PreprintPDF Available

Origin of SARS-CoV-2: biopolitics, evolution, virology March 2024 update

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

Summary To understand the origin of the Covid virus and the management of the resulting crisis, the virological approach is of course essential, but we also need to consider the concept of biopolitics, which can explain the apparent irrationality of the management of this pandemic. A historical approach is just as essential for understanding this concept as it is for understanding the strictly virological aspect (history of epidemics and research into gain-of-function). The history of human coronavirus epidemics since the end of the 19th century shows that this type of virus is only capable of causing a pandemic if it passes from a domestic animal to man, and then several times in a row in a population living in very close contact with that animal: from an evolutionary point of view, the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from an animal is impossible. And this is confirmed by the unsuccessful search for the animal that served as intermediate host: for almost 4 years it has been impossible to find a similar or closely related virus in any wild animal. The history of gains of function in coronaviruses clearly shows us which molecular features were identified, and how they were added to low-transmissibility viruses such as SARS-CoV-1 in 2002. Examination of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence reveals exactly these important parts of the genome: the virus's high affinity for human ACE2 (the "key" that enables the virus to open the door to many cell types), the furin site (the virus's "arm" that opens this door) and other sequences that enable the virus to enter immune cells that lack the ACE2 "lock". There are very strong arguments in support of the hypothesis that the virus originated in the USA and then spread naturally (or deliberately) to China. Research using GoFs continues, with impunity, on many viruses, and in the silence of the media. That's why it's so urgent to inform the general public about the dangers of these GoFs, so that they can hopefully influence their elected representatives. Knowledge is power! A public and democratic debate is urgently needed.
Origin of SARS-CoV-2:
biopolitics, evolution, virology
March 2024 update
Helene Banoun https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-7989 pharmacist-biologist, former INSERM
researcher, March 2024 !
Disclaimer
This text should have appeared in a collective book in French on the Covid published in March 2024 ("Un
autre regard sur le Covid", éditions Demi-Lune).
But the publisher rewrote my article and I did not approve the changes. So I didn't sign the text published in
this book. In the published version of the book, the evolutionary point of view and the arguments in favor of
the virus' American rather than Chinese geographical origin have disappeared.
Some technical details should also have been corrected. The publisher has also added paragraphs that seem
too anecdotal to me.
So here's my personal point of view.!
Summary
To understand the origin of the Covid virus and the management of the resulting crisis, the
virological approach is of course essential, but we also need to consider the concept of biopolitics,
which can explain the apparent irrationality of the management of this pandemic. A historical
approach is just as essential for understanding this concept as it is for understanding the strictly
virological aspect (history of epidemics and research into gain-of-function).
The history of human coronavirus epidemics since the end of the 19th century shows that this type
of virus is only capable of causing a pandemic if it passes from a domestic animal to man, and
then several times in a row in a population living in very close contact with that animal: from an
evolutionary point of view, the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from an animal is
impossible. And this is confirmed by the unsuccessful search for the animal that served as
intermediate host: for almost 4 years it has been impossible to find a similar or closely related
virus in any wild animal.
The history of gains of function in coronaviruses clearly shows us which molecular features were
identified, and how they were added to low-transmissibility viruses such as SARS-CoV-1 in 2002.
Examination of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence reveals exactly these important parts of the
genome: the virus's high affinity for human ACE2 (the "key" that enables the virus to open the
door to many cell types), the furin site (the virus's "arm" that opens this door) and other sequences
that enable the virus to enter immune cells that lack the ACE2 "lock".
There are very strong arguments in support of the hypothesis that the virus originated in the USA
and then spread naturally (or deliberately) to China.
Research using GoFs continues, with impunity, on many viruses, and in the silence of the media.
That's why it's so urgent to inform the general public about the dangers of these GoFs, so that they
can hopefully influence their elected representatives. Knowledge is power!
A public and democratic debate is urgently needed.
1
Summary"
!1
1. Introduction"
!3
Ia - Ideology and profit-seeking"
!3
Laboratory profits and the 1986 Injury Act"
!4
Ib - Gain of function and biopolitics"
!4
Ic - A few notions of virology"
!6
2 - The history of coronaviruses and gain-of-function research on these viruses"
!7
IIa - Historical overview of coronaviruses"
!7
Evolutionary theory may shed some light"
!8
IIb - History of gains of function on SARS-CoV (viruses identical or similar to the SARS-CoV virus that caused the
2003-2004 epidemic)"
!9
Moratorium on Gain of function 2012-2014"
!11
IIc - Sino-American collaboration in coronavirus gain-of-function research from 2014 onwards"
!12
Has the virus escaped from an American laboratory?"
!15
IIc - Accidental escape of pathogenic viruses is well documented: viruses have escaped from labs in the past, and
SC2 would be far from the first!"
!17
IId - Late January 2020: first doubts about the origin of the virus"
!17
3 How biopower (in particular the people, states and organizations directly involved such as China, the USA, A
Fauci,...) did everything in its power to conceal this origin."
!19
4 Mainstream virologists put forward arguments in favor of artificial origin"
!20
IVa - Daszak's near-confessions"
!20
IVb - In 2021, virologists less dependent on biopower than the authors of The Proximal Origin are quietly casting
doubt on the natural origin of the virus."
!20
IVc - Today's more or less ocial version"
!22
Conclusion"
!24
Call for a new moratorium on gain-of-function experiments"
25
2
1. Introduction
To understand the origin of the Covid virus and the management of the resulting crisis, the
virological approach is of course essential, but it is also necessary to use the concept of
biopolitics, which can explain the apparent irrationality of the management of this pandemic. The
historical approach is as essential to understanding this concept as it is to understanding the
strictly virological aspect (the history of epidemics and the search for gain-of-function).
Biopolitics is defined by Michel Foucault as all security measures for controlling populations.
Until the 18th century, states exercised their power over political subjects without taking their
biological nature into account. The thinkers of the states in formation from the 15th century
onwards gradually realized that the prosperity of nations derived above all from their population,
and not from their territory, however vast and rich it might be, for without population, the earth's
riches could not be extracted. Biopolitics really took off with the industrial age. Indeed, a
population's good health and reproductive capacity were crucial to its efficiency in extracting
wealth from the earth, and later in producing manufactured goods.
Vaccination also appeared at the end of the 18th century, with the aim of controlling epidemics. At
first, biopolitics rapidly focused on widespread, compulsory vaccination, first against smallpox,
later against other diseases. Vaccination against a growing number of diseases is intensively
promoted, or even made compulsory, in virtually every country in the world.
It now appears that biopolitics is moving away from its initial aim of maintaining populations in a
state to produce and reproduce: paradoxically, it is leading to a serious deterioration in the health
of populations.
To understand the emergence of the Covid virus, I have taken a chronological approach up to
March 2020. Each milestone in this story can be explained from a biopolitical point of view, and
we'll see how scientific results gradually drift away from the desired goal of protecting people's
health.
Biopolitics alone will give coherence to this crisis, without looking for more or less conspiratorial
"explanations" such as a desire for depopulation.
Conspiracy is the result of misunderstanding, and consists in attributing any disruption of the
social system to an evil will originating in the upper echelons of power. I fight conspiracy because
the powers that be use it to discredit all scientifically founded criticism. This allows them to
equate such criticism with conspiracy.
Ia - Ideology and profit-seeking!
We must bear in mind that the genesis of the Covid virus can never be separated from vaccine
biopolitics: it is impossible to dissociate the search for gain-of-function (GoF) from the quest for
vaccines designed to protect populations against future emerging viruses. We are witnessing a
systemic conjunction of interests that gave rise to the COVID-19 crisis and its biopolitical
management.
As early as the 18th century, emerging biopolitics immediately transformed the technique of
vaccination into an ideology that has solidified over the centuries.
