NIH doesn’t control all of it: much takes place in labs around the world, including at the Wuhan Institute.

Yes.

However, how much does the NIH control? The NIH was funding GOF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time (through the Ecohealth Alliance). I think it is most likely that it leaked. That seems to be left out by MSN.

There are two issues here.

  1. Should anyone anywhere be performing GOF research?
  2. Did the NIH (along with the DOD, HHS and several other US government agencies) fund the GOF research that led to the coronavirus?

The first answer is GOF research should be ceased. It creates more deadly viruses and makes them jump to animals that are close to humans, which they could not do without assistance.

Related to this topic, if GOF research is performed, it should not be performed in countries like China that are known to have low standards for their labs?

Finally, the NIH did fund the GOF research that led to coronavirus.

The quote continues.

“What’s needed is thorough accounting of what gain-of-function work is currently going on in labs in the U.S. and everywhere else, as well as a public discussion of how to make sure that dangerous viruses don’t escape. Lab accidents occur all too often, so it’s no wonder that suspicions of lab accidents arise during a pandemic.”

Really?

Why? Isn’t it a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Why the concern if it is only a conspiracy theory? As we will see further in this article, this is an attempt by the MSN article to make it seem like GOF research is occurring “everywhere.” However, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is China’s superlab for viruses. There are exceedingly few cities in China where this type of research is taking place or took place and it is the only Level 4 lab (the top level) in the entire country of China.

This article appears to want it both ways. Even though viruses escape from labs, the weaponized coronavirus developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology could have escaped — yet to point this out is for some strange reason considered a conspiracy theory. However, as a precaution, we need to have more accounting of what is going on in labs that perform GOF research — however, it is still a conspiracy theory that a virus escapes a lab?

The article tries to button up some of these conflicts in the following quote.

To say that a lab accident could start a pandemic is much different, of course, than claiming that a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute did start this particular pandemic. There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab in Wuhan or anywhere else.

That is not true.

If there is a good likelihood that something can happen, there is not any further leap required to say that it likely did happen.

First, the coronavirus has markers that make it appear to have been extended or modified in a lab. The ease at which it spreads is also an indicator that it was lab generated as once it got out of the lab, there was little resistance to it. There is also the statistical unlikelihood that a highly contagious virus with the forensic markers of being created in a lab would spring up in a city with a lab performing GOF research. This marker is covered in the article at Science Direct. It is called a furin-like cleavage site. 

Again, there are not many labs performing this type of research, and The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the only Bio Safety Level (BSL) 4 facility in all of China. And one is only allowed to perform GOF research at a BSL 4 or BSL 3 facility.

Furthermore, there are even fewer labs written up with lax standards and insufficiently trained lab workers for doing GOF research.

Notice the following quotation from LiveScience from Jan 2020.

As an escalating viral outbreak unfolds in China, only one lab in the country meets the required biosafety standards needed to study the new disease.

The lab happens to sit in the center of Wuhan, the city where the newly identified coronavirus first appeared, according to the Hindustan Times, an Indian news outlet.

Interesting use of the term “just happens.”

And here is a comment on this article.

Wow, that’s an incredibly Pollyanna view of the situation.

The only BSL-4 lab built in China, which is already facing accusations of facilitating bio-weapons research is “accidentally” at the same location of the novel coronavirus release/appearance?

China needs to be put on a bio-weapons watch list and sanctioned. I don’t know how this simple math is escaping a majority of the press releases related to coronavirus.

This comment is close to 1.5 years old at this point. And this commenter immediately noticed the curious coincidence of the lab’s location with the outbreak.

The Warnings Regarding Insufficient Standards at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

The following quote explains these warnings.

What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.

“During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,” states the Jan. 19, 2018, cable, which was drafted by two officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections who met with the WIV scientists. (The State Department declined to comment on this and other details of the story.)

The Chinese researchers at WIV were receiving assistance from the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch and other U.S. organizations, but the Chinese requested additional help. The cables argued that the United States should give the Wuhan lab further support, mainly because its research on bat coronaviruses was important but also dangerous.

But even in 2015, other scientists questioned whether Shi’s team was taking unnecessary risks. In October 2014, the U.S. government had imposed a moratorium on funding of any research that makes a virus more deadly or contagious, known as “gain-of-function” experiments.

