Chinese scientists 'DID create Covid & reverse-engineered disease to cover tracks with bat theory', shock study claimsMay 29, 2021
A damning study blames Chinese scientists for engineering Covid-19 in a Wuhan lab and then orchestrating an elaborate coverup by reverse-engineering versions of the disease to make it appear as though it was naturally sourced from bats.
The authors of the 22-page British-Norwegian vaccine paper, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, wrote “SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor” and that there exists “beyond reasonable doubt” that the disease was produced through “laboratory manipulation.”
Moreover, the scientists place blame squarely on the same Chinese lab researchers for covering up their Covid-19 tracks.
The scientists wrote that there was “deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data” in Chinese labs and added that “Chinese scientists who wished to share their knowledge have not been able to do so or have disappeared,” according to the paper slated to be published in the scientific journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, and first reported by the Daily Mail.
The absence of crucial scientific proof may prove to make it impossible to know exactly how the coronavirus originated and then spread around the world.
“It appears that preserved virus material and related information have been destroyed.
“Therefore we are confronted with large gaps in data which may never be filled,” according to the study.
But both authors have developed a kind of roadmap based on a collection ofsamples and odd findings.
They illustrate there was manipulation and explain how by zeroing in on a rare instance of a row of four amino acids, which give off a positive charge and bond to negative human cells, that they pinpointed on the SARS-Cov-2 spike.
Sørensen told the Mail that it is “extremely unlikely” to find even three let alone four amino acids on the same row.
“The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row,” Dalgleish told the Mail.
“The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it.”
Their paper exposes the “unique fingerprints” of the Covid-19 which they claim are “indicative of purposive manipulation” and that any “likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.”
The scientists assert that there is enough proof that the findings of “strains” after January don’t hold up.
“Strains 'popped up' after January 2020 are not credible… For a year we have possessed prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China in early 2020.”
The study comes a groundswell of demands from politicians have pressed for answers since initial claims that Covid-19 was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology were batted away as conspiracy.
In recent months, there is more scrutiny being placed on the Wuhan lab as being ground zero where so-called “Gain-of-Function” research was being conducted to determine whether bats could transmit coronaviruses to humans and creating infectious hybrid strains for tests.
Gain-of-Function research can be understood as improving "the ability of a pathogen to cause disease" in humans, according to the US Department of Health and Human Service.
This week, Pres. Joe Biden bowed to pressure and announced intelligence agencies will "redouble their efforts" to determine if Covid-19 jumped from an animal host to humans or whether it was accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan, China.
A report would be submitted to him after 90 days.
It also followed an intelligence report that had reached the White House detailing how multiples Wuhan lab scientists fell ill and were hospitalized as far back as November 2019, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The sicknesses of Wuhan scientists was also mentioned in a stunning report from last week where GOP congress members, led by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, accused China of possibly covering up the origins of the coronavirus.
The report claimed there remains “significant circumstantial evidence raises serious concerns that the Covid-19 outbreak may have been a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
It based its conclusion on China's checkered history with infections caused by research lab leaks, diplomatic cables from 2017 warning the Wuhan lab was “conducting dangerous research on coronaviruses… risking the accidental outbreak of a pandemic,” the Chinese military’s ties to the lab, “several researchers sickened with Covid-19 symptoms in the fall of 2019," and the evidence of China’s efforts to “cover up the true circumstances” of the outbreak.
China and the lab have continuously denied allegations of a possible leak.
Also at issue, is whether the Wuhan lab used the $600,000 allotted by The National Institutes of Health over a five-year period to study whether bats could transmit coronaviruses to humans.
The US leading Covid-19 scientist, Dr. Anthony Fauci said the money was used as part of a collaborative study with "respectable" scientists on how coronaviruses are transmitted to humans.
But when pressed by lawmakers the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted he wasn't able to be sure where or how the money was used.
“There’s no way of guaranteeing that,” Fauci told Republican Sen. John Kennedy during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday.
The paper quoted by the Mail reads: “A natural virus pandemic would be expected to mutate gradually and become more infectious but less pathogenic which is what many expected with the COVID-19 pandemic but which does not appear to have happened.”
It goes on to point out there is almost no other conclusion than some kind of obfuscation going on at the Wuhan lab.
“The implication of our historical reconstruction, we posit now beyond reasonable doubt, of the purposively manipulated chimeric virus SARS-CoV-2 makes it imperative to reconsider what types of Gain of Function experiments it is morally acceptable to undertake,” the paper reads, according to the Mail.
“Because of wide social impact, these decisions cannot be left to research scientists alone.”
Source: Read Full Article