Variolization, the first mass vaccination campaign, was promoted and imposed with the aim of
improving population productivity, with benefits shown to outweigh the well-known risks. Daniel
Bernoulli (physician and mathematician) explained this as early as 1760, using mathematical
3
modelling : "If inoculation is adopted, the result will be a gain of several thousand people for
1
civil society; even if it is murderous, as it kills children in the cradle, it is preferable to smallpox,
which kills adults who have become useful to society...". From the outset, vaccination has been
justified in the name of state health policy.
From the beginning of the 20th century, vaccination became a quasi-religious scientistic ideology:
this is well illustrated by the publications of Dr. Thomas Francis, a physician, epidemiologist and
pastor's son, who worked on flu vaccines. He published the first observations on an apparently
paradoxical immunological phenomenon which he called the "original antigenic sin". Thomas
2
Francis suggested a solution to avoid this immune imprint: vaccinate children at an early age
against all strains of influenza that had circulated in the past. He declared: "In this way, the
original sin of infection could be replaced by the initial blessing of vaccination"... And so the
ideology of vaccination began to replace the science of immunology! Researchers continued to
recommend vaccinations with higher doses or more frequent booster doses to avoid this famous
original sin of a primary infection or vaccination. justified in the name of the sanitary reason of
State.
LABORATORY PROFITS AND THE 1986 INJURY ACT
This ideology, now firmly anchored in the minds of the 21st century as an unquestionable health
consensus, is reinforced by the staggering profits that the pharmaceutical industry has been able to
make since the 1986 Injury Act and its equivalents elsewhere in the world. In the early 1980s,
vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop production because they feared that the sums to be paid
in compensation to victims of adverse reactions would exceed their profits. The US government
then decided to remove financial responsibility for damage caused by their products (unlike other
drugs), and other states more or less followed suit .
3
The other biopolitical instrument that will help us understand the genesis of Covid is pandemic
preparedness.
Ib - Gain of function and biopolitics!
In the same way that governments seek to anticipate economic crises with bank stress tests, they are
launching research programs to prevent emerging virus pandemics . The aim is to protect
4
[An example of modelling, Annette Leroy, Institut de Recherche sur l'Enseignement des
1
Mathématiques. https://www.apmep.fr/Bulletin-459]
Hélène Banoun (2021). !
2
The role of antibodies in the light of the theory of evolution. !
African Journal of Biological Sciences. 3(3), 1-9. 10.33472/AFJBS.3.3.2021.1-9
. [National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986!
3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/title-xxi-phs-vaccines-1517.pdf]
Simulations de pandémies depuis 2010 : ce qu’elles nous apprennent de très déplaisant sur la 4
Covid- 19, H Banoun, fevrier 2021, https://www.aimsib.org/2021/02/21/simulations-de-
pandemies-depuis- 2010-ce-quelles-nous-apprennent-de-tres-deplaisant-sur-la-covid-19/ !
4
populations by anticipating viral mutation phenomena on the one hand, and the health response on
the other, in particular with drugs and vaccines.
Among the new tools of genetic manipulation, gain-of-function technology has been particularly
used and developed, notably on coronaviruses.
The term "gain of function" (GoF) was coined to describe experiments designed to understand how
a pathogen can acquire an additional function to adapt to its environment, or even become
pandemic, i.e. capable of infecting humans and spreading efficiently across the planet.
Some scientists believe they can anticipate the natural evolution of viruses through various types of
manipulation that reproduce what might happen in nature.
To obtain gains in function, we can traditionally :
- Cultivate micro-organisms (bacteria or viruses) on animal or human cells and pass them from cell
to cell;
Infect animals and pass the micro-organism from animal to animal (serial passage).
These laboratory manipulations aim to increase transmissibility, pathogenicity and host tropism
(which animals can be infected) by exerting selection pressure on the micro-organism. Selection
pressure consists in selecting mutant viruses that can adapt to a new host (cell or animal). In
concrete terms, within a virus culture on cells or in an infected animal, there are always billions of
virions1 and among them mutants, some of which will spontaneously adapt to a host never before
encountered by the virus. These mutations, which can increase pathogenicity or transmissibility,
are then sought out and selected.
With the development of molecular biology techniques, it is now possible to produce mutations at
will, without waiting for them to appear spontaneously. The latest of these techniques is reverse
genetics, which can now even synthesize the complete genome of a virus.
Isn't it presumptuous to try to anticipate the evolution of a virus through laboratory experiments?
From my point of view, it's an attempt doomed to failure, since it's impossible to reproduce in
vitro the natural environment of a microorganism, with its multiple and complex interactions. This
is also the opinion of Simon Wain-Hobson, professor at the Institut Pasteur
5
For two years, a lively debate on the relevance of this type of "dual-use" experiment1 pitted the
scientific community against each other. On the one hand, the Cambridge Working Group
(initiated by Marc Lipsitch), which aims to regulate useless and dangerous practices, and on the
other, Scientists for Science, who advocate freedom and individual responsibility. The latter have
a strong supporter in Anthony Fauci, the highly influential and irremovable director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). A central figure in the US
healthcare system, Fauci has always defended gains-of-function (GoF) research, declaring in 2012
that "the risk-benefit ratio of this research is clearly tilted in favor of society". Scientific argument
or health state reason? For Fauci: "Nature itself is the most dangerous of bioterrorists" , a
6
statement and mindset of a typically biopolitical nature that helps justify potentially risky
decisions for public health.
However, in 2014, several serious breaches of safety protocols were revealed in US laboratories
under the auspices of the NIH / CDC, involving smallpox, H5N1 and anthrax. 200 scientists took
. Simon Wain-Hobson. Gain-of-function research can't deliver pandemic predictions. Are there
5
alternatives? Bulletin of atomic scientists, June 27, 2022. !
Page 5/18 «$BIOLOGICAL SECURITY: THE RISK OF DUAL-USE RESEARCH$», Committee on Homeland
6
Security and Governmental Aairs at the U.S. Senate, held April 26, 2012!
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg75273/html/CHRG-112shrg75273.htm
5
up the cause and succeeded in getting the Obama Administration to partially regulate GoF-type
experiments. However, this moratorium decided in October 2014 is only partial: it only concerns
influenza viruses, SARS and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), and only applies to the
funding of new experiments; those whose budgets have already been allocated are not affected:
their authors are only "encouraged" to show caution and restraint. An incentive that will remain
wishful thinking.
Apparently, these very modest measures are still considered too restrictive. In December 2017,
under President Trump, NIH Director Francis Collins lifted the moratorium and promised a safer
framework: "GoF research is important to help us identify, understand and develop effective
strategies and countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public
health. (...) We have a responsibility to ensure that research on infectious agents is conducted
responsibly and to consider the potential biosafety and biosecurity risks associated with such
research." This decision was taken at a time when the position of Secretary of Health was vacant
until January 2018. The NIH and the very powerful Anthony Fauci, took advantage of this to
occupy the vacant political space and revive, behind the scenes, GoF funding, particularly on
coronaviruses.
Ic - A few notions of virology!
Like all viruses, SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is made up of genetic material
(in this case, RNA, which codes for its various protein components), an outer membrane (formed
of lipids and similar to the membrane of animal cells) and proteins (which package its RNA and
are present on the membrane, such as the spike protein).
Like all viruses, it needs the machinery of an animal cell to multiply, and the viruses resulting
from this cellular replication will be made up of components all originating from the cell.
Like all viruses, it binds to cell receptors via its surface proteins (in this case, mainly Spike), and
this binding is essential for the virus to enter the cell. Spike is able to bind to several cell
receptors, the main one being ACE2 (a ubiquitous molecule present on many cell types and in all
animals). To enter the cell, the virus must bind to ACE2. Then, schematically, the Spike must be
cleaved into 2 subunits. This cleavage is carried out in part by an equally ubiquitous animal
enzyme: furin, which is found in many cell types. In short, affinity for the human receptor (ACE2)
and the presence of a furin site (which enables activation of the furin enzyme) are essential to the
efficacy of this virus.