“The cable tells us that there have long been concerns about the possibility of the threat to public health that came from this lab’s research, if it was not being adequately conducted and protected,” he said.

There are similar concerns about the nearby Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention lab, which operates at biosecurity level 2, a level significantly less secure than the level-4 standard claimed by the Wuhan Insititute of Virology lab, Xiao said. That’s important because the Chinese government still refuses to answer basic questions about the origin of the novel coronavirus while suppressing any attempts to examine whether either lab was involved.

Sources familiar with the cables said they were meant to sound an alarm about the grave safety concerns at the WIV lab, especially regarding its work with bat coronaviruses. The embassy officials were calling for more U.S. attention to this lab and more support for it, to help it fix its problems. – The Washington Post

This is elaborated on on the following quotation.

EcoHealth Alliance subcontracted these grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab in China with a very questionable safety record and poorly trained staff, so that they could conduct gain-of-function research, not in their fancy P4 lab, but in a level-2 lab where technicians wore nothing more sophisticated than perhaps a hairnet, latex gloves, and a surgical mask, instead of the bubble suits used when working with dangerous viruses. Chinese scientists in Wuhan reported being routinely bitten and urinated on by laboratory animals. Why anyone would outsource this dangerous and delicate work to the People’s Republic of China, a country infamous for industrial accidents and massive explosions that have claimed hundreds of lives, is completely beyond me, unless the aim was to start a pandemic on purpose. – The Automatic Earth

I have a reason. The research was restricted in the US — so Fauci and Daszak and company decided to move off short. The fact that China would not just hand over the research, but would also use it, seemed to be beyond them.

The quote continues…

In November of 2019, three technicians at the Wuhan Institute of Virology developed symptoms consistent with a flu-like illness. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric knew at once what had happened, because back channels exist between this laboratory and our scientists and officials. The sequence given as the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, is not a real virus. It is a forgery. It was made by entering a gene sequence by hand into a database, to create a cover story for the existence of SARS-CoV-2, which is very likely a gain-of-function chimera produced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was either leaked by accident or intentionally released. – The Automatic Earth

That makes sense, and would be difficult to catch.

The quote continues…

 

The quote continues…

The pandemic and its response served multiple purposes for the Elite:

Concealing a depression brought on by the usurious plunder of our economies conducted by rentier-capitalists and absentee owners who produce absolutely nothing of any value to society whatsoever. Instead of us having a very predictable Occupy Wall Street Part II, the Elites and their stooges got to stand up on television and paint themselves as wise and all-powerful saviors instead of the marauding cabal of despicable land pirates that they are.
Destroying small businesses and eroding the middle class.
Transferring trillions of dollars of wealth from the American public and into the pockets of billionaires and special interests.
Engaging in insider trading, buying stock in biotech companies and shorting brick-and-mortar businesses and travel companies, with the aim of collapsing face-to-face commerce and tourism and replacing it with e-commerce and servitization.
Creating a casus belli for war with China, encouraging us to attack them, wasting American lives and treasure and driving us to the brink of nuclear armageddon.
Establishing technological and biosecurity frameworks for population control and technocratic- socialist “smart cities” where everyone’s movements are despotically tracked, all in anticipation of widespread automation, joblessness, and food shortages, by using the false guise of a vaccine to compel cooperation (speculative, see Section after “Conclusions”). – The Automatic Earth

What is the Actual Evidence of the Wet Market Hypothesis?

And MSN leaves out is that there is even less proof that coronavirus came from a wet market. This is only a hypothesis, one promoted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that has already fallen apart. One major problem is that the issue of the lack of the bat that carries coronaviruses living anywhere near Wuhan. Bats from a cave 1000 miles away that had the coronavirus were brought to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They don’t fly around Wuhan.

This is explained in the following quotation.

Bat samplings were conducted ten times from April 2011 to October 2015 at different seasons in their natural habitat at a single location (cave) in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China. Bats were trapped and faecal swab samples were collected. – The Daily Mail UK

And this one.

US Congressman Matt Gaetz said: I’m disgusted to learn that for years the US government has been funding dangerous and cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute, which may have contributed to the global spread of coronavirus, and research at other labs in China that have virtually no oversight from US authorities. – The Daily Mail UK

And now MSN decides to use the shield of racism.

The reaction of most scientists to the lab-origin theories has been to close ranks and defend their colleagues in China and elsewhere. To be sure, the drum-beat of blame towards China for starting the epidemic, which has a significant element of racism and xenophobia, is deplorable.

