Research papers indicate that SARS-CoV-2 may be a bioweapon

[Puma Cat]

Before reading my post below, please read the link to the Marketwatch article here: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...more_headlines

I'll explain why I am writing this post, but before I do, let me just level set my professional background about what the information below.

I retired only two years ago, but I spent my entire career working in Biotech as a professional molecular biologist with a background in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, developing molecular diagnostics and molecular genetics tests. I'm also one of the inventors of PCR, which is the basic technology that underpins all current COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

I'm reading some interesting papers I've found on Net about SARS-CoV-2:

One of them, entitled, "SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence" has some disturbing content. The reference for this publication is: Nat. Med. 2015 December; 21(12): 1508–1513.

This is as group of scientists working at Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. UNC Chapel Hill is a known and documented site for bioweapons research.

The abstract of the paper begins...

"In this study, we examine the disease potential for SARS-like CoVs currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations."

This is where it starts to get strange:

"Utilizing the SARS-CoV infectious clone, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse adapted SARS-CoV backbone."

Now...here's where it gets scary:

"The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild type backbone can efficiently utilize multiple ACE2 receptor orthologs, replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV."

So, gang...here's what I find alarming...these guys purposely engineered this virus.

The original SARS-like Coronavirus that can only infect bats cannot infect humans because a protein domain on the viral spike protein cannot bind to the ACE2 receptor on human airway epithelial cells.

Well...these guys at UNC Chapel Hill engineered one with a Coronavirus spike protein that CAN bind to human airway epithelial cells.

Now here's the kicker:

"Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from CoVs utilizing the novel spike protein."

In other words, our previous SARS based therapies based on monoclonal antibodies and vaccines developed for original SARS coronavirus failed to protect this new, genetically-engineered, I might add, coronavirus from using the "novel" spike protein. In other words, what we developed as therapies for SARS..don't work.

If that doesn't sound like bioweapons development, I don't know what does..

Now...for the kicker of all kickers: One of the scientists on this publication, a certain Zhengli Shi, woh was working as a post-doc at UNC Chapel Hill. Guess where she actually works? At the "Key Laboratory of Special Pathogensand Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China

The laboratory that the Marketwatch article references above is the SAME laboratory that Zhengli Shi works at.

Now, before you guys think Stephen has gone off the deep end around possible conspirarcy theories, consider this paragraph at the end of the publication cited above:

"These studies were initiated prior to the U.S. Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain of Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses."

What does Gain of Function Research on Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses mean? It means making pathogenic virues more contagious, more pathogenic with a higher lethality index.

This is code for Bioweapons engineering, gang. Just as "Enhanced Interrogation" is code.

Think about that....

[PHC1]

That has been on the minds of many from day one, including my own. Very unlikely we will ever get the real truth. Some things are "too big to fail", some are "too sinister to tell"...

For the record, I hold a very neutral position on this topic. I would not be surprised if it was just another case of a bio-weapon that either slipped out or was deliberately unleashed. History does offer factual evidence from a few countries engaged in it and I am familiar with at least a few incidences.

At the same time, I would also not be surprised it is completely natural, although the deeper the research goes, the slimmer the odds are becoming. The article of this being a "Chimera" virus, two viruses that somehow infected the same host at once and recombined? Hmmm....

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by PHC1

That has been on the minds of many from day one, including my own. Very unlikely we will ever get the real truth. Some things are "too big to fail", some are "too sinister to tell"...

For the record, I hold a very neutral position on this topic. I would not be surprised if it was just another case of a bio-weapon that either slipped out or was deliberately unleashed. History does offer factual evidence from a few countries engaged in it and I am familiar with at least a few incidences.

At the same time, I would also not be surprised it is completely natural, although the deeper the research goes, the slimmer the odds are becoming. The article of this being a "Chimera" virus, two viruses that somehow infected the same host at once and recombined? Hmmm....