To make it easier to remember these two characteristics, I propose two metaphors: one well-known
one concerns the ACE2 receptor. We can imagine that the binding domain of the virus' spike
protein is a key that operates the lock represented by the human cell's ACE2. I would compare the
furin site of the virus that cleaves the spike to a mechanism that deploys the spike "arm" that will
open the cell door once the lock is unlocked. These metaphors are useful for understanding, but
the actual biological mechanisms are far more complex. There are other less important features of
this virus that I won't dwell on (the "HIV" sequences similar to small parts of the AIDS virus
sequence that are also found on the Spike gene).
Before looking at the chronology of coronavirus history and gains in function, it's important to
define the natural and artificial origins of a virus.
Natural origin: in this case, a zoonotic virus (animal virus) capable of infecting humans and causing
a pandemic, thus possessing the ability to transmit immediately and very efficiently from human
6
to human. In the case of MERS (coronavirus camel "flu") and Ebola (hemorrhagic fever virus),
sporadic spillover epidemics occur, but no pandemic. The SARS epidemic of 2003 may have
begun with repeated animal-to-human transmission from a wild animal, most often identified as
the civet cat.
Artificial or synthetic origin: a bat virus that has been cultivated in the laboratory (on cell lines and
in animals) and escapes from the laboratory. This virus may have undergone deliberate
modification (human intervention to alter its sequence, or even total synthesis from a sequence
modified from those known) or involuntary (by passages on cell cultures). In all cases, there is an
obligatory passage on cultured cells. So the origin is never 100% synthetic, it's the cells that allow
a virus to "exist": if we synthesize a virus genomic sequence in the laboratory, we have to inject
this sequence into a cell for it to produce the first virus resulting from this manipulation.
2 - The history of coronaviruses and gain-of-function
research on these viruses
&
IIa - Historical overview of coronaviruses !
The known history of coronaviruses begins in the 19th century with the "Russian flu" of 1890, as
explained by Professor Patrick Berche.
7
Between 1889 and 1894, an influenza pandemic known as Russian flu spread throughout Europe
and the rest of the world. The first cases appeared in May 1889 in Bukhara in Turkestan; then the
flu reached Russia, moved on to Sweden, and by December 1889 the whole of Europe was
affected, as well as the USA and the Mediterranean in 1890. Russian influenza was more common
in men, and particularly severe in the elderly or in patients with co-morbidities such as phthisis,
heart disease, brain disease and nephritis, but young adults were not spared rare fatal forms.
Symptoms often differed from those of ordinary influenza, with nervous and psychological
localizations; the disease tended to rebound, leaving convalescents exhausted for months; all these
atypical symptoms led to the assertion that this was no ordinary flu. These symptoms are
reminiscent of those of Covid-19. Early relapses and sequelae are also reminiscent of Covid-19
complications.
Classical influenza viruses originate in wild birds and pass to farmed pigs before infecting humans.
Phylogenetic research (genealogy of viruses through genetics) shows that HCoV-OC43, one of
today's common cold coronaviruses, could be at the origin of this Russian flu, as it is close to a
bovine coronavirus that causes diarrhea in calves.
The first transmissions to humans may have occurred in a population of cattle breeders in
Turkestan, where the domestication of beef began several thousand years ago .
8
Direct transmission of BCoV (bovine coronavirus) to humans has been observed in the past, notably
in a six-year-old child suffering from acute diarrhoea, but without causing an epidemic.
PMID: 37269978
7
PMID: 34158985
8
7
Measles is also thought to be a zoonosis transmitted to humans by the same process 3,000 years
ago.
9
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY MAY SHED SOME LIGHT
So here we probably have arguments for a natural origin of a coronavirus pandemic that occurred in
the past: it is likely to be the result of the repeated passage of a virus from farm animal to human
over the course of many very close contacts. At first glance, this history of Russian influenza
could be an argument in favor of a natural origin for SC2.
Before tackling the historical approach to knowledge of coronaviruses and the human
manipulations they have undergone, an evolutionary approach is essential to definitively refute
this hypothesis: anything that comes afterwards will only confirm this total impossibility. The
theory of evolution is supposed to be accepted by all biologists, but they hardly ever use it to
decipher phenomena. And yet, as Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution ».
In fact, no pandemic has ever arisen directly from the passage of a virus harbored by a wild animal
and transmitted to man: a multi-stage adaptation process is required, or only sporadic small-scale
epidemics occur, as has been documented with Ebola or MERS (camel coronavirus), for example.
This sporadic passage from a wild animal to man is known as "spillover": the quantity of virus
transmitted by the animal is so great that infection occurs by overflowing defense capacities,
despite the virus's poor adaptation to man. But to claim that this spillover can lead to a pandemic
is evolutionary nonsense. This spillover phenomenon occurred in China's Mojiang cave, where
Zhengli Shi, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, went to look for bats carrying the coronavirus
that infected miners in 2012. Some of them were severely affected and died, but they did not
transmit the virus to any other human.
Two cases of domestic animal coronaviruses infecting humans confirm my argument. They can
infect humans, but do not then spread; infected humans are then unable to transmit the virus again
to other humans because it is ill-adapted: these transmissions between species have not led to a
pandemic!
In 2017, transmission of a cat-dog alphacoronavirus was documented in Malaysia in people
suffering from pneumonia
10
In 2014-2015 close contact between pigs and children in Haiti led to the transmission of a pig
deltacoronavirus; the affected children had a mild illness suggesting that this virus is not a threat
to human health. The authors stress the importance of the circumstances: contact with domestic
animals in rural areas .
11
In summary, a coronavirus originating from a domestic animal could have caused a pandemic in the
19th century, since its emergence occurred in a human group that had been closely related to cattle
for thousands of years, and had probably been exchanging genes and viruses for a long time. On
the other hand, three recent documented transmissions of viruses from domestic animals to
humans did not result in a pandemic. This underlines the difficulty of crossing the famous "species
https://www.aaas.org/news/measles-diverged-cattle-infecting-relative-earlier-thought Measles
9
Diverged from Cattle-Infecting Relatively Earlier than Thought 18 June 2020 by: Joseph Cariz,
AAAS.!
PMID: 34013321
10
PMID: 34789872
11
8
barrier". It will be incomparably more difficult to cross the species barrier from wild animals to
humans. Ignorance of the theory of evolution perpetuates the confusion between the wild world
and the breeding of domestic animals, through the hypothesis of deforestation as a possible origin
of past and future pandemics. A change of host from animal to human implies an evolutionary
process. How can a virus perfectly adapted to an animal be transferred to humans and cause a
pandemic from the outset?
On the other hand, the back-and-forth movement of successive variants between humans and
animals in a farm will enable a gradual adaptation that could lead to a pandemic. This is what
regularly happens with avian or swine flu, and what happened with the SARS-CoV-2 variant from
mink .
12
The zoonotic approach is based on the idea that the ecological crisis in the broad sense, and the
destruction of natural habitats (deforestation, urbanization, intensive farming, even global
warming) in particular, facilitate the passage of viruses from wild animals to humans. This
explanation, which has a lot to do with political appropriation, seems to be accepted by both
supporters of the natural origin of the virus and ecologists. It is even taken up by evolutionists,
such as those at the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle , by scientists who raised the possibility of an
13
artificial origin for the virus as early as 2020 . Apart from the fact that it obscures the very
14
lucrative business of research into potentially pandemic pathogens (PPPs), such as USAID's
PREDICT program, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and the even more tempting
business of vaccines to be produced against these PPPs, the idea that a pandemic could arise from
an occasional encounter with wildlife poses a problem. For a virus to change host from animal to
human, an evolutionary process is required. How can we explain that a virus perfectly adapted to a
particular animal suddenly finds an "even more perfect" new host in man?