Why is blaming China racist or xenophobic? Are Chinese some protected group? Is it a racial stereotype that Chinese people engage in GOF research and then let viruses out of labs by mistake? Becuase I am not familiar with this racial stereotype.

Also, now that it seems quite likely that the NIH stupidly reversed the previous ban on GOF research in 2017 and was funding this research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the hypothesis less racist and xenophobic? What if the Chinese accuse the US of funding the research? As they are Chinese, and most people working in the NIH are not Chinese, isn’t that racist and xenophobic? What if it is true, is it still racist and xenophobic? How does MSN have any idea that those who point out the proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology with the outbreak of the same virus the WIV was performing GOF are motivated by racism?

What if it is motivated by their analytical capability?

Now the quote goes back to calling the lab leak a conspiracy theory.

But still, it’s striking that scientists in the U.S. and elsewhere haven’t protested China’s lack of transparency more forcefully. That may be changing, however. On May 14, 18 scientists penned a letter in the journal Science that calls for a further investigation. That’s good news, because until there’s evidence that strongly discounts the lab-origin theory—or irrefutable evidence of a natural origin—the conspiracy theories will continue to undermine confidence in the legitimate work that scientists do.

Here is a question.

Why is the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory but the wet market hypothesis, not a conspiracy theory? So far, no one has accused anyone of deliberately releasing the coronavirus, only setting up irresponsible situations where a leak was at least a strong potential. If the virus did leak, it was so enhanced that it would cause enormous damage.

Secondly, the distinction MSN is trying to draw is fundamentally illogical. If one states that something can happen before it has happened, and if that scenario requires a conspiracy, then that is a conspiracy theory. The fact it has not happened yet does not change it from being a conspiracy theory. It is the act of conspiring that makes it a conspiracy theory. Whether it has occurred or not is not relevant to its status as involving conspiracy.

The Bad News About the Wet Market Hypothesis

I have some terrible news for MSN. And they do not appear to be informed on the topic. But the C19 virus has specialists saying that it was made in a lab. C19 was not both made in a lab and transmitted through natural causes. The CCP put forward this hypothesis was nothing more than a cover story to protect the Wuhan Institute of Virology and China’s reputation internationally.

The reason for this cover story is explained in the following quotation.

Although this quotation comes from 2015, it states the essence of the natural, bat-man explanation: contagion by association. However, what Baric said has no specific relevance to the Huanan Market or to the new virus now called SARS-CoV-2. For one thing, the market did not sell bats [v] ; for another, the first official person to be infected fell ill on Dec. 1 and had no connection to the market. Given that COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, has a two-week incubation period, this person had to have been infected around mid-November, long before any public announcement about the market was made. Furthermore, a Lancet study found no link between the first patient and subsequent patients. Of the first 41 patients, about one third had no connection to the market. Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University, told Science magazine that this anomaly cannot not be ignored: “That’s a big number, 13, with no [market] link. The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace. China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market” (italics added). [vi] Indeed, the Chinese government must have known, but it needed a cover story to deflect blame from those responsible for the outbreak, but this one was hastily concocted and transparently false.  SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

And I do not recollect the establishment media asking for any evidence that this hypothesis was correct when it was first proposed. The CCP asserted the wet marketing hypothesis, and the establishment media repeated the hypothesis as a fact. It is only now that the lab leak hypothesis contradicts this original hypothesis that the establishment media asks for evidence. How did the establishment media ever know that the first hypothesis was correct before aligning with it?

How the NIH emails released in Jan of 2022 exposed the false information provided by the NIH, and  then replicated by the establishment media is covered in the article Emails Expose NIH, Media and Big Tech Covering Up Lab Leak Hypothesis.

And as time has passed, the contradiction of the wet market hypothesis continues.

Perhaps the nail in the bat-origin coffin was delivered on Sept. 18, 2020, when researchers Darja Kanduc and Yehuda Schoenfeld published a paper [xxxv] showing “mathematically improbable” commonality of short-chain proteins (hexapeptides and heptapeptides) between SARS-CoV-2 and the human proteome. [xxxvi] [T]he probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one heptapeptide is equal to ~  20 −7 (or 1 out of 1,280,000,000). Likewise, the probability of the occurrence in two proteins of just one hexapeptide is close to zero by being equal to ~  20 −6 (or 1 out of 64,000,000). [xxxvii] -SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

The WHO’s Role in the Cover-Up

The WHO is now well known to have been co-opted by the CCP. The head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom, has worked out a sweet deal for Chinese investment in his native Ethiopia for its subordination to China. Tedros was known to cover up outbreaks of cholera while the health minister in Ethiopia before coming to head the WHO. So his selection as the head of the WHO is extremely curious.