I"m coming at this from a neutral perspective, too, Serge. I'm just reading these highly technical research papers on chacterizing strains of Coronoviruses that have spike proteins with RBDs than can, or cannot, bind to human ACE2 receptors. So, from research perspective, I get that...characterizing which bat-specific nCoVs (novel Coronaviruses) can or can't infect human cells.

However, in the case of the paper referenced above; the "native" SHC014 strain of Coronavirus cannot bind to human ACE2 receptors. Cool. You learned something; you know you don't have to worry about this specific viral strain.

But, if that's what the team was really tasked with doing, why not just stop there and go on to examine other stains of bat nCoVs?

Why would this team instead stop examining other strains, and then purposely and intentionally genetically engineer a variant of SHC014 that CAN bind to human cells, a strain that shows very effective infection and pathology, AND is resistant to existing monoclonals and vaccines? A team, by that way, that was working on this research BEFORE the fedral government-mandated PAUSE on "GAIN OF FUNCTION" research on highly dangerous viruses?

This is what gives me concern. If your team was simply doing nCoV strain surveillance on strains that can or can't infect humans, and when you find one that cannot, why would you not say, "Okay, well, we know that SHC014 can't infect humans. Let's move on and look for others."? Why would you then deliberately genetically engineer one that can if you're just doing screening/surveillance?

Something's wrong with this picture...

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

I"m coming at this from a neutral perspective, too, Serge. I'm just reading these highly technical research papers on chacterizing strains of Coronoviruses that have spike proteins with RBDs than can, or cannot, bind to human ACE2 receptors. So, from research perspective, I get that...characterizing which bat-specific nCoVs (novel Coronaviruses) can or can't infect human cells.

However, in the case of the paper referenced above; the "native" SHC014 strain of Coronavirus cannot bind to human ACE2 receptors. Cool. You learned something; you know you don't have to worry about this specific viral strain.

But, if that's what the team was really tasked with doing, why not just stop there and go on to examine other stains of bat nCoVs?

Why would this team instead stop examining other strains, and then purposely and intentionally genetically engineer a variant of SHC014 that CAN bind to human cells, a strain that shows very effective infection and pathology, AND is resistant to existing monoclonals and vaccines? A team, by that way, that was working on this research BEFORE the fedral government-mandated PAUSE on "GAIN OF FUNCTION" research on highly dangerous viruses?

This is what gives me concern. If your team was simply doing nCoV strain surveillance on strains that can or can't infect humans, and when you find one that cannot, why would you not say, "Okay, well, we know that SHC014 can't infect humans. Let's move on and look for others."? Why would you then deliberately genetically engineer one that can if you're just doing screening/surveillance?

Something's wrong with this picture...

Yes I agree but am not surprised. Just like the proposed end of nuclear proliferation, I don’t believe it ever worked. If you have extra time on your hands.... https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61/

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Yes I agree but am not surprised. Just like the proposed end of nuclear proliferation, I don’t believe it ever worked. If you have extra time on your hands.... https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61/

No, I am not surprised, either. After all, the highly deadly anthrax strain that was mailed around after 9/11 in letters in US Mail was the Bacillus anthracis strain developed at the Bioweapons program at Fort Detrick, MD.

[Cohibaman]

Thanks for this Stephen.

A very interesting topic so I hope everyone keeps this apolitical.

IMG_0825.jpg

[PHC1]

Marveling at the ingenuity of this virus (sarcasm) of how it is able to sustain itself for 17 days and counting on a cruise ship that has no hosts... While I was aware of the lack of clear data on such statistics, the average projections were way less than 17 days.

I also have nothing but deep respect for the scientists involved with such projects (those that are in it for the well-being of the human species and not those who seek ways of weaponizing such things although the lines are often blurred there in such labs) but at the same time have serious doubts that they can outsmart what we will assume is the creation of mother nature. Our best intellectual minds pale in creativity by comparison.

Of course we can not exactly rule out an external source (as in, look above is it a bird, is it a plane, no... it is an unknown flying object)

Can any experts in such topics chime in about the mechanism of sustaining a virus without a host for over 17 days? Has this been ever observed before?