IIb - History of gains of function on SARS-CoV (viruses identical or similar
to the SARS-CoV virus that caused the 2003-2004 epidemic)!
When the study of human coronaviruses began in the 1960s, nothing was known about the
molecular characteristics of their virulence. The first coronaviruses had been known in farm or
domestic animals since the 1930s (chickens, cattle and cats). It should therefore be noted that
these animal viruses were either not transmitted to humans, or gave symptoms so mild as to go
unnoticed. The first HCoV (human coronavirus) was isolated in 1965 following an epidemic of
respiratory disease, and other HCoVs were subsequently recognized as responsible for common
colds. Until 2002, only 2 HCoVs were known to cause common colds, and were therefore
considered harmless. In November 2002, a new virus emerged, SARS-CoV (severe acute
respiratory syndrome): it was responsible for the first known serious illness in humans, and
(PMID: 33172935)
12
L’émergence des zoonoses, une mécanique implacable. Article sur le site du Museum d’histoire
13
naturelle. www.mnhn.fr. 2022
Sallard et al. Retrouver les origines du SARS-CoV-2 dans les phylogénies de coronavirus,
14
Medecine/science 2020, https://hal.science/hal-02891455.
9
disappeared within a year. It affected only a few thousand people (8,000 infected and 800 dead)
and spread via transcontinental flights; it did not spread to the global population. After several
hypotheses that were subsequently rejected (such as civet, raccoon, dog and ferret-badger), the
animal origin of this virus is still unknown: only the (wild) bat is retained, but without further
proof . The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 as an immediate pandemic is unprecedented in the
15
history of viral diseases.
The history of coronavirus function gains reveals a key man in the origin of SARS-CoV-2: Ralph
Baric, Professor of Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology at the University of North
Carolina (UNC) and recognized coronavirus expert. Dr. Anthony Fauci (senior US Department of
Health official since 1968) and Peter Daszak (president of Eco Health Alliance, an NGO dedicated
to preventing future pandemics), as well as Zheng-li Shi, also played a leading role in the
emergence of the virus.
We discover in his CV that Baric , a young researcher at UNC, began working in 1983 on
16
coronaviruses, which at that time caused serious pathologies only in animals. In 1987, Baric
received funding to study myocarditis induced by a rabbit coronavirus. It was not until 2001 that
he became interested in reverse genetics, which enables viruses to be modified in a targeted way,
and in the search for live attenuated vaccines against coronaviruses. He published a reverse
genetics experiment on a pig virus (responsible for 100% fatal gastroenteritis in piglets) . Just
17
after the emergence of SARS-CoV, he sent for publication in August 2003 the method for
complete reconstruction of the genome of this new virus . Remember that this virus emerged in
18
November 2002: we can assume that these reverse genetics techniques were already perfected by
then, so that the article was sent out less than a year later. I'm not asserting that Baric's
experiments were the origin of the SARS-CoV of 2002, but it's a hypothesis worth retaining.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, it's even more disturbing.
We have seen the decisive importance of the virus's binding to its human ACE2 receptor (the virus's
"key") and the presence of a furin site (the virus's "arm" for opening the door to human cells).
Let's take a look at the history of research into these molecular characteristics by Ralph Baric's
teams.
Experiments on the receptor binding domain (the key to the virus) binding to ACE2 and the
insertion of a furin site (the "arm" of the virus that opens the door) began in 2004. Between 2004
and 2015, most of these experiments were carried out by teams led by Ralph Baric (UNC) and
Zheng-Li Shi (WIV Wuhan). They were hampered by the moratorium on function gains decided
in 2014 but were probably relocated to China at that time, at least publicly as they probably
continued in the USA. Until 2014, it seems that the Chinese (Zhengli-Li Shi) and American
(Baric) teams worked independently .
19
Let's not forget that GoF is always done in parallel with the search for a vaccine against future
emerging viruses.
2009 was the year of the H1N1 flu. Vaccines were manufactured in an emergency procedure using
the classic method, which requires hen's eggs to produce the antigen in large quantities: this takes
time, and to reduce the amount of antigen in each dose, a new adjuvant was added, which has
PMID: 33567843
15
https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2016/09/CV_Ralph_Baric.pdf
16
PMID: 11773416
17
PMID: 14569023.
18
. PMID: 33200842 PMID: 19036930 PMID: 19321428
19
been blamed for adverse effects (particularly narcolepsy). Because of the length of time it takes to
manufacture a vaccine using this classic method, the antigen chosen at the outset is always far
removed from the virus circulating at the time of marketing, due to mutations in the influenza
virus. Biopower therefore wants to revolutionize flu vaccine production by switching to gene-
based vaccines, which are much faster to manufacture (and much cheaper) .
20
In September 2009, the EMA excluded nucleic acids intended to prevent an infectious disease from
the regulation of GTPs (gene therapy products): they will be regulated as vaccines (at that time,
they were not yet mRNA but DNA). Nucleic acids intended to prevent an infectious disease were
excluded from the strict regulation of gene therapies, and subjected to the much more lax rules
governing vaccines against infectious diseases. For the FDA, this is already the case, and the
decision will clearly be ratified in 2013. Although according to the ritual formula employed by the
authorities "correlation is not causation", it should be noted that 2013 is the year in which DARPA
awards Moderna Therapeutics a grant of up to $25 million to develop a messenger RNA-based
therapy against infectious diseases. In the wake of this, an agreement was signed between
21
NIAID/Moderna and R Baric to develop mRNA vaccines against various viruses: in October
2016, the agreement involving NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(branch of NIH) ] and Moderna since 2012 was extended, and rights attached to patents and
royalties were assigned to Baric (this agreement is valid until November 2020). Once again, the
anticipation of emerging virus pandemics involving GoF cannot be dissociated from the search for
vaccines against these viruses.
In 2012, this concerns Zika virus, hPIV (human parainfluenzae virus), Nipah virus, and vaccine
trials against these viruses. NIAID transfers to Moderna information and data on the development
of vaccines against HIV, influenza, Ebola, MERS, Nipah, hPIV, hMPV, measles, mumps,
picornavirus and monoclonal antibodies; Moderna transfers information on the mRNA platform
for disease treatment and prevention .
22
Once again, we see the intertwining of scientific and pecuniary interests among the same people
involved in this origin of the virus. We'll see how this NIH/NIAID/Moderna/Baric agreement is
suddenly modified from spring 2019 to include mRNA vaccines against a coronavirus with a
precise description of the chosen antigen (the Spike). In March 2022, we also learn that Baric is
actively collaborating with the vaccine and antiviral industry as a scientific advisor. This appears
in an article by Baric and his American colleagues published in Science, which justifies the
strategy of pandemic "preparedness" and the search for specific vaccines and antivirals .
23
MORATORIUM ON GAIN OF FUNCTION 2012-2014!
Between 2011 and 2012, fears that an avian flu virus could one day cause a human pandemic led
two US laboratories to modify the H5N1 virus in order to study bird-to-human transmission. The
. PMID: 21083388
20
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/darpa-awards-moderna-therapeutics-a-grant-for-
21
up-to-25-million-to-develop-messenger-rna-therapeutics-226115821.html !
Document obtained through FOIA !
22
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295/NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.pdf
. PMID: 35271333!
23
two laboratories succeed in isolating viruses that can spread from animal to animal via aerosols,
i.e. in the air .
24
Their ultimately successful attempts in 2012 to publish these results sparked the first major debate
concerning so-called gain-of-function (GoF) experiments on pathogens with pandemic potential.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the NIAID, defends GoF: he states that "the risk-benefit ratio of this
research is clearly in favor of society", for whom, moreover, "Nature itself is the most dangerous
bioterrorist".