The following quote explains how Tedros helped China cover up the lab leak.

To lay the foundation for its international zoonotic wild goose chase, WHO dispatched two animal health and epidemiology scientists on a three-week visit in July 2020, but the team’s decision to bypass Wuhan intensified criticism of WHO’s judgment and attitude toward the pandemic. [xxxix] Moreover, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus came under criticism for his praise of China’s “transparency.” As Kirti Pandey, deputy news editor of India’s timesnownews wrote: There was mounting evidence that Chinese officials had silenced whistleblowers and undercounted cases, [yet] the WHO chief extolled praises of the leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping. When the entire issue blew up into an escalating global health crisis — the world [was] angry that WHO’s lackadaisical response potentially spurred the virus’s spread. [xl] Later, in November 2020, The New York Times came out with a story exposing the questionable ethics underlying the investigation. WHO not only allowed China to take the lead, but the two WHO investigators refused to share their information or documents with other nations. [xli] The contrast between WHO’s secrecy on the one hand and its praise for China’s “transparency” on the other, the Times wrote, is hard even for WHO’s defenders to explain. [xlii] – SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

Secondly, it appears that the establishment media is asking everyone to agree with an evidence-free hypothesis presented by the CCP. Must we do this in other areas? For example, the CCP states that no Uyghurs are being placed in concentration camps and reeducated and raped into being categorized as Han Chinese. Is this a conspiracy theory, and must we agree with the CCP that there is no abuse of Uyghurs? Which of the official positions of the CCP is necessary for us to hold so that we are not called conspiracy theorists? Does the establishment media question the CCP on topics, or is it now more of an overseas PR firm for the CCP? Because when Chinese oppose the CPP in China, they are typically jailed or perhaps sent to a re-education camp.

Maybe this is what the establishment media thinks is a good outcome for those that disagree with the CCP in the US? All “conspiracy theorists” could be sent to some type of re-education camp.

The wet market hypothesis worked when we knew far less than we do now. An excellent movie called Contagion, released in 2011, shows the virus coming from a wet market in China. But again, just because it happened in the film, and that was one projected pathway, does not mean that is how it happened in this case.

And Unwillingness to Wet Market Hypothesis Proponents to Answer Questions

What is notable is that the proponents of the wet market hypothesis refuse to answer any questions or defend their hypothesis, as is explained in the following quotations.

Question # 1: How Did C19 Become So Good at Spreading?

Inasmuch as zoonotic defenders repeatedly chant that bats are the “natural reservoir host” for SARS coronaviruses, [xlvi] they cannot come up with a natural, evolutionary mechanism that can explain the more than 1,828-fold increase in virulence. To prove beyond any reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 and its attendant disease COVID-19 are the product of human manipulation, not natural mutation, it is necessary to take a detour into biochemistry, epidemiology and genetics. Two subtopics will be considered: how SARS viruses disrupt the body’s blood-pressure regulation system and how genetic manipulation made SARS-CoV-2 unique and unnatural. -SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

Question #2: How Did C19 Pickup a Critical Feature From Another Virus?

