SARS-COV-2 was made deliberately. Why?

  • “Gain-of-function” refers to experiments in which a pathogen is altered to give it new or added functionality, such as the ability to infect humans, when before it could not, or increased infectiousness or lethality
  • SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. Some experts have pointed out that this novel function couldn’t possibly have arisen naturally
  • The fact that SARS-CoV-2 does not have the RBD amino acid sequence predicted by computer modeling does not rule out the possibility that it was genetically engineered, or otherwise manmade
  • U.S. and Chinese researchers have genetically engineered bat coronaviruses using methods such as seamless ligation procedures that leave no sign or signature of human manipulation
  • Another way you can alter a virus in a laboratory — without genetic engineering — is by culturing the virus in cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus can thereby adapt and gain the ability to bind to that receptor and infect humans

Is the COVID-19 pandemic the result of a manmade virus? And, if so, what does that say about mankind’s ability to safely conduct gain-of-function experiments? “Gain-of-function” refers to experiments in which a pathogen is altered to give it new or added functionality, such as the ability to infect humans, when before it could not, or increased infectiousness or lethality, for example.

A decade ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.1

In reality, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses at all. If anything, it’s a curious coincidence that the very viruses undergoing gain-of-function research are the ones causing pandemics.

As noted in the 2016 paper,2 “Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis,” even if gain-of-function research does lead to improved and effective control measures, laboratory accidents or “malevolent action” in which souped-up pathogens are released can still result in casualties numbering in the millions.

The Controversy Surrounding Gain-of-Function Research

Gain-of-function research has been controversial since it started being openly discussed.3 As noted in the 2012 paper, “Rethinking Biosafety in Research on Potential Pandemic Pathogens”:4

“If accidentally released, mammalian-transmissible influenza A/H5N1 viruses could pose a greater threat to public health than possibly any other infectious agent currently under study in laboratories, because of such viruses’ likely combination of transmissibility and virulence to humans …

Such potential pandemic pathogens, as they have been called, jeopardize not only laboratory workers and their contacts, but also the wider population, who should be involved in assessments of when such risks are acceptable in the service of scientific knowledge that may itself bear major public health benefits.”

The U.S. put a moratorium5 on government funding of gain-of-function research into SARS, MERS and avian flu in 2014, following several biosafety lapses at federal research facilities.6 In a May 2016 paper in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, American scientists noted:7

“The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm …

Public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed … As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.”

Again and again, scientists have called for public transparency, saying the public should be part of the decision process, seeing how our health is at stake and it’s our taxpayer money that’s being used to conduct this research.

As noted in a 2013 paper,8 “controllability of escape events is not guaranteed and, given the rapid increase of biosafety laboratories worldwide, this poses a serious threat to human health.”

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/03/coronavirus-engineered.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20200603Z2&et_cid=DM554052&et_rid=885552239

TAP – Sars-CoV-2 is not a serious condition.  But if you have had the flu vaccine previously, these are contaminated with gamma retroviruses.  Sars-CoV-2 triggers these retro viruses in some cases causing COVID-19 a dangerous blood clotting disease which starves the body of oxygen.  The idea appears to be to get people to take the flu vaccine – which has a high take-up rate in the UK – and then trigger the retro viruses later using the high infectivity of the common cold.  That was the plan.  However it worked in very few cases…fortunately.  It is more than possible that they have other plans of a similar nature but clearly they hoped this would be their best shot.  As Dr Mercola says, the human race needs these attacks stopped.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.