25
In 2014, several breaches of safety protocols in U.S. laboratories came to light. More than two
hundred scientists took up the cause and succeeded in obtaining a halt to GoF experiments. A
moratorium on GoF experiments on influenza viruses and the MERS and SARS coronaviruses
was therefore decided on October 17, 2014 across the Atlantic under Obama's mandate.
IIc - Sino-American collaboration in coronavirus gain-of-function research
from 2014 onwards!
Peter Daszak is a British virologist who chairs EHA, Eco Health Alliance (a New York City-based
NGO) and has been collaborating with WIV (Wuhan Institut of Virology) since 2004: he has
published 18 papers with Shi Zhengli, whom he met in 2006 . According to Science, the NIH
26
funded EHA to the tune of $3.7 million for 5 years between 2014 and 2019 (part of the sum was
sent to WIV and this contract was renewed in 2019 until 2026).
In 2013 Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak collaborate with UNC (but not yet with Ralph Baric) on the
role of ACE2 (the lock), Daszak justifies these experiments as preparation for future pandemics .
27
April 2013
EHA submits a funding application to the NIH , which is accepted; the project begins in June 2014
28
and is due to end in May 2019, with experiments to take place at WIV (under the supervision of
Zheng-li Shi, who will be an EHA employee). The project involves creating an artificial chimeric
virus from bat viruses and predicting its ability to infect humans; reverse genetics will be
employed. The Spike protein of the 2003 SARS-like viruses is modified for binding to the ACE2
receptor of different animal species and for other receptors. Human cells in culture and various
animals will be infected with the viruses obtained. Ralph Baric provides scientific support for the
project .
29
. PMID 32769091
24
Page 5/18 of the report on "BIOLOGICAL SECURITY: THE RISK OF DUAL-USE RESEARCH",
25
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Aairs at the U.S. Senate, held April 26,
2012!
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg75273/html/CHRG-112shrg75273.htm
(Prophet in purgatory, Science https://www.science.org/content/article/weve-done-nothing-
26
wrong-ecohealth-leader-fights-charges-research-helped-spark-covid-19 )
PMID: 24172901
27
(https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/nih-funded-research-wuhan-lab-mutant-bat-
28
coronaviruses-infect-humans/)
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/-bvPCvB7zkyvb1AjAgW5Yg/project-details/8674931
29
Between 2014 and 2017, Shi and Baric built chimeric viruses increasingly similar to SARS-CoV-2.
They combined their knowledge of spike binding to the ACE2 receptor (Shi) and furin-like sites
(the arm that opens the door) (Baric) . In the first experiments, pseudoviruses were used, so this
30
is not GoF as such, since the chimera produced is unable to reproduce. These experiments
confirmed the crucial role of adaptation to human ACE2 and the presence of cleavage sites by
human proteases (including the furin site) for the infectivity and pathogenicity of coronaviruses .
31
Shi and Baric then published a paper in the prestigious Nature Medicine.
32
This involved the creation of a chimeric virus by reverse genetics: a spike protein from a virus
naturally possessing the ability to bind to human ACE2 was characterized in a bat virus found in
China, and inserted into a virus "skeleton" adapted to mice. The chimeric virus can reproduce
SARS in mice and is capable of infecting human cells in culture. Infectivity depends on the spike's
affinity for human ACE2, and is tested on "humanized" mice (possessing human ACE2). The
study confirms that the furin site of spike is necessary for virus infectivity. This time, it's GoF,
because the chimeric viruses obtained are infectious and more pathogenic than the viruses from
which they originate. This research is associated with the testing of a vaccine against this chimeric
virus in mice. Baric shows that a vaccine developed against SARS-CoV in 2003 is ineffective
against this new chimera, and points out that this chimeric virus would probably have to undergo
further adaptation to cause a human epidemic like SARS-CoV.
This study represents an important step forward in the search for a vaccine, since it constructs a
virus that is more pathogenic than natural viruses. We learn that this vaccine, which is ineffective,
undoubtedly causes the ADE phenomenon (facilitation and aggravation of infection by vaccine
antibodies). All the players are in place for the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, Baric raises the
question of the danger of this type of experiment: the risk of generating more dangerous
pathogens must be weighed up against the potential for preparing future pandemics.
The work will be carried out jointly in the USA and China until the moratorium on GoF .
33
In 2017, Baric stepped aside following the moratorium on gains of function decided in 2014: the
GoF work was relocated to China via Eco Health Alliance, the NGO headed by Peter Daszak and
funded by the NIH. This year, 2017, the Shi-Daszak group publishes the creation of 8 chimeras
from a virus collected from bats and different RBDs of SARSr (SARS-related, viruses close to
SARS) (EHA-WIV) .
34
PMID: 26063432
30
Yang Yang, Chang Liu, Du L., Zheng-Li Shi, Ralph Baric et al., «$ Two mutations were critical for
31
bat-to-human transmission of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus$ », Journal of
Virology, août 2015, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01279-15
Vineet Menachery, Zheng-Li Shi, Ralph Baric et al., «$ A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat
32
coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence$ », Nature Medicine, 2015$ : https://
www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
PMID: 26976607!
33
PMID: 29190287
34
So Baric no longer publishes about his work at the UNC lab - Chapell Hill- but between January 1,
2015 and June 1, 2020 leaks of coronaviruses created at UNC are reported: 6 of these leaks
involved coronaviruses created in the lab .
35
January 2017 We can assume that by 2017 this research into chimeric viruses was well advanced,
since on January 10, 2017, Anthony Fauci announced that there would be a surprise epidemic
during Donald Trump's term in office. This is published on a video released following a February
14, 2017 meeting of Georgetown University Medical Center's Center for Global Health Science
36
and Security (GU GHSS), in partnership with the Harvard Global Health Institute (HGHI).
Also in 2017, a pandemic forecast was published by John Hopkins University, SPARS, which bears
uncanny similarities to the actual pandemic formalized in 2020. It is a coronavirus pandemic
originating in Asia and escaped from a laboratory...
37
On December 19, 2017, under President Trump, NIH Director Francis Collins lifted the moratorium
and promised a safer framework. This lifting of the moratorium comes just as the Secretary of the
Department of Health (HHS - Health and Human Services) resigns. The NIH and the very
powerful Anthony Fauci take advantage of this to occupy the vacant political space and revive
GoF funding, much to the astonishment of the scientific community. December 19, 2017 press
release, NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research.
2018: Project DEFUSE
38
To protect its soldiers sent on expeditions from the dangers of future emerging viruses, the US
Army, through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) issued a call for tenders in
2018 for research to anticipate the emergence of future coronaviruses with pandemic potential.
This call for tenders concerns the development of models enabling this prediction, the verification
of the validity of these models by in vivo experiments on different animal species assessing the
ability of the modeled viruses to jump from one species to another, and finally the means of
preventing the spread of these viruses from their animal reservoir, which are bats (by suppressing
this virus).
EHA responded to this call for tenders, but its DEFUSE project was rejected by DARPA because
of the risks it presented.
The DEFUSE project therefore consisted in anticipating a coronavirus pandemic by constructing a
dangerous virus that could emerge, and at the same time designing the vaccine and therapeutics to
combat it. The chimeric virus described in DEFUSE possesses several decisive molecular
characteristics already mentioned, in particular the modifications of the key and arm of the virus
essential for its virulence.
The project also aims to improve the ability of SARS-CoV to bind to immune cells by adding
sequences in common with the AIDS virus (a virus with a tropism for these cell types). All this fits
Here Are Six Accidents UNC Researchers Had With Lab-Created Coronaviruses , ProPublica,
35
August 2020 https://www.propublica.org/article/here-are-six-accidents-unc-researchers-had-
with-lab-created-coronaviruses
(at 3.40 of the video: https://youtu.be/DNXGAxGJgQI)
36
THE SPARS PANDEMIC 2025 - 2028 A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk
37
Communicators !