[SCAudiophile]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Marveling at the ingenuity of this virus (sarcasm) of how it is able to sustain itself for 17 days and counting on a cruise ship that has no hosts... While I was aware of the lack of clear data on such statistics, the average projections were way less than 17 days.

I also have nothing but deep respect for the scientists involved with such projects (those that are in it for the well-being of the human species and not those who seek ways of weaponizing such things although the lines are often blurred there in such labs) but at the same time have serious doubts that they can outsmart what we will assume is the creation of mother nature. Our best intellectual minds pale in creativity by comparison.

Of course we can not exactly rule out an external source (as in, look above is it a bird, is it a plane, no... it is an unknown flying object)

Can any experts in such topics chime in about the mechanism of sustaining a virus without a host for over 17 days? Has this been ever observed before?

Good post...would love to see this answered

[SCAudiophile]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Before reading my post below, please read the link to the Marketwatch article here: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...more_headlines

I'll explain why I am writing this post, but before I do, let me just level set my professional background about what the information below.

I retired only two years ago, but I spent my entire career working in Biotech as a professional molecular biologist with a background in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, developing molecular diagnostics and molecular genetics tests. I'm also one of the inventors of PCR, which is the basic technology that underpins all current COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

I'm reading some interesting papers I've found on Net about SARS-CoV-2:

One of them, entitled, "SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence" has some disturbing content. The reference for this publication is: Nat. Med. 2015 December; 21(12): 1508–1513.

This is as group of scientists working at Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. UNC Chapel Hill is a known and documented site for bioweapons research.

The abstract of the paper begins...

"In this study, we examine the disease potential for SARS-like CoVs currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations."

This is where it starts to get strange:

"Utilizing the SARS-CoV infectious clone, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse adapted SARS-CoV backbone."

Now...here's where it gets scary:

"The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild type backbone can efficiently utilize multiple ACE2 receptor orthologs, replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV."

So, gang...here's what I find alarming...these guys purposely engineered this virus.

The original SARS-like Coronavirus that can only infect bats cannot infect humans because a protein domain on the viral spike protein cannot bind to the ACE2 receptor on human airway epithelial cells.

Well...these guys at UNC Chapel Hill engineered one with a Coronavirus spike protein that CAN bind to human airway epithelial cells.

Now here's the kicker:

"Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from CoVs utilizing the novel spike protein."

In other words, our previous SARS based therapies based on monoclonal antibodies and vaccines developed for original SARS coronavirus failed to protect this new, genetically-engineered, I might add, coronavirus from using the "novel" spike protein. In other words, what we developed as therapies for SARS..don't work.

If that doesn't sound like bioweapons development, I don't know what does..

Now...for the kicker of all kickers: One of the scientists on this publication, a certain Zhengli Shi, woh was working as a post-doc at UNC Chapel Hill. Guess where he actually works? At the "Key Laboratory of Special Pathogensand Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China

The laboratory that the Marketwatch article references above is the SAME laboratory that Zhengli Shi works at.

Now, before you guys think Stephen has gone off the deep end around possible conspirarcy theories, consider this paragraph at the end of the publication cited above:

"These studies were initiated prior to the U.S. Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain of Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses."

What does Gain of Function Research on Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses mean? It means making pathogenic virues more contagious, more pathogenic with a higher lethality index.

This is code for Bioweapons engineering, gang. Just as "Enhanced Interrogation" is code.

Think about that....

Great post Stephen...my only question on this is why after this paper was published did not someone, be it CDC or even USAMRID or WHO delve into this. This is one of the clearest and most compelling articles referenced thus far. And that's not code [emoji2]

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by SCAudiophile

Great post Stephen...my only question on this is why after this paper was published did not someone, be it CDC or even USAMRID or WHO delve into this. This is one of the clearest and most compelling articles referenced thus far. And that's not code [emoji2]

As if any of the above mentioned organizations closely working with or being part of government systems would ever disclose such things publicly....