The enzyme furin is vital to human life because some proteins are dormant after being synthesized by genes and require furin to activate or “prime” them. The importance of the furin cleavage site for COVID-19 is that it not only adds a more widespread cleavage opportunity, but it enhances infectivity, as described in a June 26, 2020, paper in iScience : In addition to furin, other proteases [enzymes] also cleaved SARS-CoV-2 much more readily than SARS-CoV . . . Our data demonstrate that the S1/S2 site of SARS-CoV-2 S is efficiently cleaved by a wide range of proteases, not only furin. The comparative data with SARS-CoV S1/S2 site reveals that the acquisition of the four amino acid insert distinctively broadens the activating protease repertoire of the SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 cleavage site to all major classes of proteolytic enzymes known to potentially activate coronavirus S proteins. [liii] Where did this polybasic site come from? Furin cleavage sites are found in other viruses like influenza, H5N1 avian flu, HIV, MERS, yellow fever, and Ebola, as shown in Table I. Note that MERS is a lineage c β coronavirus, which is not related to SARS CoVs. This fact invites the logical hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site was spliced into the SARS-CoV genome, specifically between amino acid sequences (“residues”) 681 and 685. If true, that would make SARS-CoV-2 a chimeric (composite) virus, not a single one. This is indeed likely since this kind of splicing had been going on since at least 2006: To determine whether proteolytic cleavage [breaking down] of the [spike protein] might be important for the newly emerged SARS-CoV, we introduced a furin recognition site at single basic residues within the putative S1–S2 junctional region. We show that furin cleavage . . . generates discrete S1 and S2 subunits and potentiates membrane fusion activity. [liv] In plain English, this means that a polybasic site was inserted into SARS-CoV, and the result showed successful furin cleavage at the spike protein’s S1/S2 junction. In fact, the site chosen in 2006 is in the same location as the PRRA insert for SARS-CoV-2. [lv] -SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

Question #3: Why is C19 A Composite Virus that Looks Like an Engineered Bioweapon by a Country that is Dedicated to Developing Bioweapons?

However, by far the most discussed, and contested, candidate is HIV. On Feb. 27, 2020, the South China Morning Post ( SCMP ) reported the results of a study conducted by a team of researchers led by professor Ruan Jishou at Nankai University that found “HIV-like” furin cleavage sites on the SARS-CoV-2 genome. The report said that the viral binding efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 is 100 to 1,000 times stronger than that of SARS-CoV and that this feature could be the result of genes not found in SARS but possibly found in HIV, Ebola or even avian flu. The findings of Ruan’s team were confirmed by a research team at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, led by professor Li Hua. [lxviii]

On Jan. 30, 2020, a team of nine Indian researchers in New Delhi published a preprint paper in which they argued that four insertions in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein point to HIV as the likely source. These insertions contained the following amino acid sequences: GTNGTKR, HKNNKS, GDSSSG and QTNSPRRA. [lxxvii] Note particularly the last one because it contains the polybasic cleavage site unique to SARS-CoV-2. In a personal interview with the author, one of the researchers said they were the first to point it out. [lxxviii]

Tampering with viruses to make them more virulent, more transmissible to humans, is the purpose of GoF research and has been going on for decades. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is that something like it had not already happened. Carrie Wolinetz , head of the Office of Science Policy at NIH gives the standard justification for GoF research: “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance . . . These experiments will help us get ahead of viruses that are already out there and pose a real and present danger to human health. It is the only way we can really understand at a molecular level how these processes occur, and then we can take that information to develop the tools that we need to protect against these diseases.” [lxiii] Putting the case against GoF research is Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at Harvard and member of the Cambridge Working Group : I still do not believe a compelling argument has been made for why these studies are necessary from a public health point of view; all we have heard is that there are certain narrow scientific questions that you can ask only with dangerous experiments . . . There is nothing for the purposes of surveillance that we did not already know. Enhancing potential pandemic pathogens in this manner is simply not worth the risk. [lxiv] – SARS-CoV-2: Contagion, Collusion, Corruption

Question #4: What About the Experience of the French Incurred When Designing the Wuhan Institute for Virology for the Chinese?

The idea began with the signing of a memorandum of understanding between China and France on Jan. 28, 2004. In October of that year, during a visit to Beijing, French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac sealed an agreement with his Chinese counterpart to work together to fight emerging infectious diseases. Giving this motive added urgency was the possibility that H5N1 avian flu could attack China. [xciii] The project to build it was structured as a collaborative effort in which the lab would be modeled on France’s lab in Lyon. From the outset, the French had concerns about China’s motives and transparency. Former germ warfare experts feared China might use the new lab to create biological weapons, and the French collaborators were taken aback by China’s refusal to explain what would become of the mobile P3 (BSL3) labs that the French government had paid for. One fear was that they would be put to the same use as the P4 (BSL4) lab, the implication being biological warfare. Although the Wuhan lab was designed by French engineers and technicians, the Chinese took control of most of its construction, which did not sit well with the French who had concerns about the quality of construction as it pertained to safety, in particular the effectiveness of compartment seals. One French company, Technip, refused to certify the lab. In 2015 Alain Mérieux resigned as copresident of the bilateral committee overseeing the project after seven years because he accepted that the P4 lab was “a very Chinese tool” despite the French knowhow that made it possible. In the end, the French derived no benefit from the project. Fifty researchers who were supposed to spend five years in Wuhan working the lab never left France. The result was that WIV was built with the latest French electronics and other materials but without French oversight. Also in 2015, WIV was formally commissioned, and in that year its researchers helped create a chimeric coronavirus based on the horseshoe bat virus SHC014 to see how it could be made to infect humans. [xciv] Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, acknowledged at the time that the results showed that the novel virus “grows remarkably well” in human cells but criticized the study for providing little benefit or any useful information about the risk that a naturally occurring SHC014 virus would pose to humans. [xcv]