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf
https://drasticresearch.org/2021/09/21/the-defuse-project-documents/
38
in well with the desire to "anticipate" the natural emergence of a virus which would
simultaneously possess all these characteristics making it highly infectious and pathogenic. In
addition to Peter Daszak, other researchers involved in the project include Baric and Shi. These
researchers, in their Promethean delirium, also propose a means of eliminating the virus they
create in the laboratory from wild fauna, as if their experiments perfectly mimicked and
anticipated Nature! They have the completely criminal idea of manufacturing a live virus vaccine
to immunize bats by aerosolizing them: such an "aerosolized" virus can only infect humans, since
it was designed to infect humans! It's easy to see why DARPA is refusing the project as it stands,
but is not ruling out financial participation if other organizations contribute (as has been the case
with NIH/NIAID).
Between May and December 2019, various amendments are made to the contracts between
Moderna, NIH/NIAID and UNC: these involve specifying collaboration and royalties on vaccine
candidates concerning spike in "prefusion" (which will ultimately be the configuration chosen for
anti-Covid mRNAs) and for animal trials of these mRNAs .
39
HAS THE VIRUS ESCAPED FROM AN AMERICAN LABORATORY?
In early summer 2019, virus leaks were detected at Fort Detrick, the US Army laboratory, and an
epidemic of atypical pneumonia spread around the laboratory. All this is recounted with official
sources in a document posted on a preprint server by an anonymous collective of researchers
40
Fort Detrick is located in Maryland and studies bacteria and toxins that can threaten public and
military health, including SARS. FD has worked on MERS and has collaborated with Baric since
2003 on SARS.
Lack of maintenance of the sewage disposal system at FD has been known since 2018; in June 2019
the CDC cites violations of safety processes that could lead to virus leaks. On July 11, 2019 there
was a serious outbreak of pneumonia in a nursing home in Springfield, Virginia; symptoms
matched those of Covid-19. This nursing home is a 1-hour drive from FD. A few days later, the
USAMRIId lab at Fort Derrick (the one collaborating with Baric) is closed. It is known to have
been working on the Ebola virus and other pathogens not disclosed for reasons of national
security. Fort Detrick's activity reports have disappeared from the official website for 2019 and
2020.
In July 2019, simultaneously with this epidemic, a massive outbreak of disease officially due to
electronic cigarettes (EVALI - Ecigarette or Vaping product-use Associated Lung Injuries) appears
in the region. EVALI has a symptomatology similar to that of Covid-19.
The peak of EVALI cases occurred between August and October 2019. Chinese experts linked these
EVALIs to Covids: pulmonary CT scans were highly suggestive, as was the clinic of these
patients. EVALI cases declined from February 2020, when the Covids appeared.
In blood tests carried out on "prepandemic" sera (blood collected before the official
emergence of the virus), it is discovered that people suffering from atypical pneumonitis already
possess specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as early as October 2019 in the USA. The same
phenomenon is subsequently confirmed in France for sera from November 2019, and in Italy as
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295/NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.pdf
39
Investigation Report on COVID-19 Transmission (v1.0.0). Milk Tea Alliance. Zenodo 2021.
40
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5752000
early as September 2019. The question of the virus circulating before its official emergence is
eventually raised in the British Medical Journal, one of the most reputable medical journals.
There is therefore a strong probability that the virus first escaped from an American laboratory, but
there is no question of the United States and its allies admitting this, of course. Further evidence
of virus circulation in the USA as early as 2019 comes from wildlife: deer have been shown to
carry anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as early as 2019 in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states .
41
Phylogenetic analysis (genealogy) of the spread of viruses shows 3 types of virus at the start of the
epidemic. The original virus appeared in the USA and then spread to other continents in different
ways.
The U.S. Army collects and distributes blood bags to its servicemen and women all over the world,
and in particular every 15 days in England and Italy. In August 2019, a blood transport reportedly
brought Covid to Italy. Blood samples taken in September 2019 in Veneto contain anti-SARS-
CoV-2 antibodies, indicating the presence of the virus as early as August 2019. In August 2019,
the Del Din US barracks in Veneto (15 km from the US air base) recruited civilian volunteers:
transmission of the virus to the Italian population could have occurred at this time.
In November 2019, a Wuhan trader bought a frozen shipment of US lobsters from a company
based in Maine (where several cases of EVALI had been reported). It was shown that the virus can
be transmitted through the cold chain. The retailer's Chinese employees were diagnosed with
Covid in the following weeks.
The Wuhan Military Games were organized differently from previous events, with many small,
scattered events (whereas previously the military had been kept away from the population and
grouped together in one place). Some of the US athletes had symptoms similar to those of Covid.
In Japan, antibodies against the virus were also detected as early as September 2019: the source of
infection could be the US army (in Okinawa).
In Vietnam, Taiwan and England, military exercises with the USA were followed by the detection
of Covid due to American mutants in the soldiers who took part.
US tourists also brought the virus to several countries.
The US authorities prevented doctors from carrying out Covid tests in the USA in early 2020, and
restricted all information concerning the first US cases of Covid. They have also censored
information on early cases in Italy linked to US military bases.
All these attempts at concealment on the part of the US military point to a military origin of the
virus: the Fort Detrick laboratory is collaborating with Baric's UNC and EHA. EHA received $6
million from the US Department of Defense between October 2017 and October 2023 .
42
The latest clues date from late 2019
In October 2019, during a meeting about flu vaccines, speakers (and in particular Anthony Fauci
and Margaret Hamburg, Foreign Secretary of the National Academy of Medicine), half-heartedly
proposed bypassing clinical trials of mRNA vaccines and, with the help of a disruptive crisis,
PMID: 34341571
41
Awarding Agency Department of Defense (DOD) Recipient ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC.
42
UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF BAT-BORNE ZOONOTIC DISEASE EMERGENCE IN WESTERN
ASIA accessed September 10,2023!
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_HDTRA11710064_9761
bringing them to market without the need for ten years of testing .
43
In November 2019, the WEF expresses concern in a pandemic simulation about the recent ease
with which synthetic viruses can be made from commercially available DNA strands (these are the
latest developments in reverse genetics). GEF calls for close monitoring of DNA strand orders to
prevent the manufacture of dangerous biological agents.
In 2019, not only can editors not be unaware that chimeric coronaviruses have already been
manufactured, they may also be fully aware of the Fort Detrick laboratory accident of July 2019 .
44
So in summary, according to what is published in December 2019, before the official emergence
of SARS-CoV-2 we have many clues to advance that this virus was designed in the laboratory
with the biopolitical aim of anticipating a pandemic and developing a vaccine against the same
virus.
IIc - Accidental escape of pathogenic viruses is well documented: viruses
have escaped from labs in the past, and SC2 would be far from the first!!
Other viral epidemics could be linked to laboratory viruses. These escapes have been documented
in the scientific literature .
45
IId - Late January 2020: first doubts about the origin of the virus!
The first doubts about the natural origin of the virus appeared as early as January 2020. Following
the publication by the Chinese of the complete SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence, virologists
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/
43
xy901KZd9adap3xhdzeC9Q2 !
October 28-30, 2019 Milken Institute's Future of Health Summit in Washington
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845-1/universal-flu-vaccine&playEvent
Global Health Security: Epidemics Readiness Accelerator!
