Den 7. juni hadde to anerkjente forskere en banebrytende artikkel i Wall Street Journal som forklarer hvorfor genomet til viruset beviser at det er blitt manipulert. Artikkelen er viktig for å forstå hvorfor det ikke var vanskelig å konstatere at viruset har oppstått i et laboratorium. Alt snakk om «våtmarker» var bevisst villedende.

The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak
The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Quay og Muller risser opp hvordan en celle fungerer. Den produserer proteiner og hvert protein har en egen genetisk kode.

A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most.

Vi kjenner ordet genesplicing. Det brukes i en helende betydning, dvs man går inn og «mekker» litt på genene for å fjerne en sykdomsdisposisjon.

Gain of function er det motsatte: Man gjør et virus mer dødelig og smittsomt gjennom gensplicing.

Hvorfor skulle noen ønske å gjøre det? For å kunne avverge en pandemi en gang i fremtiden. Offisielt. Men for Kina: En mulighet til verdensherredømme gjennom biologisk krigføring.

Mye tyder på at coronaviruset ble eksportert til resten av verden for å heve Kina opp og resten av verden ned.

In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses.

Den avslørende kombinasjonen i coronaviruset er CGG-CGG. Denne er aldri tidligere funnet i naturlige virus.

In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. 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.

En sterk indikator på at noe er galt, var da batwoman Shi Zhengli publiserte genomet til viruset 20. februar 2020, men utelot akkurat den sekvensen som rommer CGG-CGG. Det var ikke tilfeldig. Shenli visste at det ville avslørt gain-of-function-forskning.

Den doble CGG er lettest å bruke for forskere og den er en signatur som viser at sekvensen er manipulert. I naturen er det den minst sannsynlige.

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.

Nettopp forekomsten av CGG-CGG viste at viruset var manipulert.

Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

Forskere ville vite at CGG-CGG ville påkalle stor oppmerksomhet. Hvis den hadde oppstått naturlig, måtte de ha forklart hvorfor.

Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.

Og så det siste avslørende bevis: Utelatelsen.

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

Dokumentasjonen fantes i underlagsmaterialet og en italiensk forsker klarte på egenhånd å fremskaffe bevisene.

Genspleisingen var gjort for at viruset skulle være optimalisert for smitte mellom mennesker. Da er det ganske absurd å tenke på at Beijing og WHO lenge påsto at viruset ikke smittet mellom mennesker. De visste hele tiden at det ikke kom fra dyr og at det var skapt av dem selv nettopp for å smitte optimalt.

Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.

The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.

Artikkelen ligger bak mur. Derfor har Document sitert så mye for at leserne selv skal skulle gjøre seg opp en mening. Det er litt innfløkt, men ikke uforståelig. Dette med optimalisering for smitte mellom mennesker sier det meste. Når vi vet at denne forskningen ble finansiert av amerikanerne, sogar Pentagon, er det ekstra sjokkerende.

Kineserne slapp viruset løs mot det landet som finansierte forskningen. Det sier ganske mye om dagens USA.