This appears to be a textbook case of a country seeking to obtain the intellectual property of how to build such a lab while offering, then pulling the collaboration that was the basis for the lab, which would allow the CCP to keep the French from seeing what the lab was being used for.

No Going Back to the Wet Market Hypothesis

There is no going back to the wet market hypothesis.

This would be like going back to the “Santa Claus is real” hypothesis after one becomes an adult. It seems like a good explanation in the phase of your life when you knew much less, but is no longer viable for how presents appear all over the globe in a single night.

Currently, among the most informed, the lab leak hypothesis is considered the most likely explanation. There is no “videotape” of the virus leaving the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, the leak’s circumstances combined with the virus analysis led to one conclusion. There was a conspiracy involved in the CCP lying about the leak and creating the fake cover story. There was a conspiracy of sorts among those that knew about GOF and kept quiet. However, there is nothing outlandish about the lab leak hypothesis. And as for conspiracy theorists — they have been doing pretty well lately. So calling something, a conspiracy theory may be considered a compliment. For example, Russigate turned out to be nothing (the establishment promoted this to the high heavens). The chemical weapons attack that Assad supposedly performed turned out to be completed by the CIA to frame Assad.

It seems again and again that the term conspiracy theory is simply an evidence-free ad homenium that is used to discredit anyone who does not support the elite establishment view. 

As for the CCP lying — is this even something I have to address with an explanation of the history of the CCP? As for Fauci has been caught repeatedly in lies in topics entirely unrelated to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So Dr. Fauchi’s status as a dishonest, highly political scientist is already a fact.

Faux Fact-Checking by MSN

MSN fact checks the statements of Paul and Fauci in the following quotation.

Rand Paul: Instead, government authorities, self-interested in continuing gain-of-function research, say there’s nothing to see here.

There may be some truth to the assertion of self-interest. The international community of virologists is relatively small, and they tend to know one another. Peter Daszak, head of EcoHealth Alliance, which has been the main conduit for NIH research funds on coronaviruses to the Wuhan lab in China, and has worked closely with scientists in China, has been criticized for having a conflict of interest in his role as a member of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2. More widely, scientists who do GOF research may be more confident about the safety of their work than the long history of lab accidents would suggest. Authorities at the NIH and elsewhere have tended to side with the natural-origin theory, the most salient counter-example being Robert Redfield, who cast his lot in with the GOF crowd shortly after stepping down as the head of the Centers for Disease Control. But it would stretch credulity to imply any significant monetary self-interest.

Curiously, MSN would say may be “some truth” to this. This is true. GOF researchers want to continue getting grants to do GOF research. It is their career of choice.

And not only has EcoHealth Alliance been criticized for having a conflict of interest in investigating the origin of C19, does has this conflict of interest.

Why does it stretch credulity to imply a monetary self-interest? There is a financial self-interest.

Paul: To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus’ ability to infect humans.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology, under the direction of Dr. Shi Zengli, was clearly doing GOF experiments before the pandemic arose. But GOF work is now commonplace. The real scandal is not that the Wuhan Institute was doing GOF work, it’s that everyone does it. That, and not the Wuhan lab origin theory, is what we should all be arguing about.

This is a ridiculous attempt to deflect from Paul’s point. The CCP and the US have deemphasized the GOF research being done at WIV. Dr. Fauci is caught lying multiple times on whether the NIH is funding GOF and played word games when asked if the NIH funded GOF at Wuhan, saying it didn’t when in reality it funded an intermediary that did precisely that (Ecohealth Alliance).

So Paul’s point is quite valid here. And GOF is not “commonplace.” Only 11 labs in the US perform GOF. That is 11 cities that should be suspect if a virus breaks out in any of them. Only a few labs in China do GOF. What is the statistical likelihood that an engineered virus would originate from the same city with China’s preeminent virology lab doing GOF with coronaviruses? I will answer that. The probability is extremely low.