44
https://web.archive.org/web/20200124051000/https%3A//www.weforum.org/projects/managing-
the-risk-and-impact-of-future-epidemics )
Synthesis of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Working Group on laboratory incidents that
45
induced epidemics: Laboratory Escapes and "Self-fulfilling prophecy" Epidemics. Martin
Furmanski MD. Scientist's Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons. Center for Arms
Control and Nonproliferation. February 2014!
https://armscontrolcenter.org or https://tinyurl.com/escaped-virus. These include the Marburg and
AIDS viruses, https://www.aimsib.org/2022/04/10/le-sida-a-t-il-vu-le-jour-a-cause-dun-vaccin-
anti-polio-defectueux-premiere-partie/
https://www.aimsib.org/2022/04/17/le-sida-a-t-il-vu-le-jour-a-cause-dun-vaccin-anti-polio-
defectueux-seconde-partie/
H1N1 PMID: 672956, Ebola, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 (Singapore, Taiwan and China The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly: a review of SARS Lab Escapes https://zenodo.org/record/4293257)
noticed some astonishing molecular features compared to previously known coronaviruses .
46
Positioned on its Spike protein, they enable it to bind very effectively to certain human cells,
making this virus particularly infectious.
HIV virus specialists noticed sequence homologies with this virus, and the presence of the furin site
(the arm of the virus) jumped out at coronavirologists . If we compare SARS-CoV-2 with its
47
predecessors, it is the only coronavirus capable of infecting humans to possess both this furin site
(the arm) and an RBD binding to human ACE2 (the key).
This coincidence struck virologists as the furin site enables the virus to enter numerous animal cell
types.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike also has binding domains to other human cell receptors: all these binding
domains have been noted as important for the passage of the virus from one animal species to
another. Ralph Baric in particular identified them well back in at least 2014. The presence of the
furin site on the new virus was mentioned as early as January 2020 by a Chinese team publishing
in Chinese! Researchers from Aix Marseille University and the CNRS and Université de Montréal
[note 46]. Published online in February 2020] also identified the site in January 2020, while
pointing to its role in the emergence and pathogenicity of the virus. Indian researchers (46) also
published on the furin site at the same time, but withdrew their article under the pressure of the
attacks they suffered.
Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV Spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag,
Prashant Pradhan et al. bioRxiv 2020. .
Professor Luc Montagnier, as a specialist in the HIV virus (AIDS) also noticed and published (47)
the presence of structural homologies with this virus present on the SARS-CoV-2 spike: these
homologies concern the receptors that are present in the DEFUSE project.
Another astonishing feature is the affinity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike for human ACE2, which is
greater than for any other animal .
48
If the virus had passed from animal to human, it would have had to have a "key" (a receptor for
ACE2) better suited to an animal lock (ACE2) than to a human lock.
What's more, SARS-CoV-2 is poorly adapted to bats - it doesn't replicate in their kidney or lung
cells, which is quite a feat for a virus that's supposed to come from bats !
49
These molecular arguments confirm the evolutionary arguments mentioned above: it is impossible
for this coronavirus to be the result of natural evolution after numerous passages in an animal
host.
PMID: 32057769. and Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV Spike protein to
46
HIV-1 gp120 and Gag, Prashant Pradhan et al. bioRxiv 2020
Perez, JC., & Montagnier, L. (2020, April 25). COVID-19, SARS and Bats Coronaviruses 47
Genomes Unexpected Exogeneous RNA Sequences !
PMID: 34168168
48
PMID: 32160149 PMID: 32142651
49
3 How biopower (in particular the people, states and
organizations directly involved such as China, the USA, A
Fauci,...) did everything in its power to conceal this origin.
On January 3, 2020 the Chinese government ordered that all SARS-CoV-2 virus samples must be
shared with government-designated institutions or destroyed "in situ"....
Beijing ordered the destruction of the first coronavirus samples, according to a secret memo .
50
Virologists close to biopower assert the natural origin of the virus
On March 17, 2020, Fauci and other renowned virologists published an article that received over 6
million views and was cited more than 6,000 times in the scientific literature - practically unheard
of . It has had an enormous influence on shaping public opinion. He concludes definitively:
51
"Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposely
manipulated virus. "The authors support the natural origin of the virus, which is thought to have
been transmitted from pangolin beetles to humans.
But a group of 14 virologists demonstrated that Andersen et al.'s arguments were "logically
flawed" .
52
Andersen still believed a month after publication that the laboratory escape of a manufactured virus
was possible, but he worked with A Fauci to make it look like a conspiracy theory.
On February 1, 2020, Andersen and his co-authors held a conference with Fauci and Collins (NIH
Director), who prompted them to write the paper. On February 12, four days before the authors
published their preprint, Andersen confessed, "For all I know, people may have infected the
pangolin, not the other way around."
Andersen went on to express his concerns about the artificial origin from Wuhan in private
correspondence, while categorically asserting the opposite in public statements. A Fauci had the
CIA modify the reports of specialists on the subject... GØtschze attributes to the Chinese alone the
creation of chimeras 10,000 times more toxic than natural viruses (even though the publication is
also signed by Americans, and the NIH was therefore aware of this and did not interrupt funding
and research! Daszak was also aware of this. So the official version puts the blame solely on the
Chinese and Daszak (who is British).
Origine du COVID-19 : La plus grande dissimulation de l'histoire de la médecine Par Peter C
Gøtzsche Institute for Scientific Freedom Copenhague 6 octobre 2023 .
53
June 27, 2023, Emily Kopp, US. Right to know!
50
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/china-ordered-destruction-of-early-coronavirus-samples/
The Proximal Origin Andersen, et al. PMID: 32284615
51
(PMID: 34543608 )
52
Origin of COVID-19: The biggest cover up in medical history https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/53
wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gotzsche-Origin-of-COVID-19-The-biggest-cover-up-in-medical-
history.pdf !
4 Mainstream virologists put forward arguments in favor of
artificial origin
&
IVa - Daszak's near-confessions!
In May 2020, in an interview published on the Internet, P Daszak explains the experiments carried
out by EHA: "You can manipulate the virus in the laboratory, the spike protein is responsible for
the virus' ability to infect an animal, you can modify the sequence of the spike protein (build a
protein), that's what we're doing with Ralph Baric, we're inserting the sequence of this protein into
another virus. We're trying to develop a vaccine against this new virus that we're building in
anticipation of a pandemic » . How can we ignore this information and this admission?
54
In August 2020, Daszak and Zhengli Shi publish a paper they had filed in October 2019,
55
featuring the precursors of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-2. Daszak admits in April 2020 in an
email declassified thanks to USRightToKnow , that these sequences must not appear in the gene
56
bank (Genbank) where researchers deposit the sequences of viruses they discover: it could draw
attention to his work. In a March 2022 he explains that these are the sequences published in the
57
Latinne et al. article . So the sequences published in August 2020 had been submitted by October
58
2019 at the latest, and they are sequences that tend to prove that the DEFUSE experiments were
being carried out at that time.
IVb - In 2021, virologists less dependent on biopower than the authors of
The Proximal Origin are quietly casting doubt on the natural origin of the
virus. !
Indeed, in a scientific article, any assertion must be perfectly documented, and it is therefore
impossible to publish a personal opinion, no matter how well-supported. To assert an artificial
origin, you'd need a confession from one of the three people responsible (Baric, Shi or Daszak),
which is highly unlikely, or the publication of "laboratory notebooks" from UNC, Fort Detrick or
WIV, which is completely utopian.
In April 2021, 3 internationally renowned French virologists reviewed the arguments in favor of an
unnatural origin. In their view, the research programs conducted at the Wuhan Institute of
TWiV 615: Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, host Vincent Racaniello!
54
May 19, 2020 https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-615/
[PMID: 32843626]
55
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/foi-documents-on-origins-of-sars-cov-2-risks-of-gain-of-
56
function-research-and-biosafety-labs/
interview https://theintercept.com/2022/03/11/covid-nih-ecohealth-peter-daszak-interview/
57
PMID: 32843626
58
Virology (WIV) by EHA and co-funded by the NIH are entirely compatible with the hypothesis of
a laboratory accident.