An Impossible to Miss Location of and Coverup of the Origin of the Coronavirus

The following naturally follows from the evidence.

Issue #1: Non-Sharing of Information

Fauci knew exactly what Wuhan Virology lab was doing as the NIH funded it. However, Fauci never broached this subject. Why?

Issue #2: Likelihood of the Wet Market Hypothesis

Fauci knew all about the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology at Wuhan as the NIH was approving grants to studying gain of function research, which means to increase the capabilities of a virus.

Fauci would have immediately seen the unlikelihood of the marketplace story. Yet he never said anything.

How Far Was the Wet Market from the Wuhan Lab of Virology?

It seems that Google would like the wet market to be further away than it was. Altering maps in this way will make the establishment of political parties in China and the US very thankful and will allow Google to cash in political benefits later on. As Google becomes increasingly political, it will be a tool of governments to tell the population what the government wants its citizens to know. 

And Google is not the only technology company keeping to the view promoted by the establishment.

Observe the Wikipedia entry on the Wuhan Lab of Virology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus.[27][28] Shi Zheng-Li commented on this controversy by saying: “Sadly, WIV was at the center of the misleading speculations regarding the origin of the virus, which were not fully clarified until a recent joint study was performed by an international expert team led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese experts.”[29] In April 2020, the Trump administration terminated a NIH grant to research how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans.[30][31] On February 9, 2021, after investigations in Wuhan, the WHO said a laboratory “leak” origin for COVID-19 was “extremely unlikely”,[32][33] confirming what experts already expected about the likely origins and early transmission.[34]

Really?

Because most of the media has stuck to the establishment story of the wet market hypothesis that now looks virtually impossible. One reason being the bats that carry coronaviruses are not with a thousand miles of the wet market. As for the WHO, their credibility has been ruined by the outbreak, and naturally, they will parrot the official position of the US and Chinese governments.

Statistical Probability of the Virus Originating So Close to Lab Performing Gain of Function Research

If there was a coronavirus outbreak in close proximity to one of the 11 labs, say within 10 miles, as was the case with Wuhan, wouldn’t that call into question whether it came from the lab?

Let us review the logic of probability as laid out in this quotation.

Moreover, China has a population of 1.3 billion. If spillover from the wildlife trade was the explanation, then, other things being equal, the probability of a pandemic starting in Wuhan (pop. 11 million) is less than 1%.

Zheng-Li Shi, the head of bat coronavirus research at WIV, told Scientific American as much:

“I had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.” Her studies had shown that the southern, subtropical provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi and Yunnan have the greatest risk of coronaviruses jumping to humans from animals—particularly bats, a known reservoir. If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, “Could they have come from our lab?”

Apart from descriptions in their publications we do not yet know exactly which viruses the WIV was experimenting with but it is certainly intriguing that numerous publications since Sars-CoV-2 first appeared have puzzled over the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds with exceptionally high affinity to the human ACE2 receptor “at least ten times more tightly” than the original SARS – Independent Science News

However, this probability or curious proximity to the WIV is never discussed in the establishment media.

Issue #3: Fauci’s Hiding of the Origin of the Coronavirus

Fauci hid the origin and the NIH’s involvement in creating the virus (which was trained to spread more effectively through humanized mice) from the inception of the outbreak to today, hoping that the wet market hypothesis would not be challenged.

Dr. Fauci has kept from the public the history of problems with GOF research and why it was banned in 2014.

See the following quotation.

As such in October 2014, because of public health concerns, the US government banned all federal funding on efforts to weaponize three viruses – influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). – Strategic Culture

Dr. Fauci also hid from the public his involvement in circumventing the ban by funding GOF in Wuhan, as is found in the following quotation.

In the face of a moratorium in the US, Dr Anthony Fauci – the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and currently the leading doctor in the US Coronavirus Task Force – outsourced in 2015 the GOF research to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab to continue receiving US government funding. – Strategic Culture

Issue #4: The Thickness of Fauci’s Head on Gain of Function Research

Even with the outbreak, he still wants the NIH to fund gain of function. Fauci intends to hide the epidemic’s origin as he is dedicated to more gain of function research.

How Was a Vaccine for C19 Created so Quickly?

The media has lauded the development of the vaccine and the US’s Operation Warp Speed. However, no vaccine has ever been created this quickly. Many would like to chalk this up to technological development. Still, one of the producers of the coronavirus vaccine, Moderna, is a tech startup with abysmal management that has never produced a single product in its over ten-year history. Not only Moderna but Pfizer was also able to come up with a vaccine.

How is this possible?

Conclusion: The Sino NIH American Coronavirus?

It appears C19 should now have to be called the “Sino-American Virus.” Or the “Wuhan NIH Virus.” Or alternatively the “Chinese Corona Bioweapon.”

Furthermore, China appears to have an unhealthy fascination with weaponizing viruses. And China is engaging in research that China does not appear to have the internal standards to carry out safely. And the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is connected to the CCP’s national defense is not a good sign.

Understanding China’s Defense Mindset

China has a long-term strategy of fighting back against Western powers that it views as potentially corrupting its political design. China’s leadership bears an enormous chip on their shoulder for the domination on the part of the British and the adverse outcomes from the opium trade. And in the CCP’s internal documents have admitted that it cannot win a conventional war against the US. Their internal documents describe how to fight a war without actually engaging militarily, hence their interest in bioweapons. Their activities in funding research in multiple countries to bring it back to China are found in the following quotation.

It also appears the North Carolina Lab got their cells from Fort Dietrich which is the US major facility for R&D and stockpiling of biological weapons. The scientists at the University of North Carolina made it clear they were increasing pathogenicity of SARS with their GOF activity.

The final article Professor Boyle cites is Archives of Virology 2010, volume 155. This is research done with an institute in Australia working with Wuhan scientists to DNA genetically engineer SARS and HIV to make a weapon. The Australian Institute was awarded a grant from China to do this work with their scientists. Here again, Boyle asserts, they bought the technology, they didn’t steal it.

Professor Boyle’s interpretation of these three articles is the Wuhan scientists took these viruses from North Carolina and Australia back to the BSL-4 in Wuhan and tried to genetically engineer it all together as a potent biological warfare weapon. This would be a combination of SARS which is already a weaponized coronavirus add to that GOF properties and HIV.

Boyle says we cannot trust the CDC on this issue or NIH or Tony Fauci. They are fatally compromised to give any advice on coronavirus. The WHO is up to its eyeballs in biological warfare and also cannot be trusted.

Whether or not the recent corona outbreak is a biological weapon there are laboratories making dangerous viruses more deadly. These BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories leak deadly bio-weapons. They must be closed down. They are unsafe, immoral, and illegal. – Survival Dan

It is known that China plans to rely on indirect warfare. Furthermore, China needs to have international cooperation in developing biological weapons. It is far behind the Western countries and needs assistance to catch up. The only way to accomplish this is to pretend the research is legitimate and to act as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. China cannot gain international cooperation by stating that it is developing bioweapons. Therefore GOF research is the perfect cover story for such a program.

Secondly, China has a very low profile in global health outside of virology. It is suspicious that the one area that China would focus attention on in terms of contributing to global health research is the one area that has a crossover use as a bioweapon. The international organizations participating with China in supporting their GOF research do not seem to understand that China is not part of the global scientific community. China will keep its conclusions and publish false research papers as China, and the Chinese do not agree with and are not part of Western civilization. China sends students internationally not to “participate” in global science but to extract intellectual property for the benefit of China.

Finally, there is nothing written above that claims that China or the WIV released C19 purposefully. But this does not mean that Wuhan Institute of Virology is not a bioweapons lab masquerading as a scientific public health entity or that Wuhan Institute of Virology can’t be a dual purpose institution. However, the US and Russia have numerous cases where they did not mean to leak nuclear radiation or lose nuclear bombs during the Cold War, but these things happened anyway.

The release of C19 from the WIV should be a wake-up call that China has a dedicated program to develop bioweapons. A smart move for the NIH would be to stop funding them.

The House of Foreign Affairs Committee Report of August 2021

In August 2021, the House of Foreign Affairs Committee produced a report titled The Origins of Covid 19. This report is filled with amazing and damning information, much of which I had never read before. And predictable it was barely covered by the mainstream media, who prefer to spend their time bring Dr. Fauci onto programs to answer questions about wearing masks rather than investigating. I have a listing and analysis of some of the quotes I found to be the most interesting in this article.