No animal that could have played the role of intermediate host has been identified, which
invalidates the high probability asserted by the WHO of the 2 hypotheses of animal origin. The
frozen meat hypothesis has no scientific basis and does not explain the origin of the virus (this
hypothesis undoubtedly relates to the shipment of frozen lobsters sent from the USA to China in
2019). They put forward the molecular arguments mentioned above in support of the artificial
origin hypothesis .
59
In September 2021, the same French virologists published with American, Australian and Austrian
colleagues and added further arguments in favor of artificial origin .
60
Baric claimed that in 2019 it was possible to create a chimeric virus without leaving any traces,
61
unlike in 2015, when he had created a chimeric virus which he claimed had traces of
manipulation. But he forgot about this codon bias, which was detected by his colleagues.
In November 2021 (publication in preprint in 2022), a new molecular argument in favor of synthetic
origin is proposed: the presence and distribution of restriction sites (endonuclease sites) in the
SC2 sequence cannot be explained by natural evolution but only by artificial synthesis of this
sequence. To make a virus by reverse genetics, several DNA fragments have to be "sewn" together
using restriction enzymes (or molecular scissors); these enzymes can only act if restriction
(suture) sites exist. SC2 has the exact footprint of these sites, and this footprint does not exist in
wild coronaviruses. Moreover, the pattern of mutations that generate these sites is extremely
unlikely in wild coronaviruses and almost universal in synthetic viruses Restriction Site Analysis
of SARS-CoV-2 Demonstrates the signature of a synthetic virus .
62
A document obtained by FOIA in January 2024 reveals that the precise description of how to make
the virus with these molecular scissors was already in the DEFUSE project of2018 .
63
In December 2021, Chinese virologists examined the epidemiological and phylogenetic data and
proposed that only a "twin" origin of the virus was compatible with these data: it would have
appeared as early as summer 2019 (in an unspecified location). It would then have evolved
independently in China and Europe, where it would have acquired favorable mutations that would
have enabled this European strain to take over from the Asian lineage as early as April 2020. This
genealogical study is compatible with the American origin of the virus, which would then have
WHO mission report struggles to trace origins of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic!
59
https://www.jle.com/fr/contenu_libre.phtml?code_contenu=covid19-le-rapport-de-la-mission-
OMS-peine-a-retracer-les-origines-de-l-epidemie-de-SARS-CoV-2
PMID: 36037920 Bioinformatics analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome shows codon usage bias
60
suggesting possible genetic manipulation
(interview in Italian, September 2020 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=243062757106162)
61
Restriction Site Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Demonstrates the signature of a synthetic virus!
62
October 19, 2022 https://zenodo.org/records/7226587 !
Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2!
Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne, Antonius VanDongen!
bioRxiv 2022.10.18.512756; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756
[US scientists proposed to make viruses with unique features of SARS- CoV-2 in Wuhan
63
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/scientists-proposed-making-viruses-with-unique-features-of-
sars-cov-2-in-wuhan/ January 18, 2024]
evolved silently before its official discovery . Let's not forget that there is evidence of this early
64
circulation of the virus in Europe and the USA in 2019. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were found in
January 2020 in the USA, and its genetic material (RNA) in samples taken in early September
2019 in Italy and late December in France. The virus was found in wastewater as early as
December 2019 in several Italian cities .
65
&
IVc - Today's more or less official version!
By 2023, it no longer seemed possible for the authorities on the other side of the Atlantic to deny
the artificial origin of the virus. On February 26, 2023, the Wall Street Journal revealed that a
report by the US Department of Energy had concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely
originated from a laboratory leak, according to a confidential intelligence report .
66
For the FBI, the laboratory origin is the most likely hypothesis .
67
The official US version is moving towards admitting this origin, but blaming China entirely. The
work carried out at Baric and Fort Detrick is therefore carefully concealed in the official
discourse .
68
However, docile virologists continue to support the natural origin of the virus and invent far-
fetched hypotheses concerning animals accused of being intermediate hosts. This contradiction
illustrates the confusion that reigns at the pinnacle of biopower.
At the NIDO virology congress devoted mainly to coronaviruses, to be held in Montreux in May
2023, no papers discussing artificial origin are planned: the coronavirologists' congress is not
interested in the origin of the virus. The only scientist to ask questions on the subject is
intimidated and censored .
69
On November 27, 2023, Robert Kadlec (formerly in charge of pandemic preparedness at the US
Department of Health) confirms that he was instrumental in hiding the synthetic origin of the
PMID: 35497643
64
(PMID: 32835962)
65
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a!
66
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-origins-wuhan-lab-energy-department/
Declassified by DNI Haines, June 2023, Potential links betwenn the Wuhan Institute of Virology
67
and the origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/
assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-
Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf
(April 2023 report by Dr. Bob Kadlec, former Assistant Secretary for Pandemic Preparedness
68
and Response.!
https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20230422-senate-republicans-release-covid-origins-
report Muddy Waters The Origins of Covid-19 Report Sen Roger Marshall, MD
https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/MWG-FDR-Document-04-11-23-
EMBARGOED.pdf
The Great Raccoon Dog Mystery, Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science News, June 29,
69
2023. !
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-great-raccoon-dog-mystery/
virus. He now admits that the virus originated from gain-of-function experiments financed by the
USA through Eco Health Alliance, and blames Fauci. He invents a fantastic story to blame the
Chinese .
70
In Europe, and particularly in France, the official discourse continues to maintain the confusion,
leaving the door open to laboratory leakage, but certainly not to intentional manufacture. The
Institut Pasteur pretends to confuse intentional manufacture (followed by accidental leakage) with
intentional release into the population (deliberate leakage), and rejects the whole thing out of
hand .
71
However, two renowned French microbiologists are considering a laboratory leak.
Professor Renaud Piarroux gave a lecture-debate for Sorbonne University in May 2023 . In this
72
debate, he discussed whether the virus originated from a zoonotic source or from a laboratory
leak. In his opinion, the latter is supported by 2 essential elements: the fact that the epidemic
began in Wuhan, where the laboratory where the gain-of-function research is carried out is
located, and the DEFUSE project. For him, it's a real project that has been proposed, and all the
elements that characterize SC2 are mentioned. This conference is long and complicated for non-
scientists; all the hypotheses are discussed, and in particular the GoF hypothesis. The other
speakers do their utmost to confuse Piarroux's cautious message.
Piarroux repeats many of the points I made in my article on the origin of the virus in March 2022;
he justifies the fact that he was only concerned about it in 2023, because he was influenced by the
peremptory official assertion of a natural origin that had been repeated ad nauseam!
Regarding the latest assaults by mainstream scientists to support natural origin . Piarroux reminds
73
us that no raccoon dog has been found to carry SC2: this is the latest far-fetched hypothesis put
forward to justify the natural origin from a probable new "intermediate host" pulled out of a hat.
Indeed, if no raccoon dog is a carrier of the virus, how could this species have transmitted it to
man? Piarroux categorically rejects the pangolin and raccoon dog hypothesis on molecular criteria;
he also points out that in China, no measures have been taken to prevent transmission of pangolin or
raccoon dog to humans since 2020: the Chinese know full well that these animals are innocent! Like
me, he also points out the absurdity of the zoonic theory from an evolutionary point of view. As for
the arguments in favor of synthetic origin, Piarroux also takes up the molecular characteristics of
SC2 that I have already mentioned.
US Department of Health ocial who conspired with Anthony Fauci to downplay COVID lab-
70
leak theory reveals 'agonising' over his actions Sky News, Australia, November 27 2023!
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/us-department-of-health-official-who-conspired-with-
anthony-fauci-to-downplay-covid-lableak-theory-reveals-agonising-over-his-actions/news-story/
f568f544d4b5eb05fb26dc3e198f50ae
Origin of SARS-CoV-2: research continues News, March 22, 2023.!
71
https://www.pasteur.fr/fr/journal-recherche/actualites/origine-du-sars-cov-2-recherches-se-
poursuivent
Sorbonne University:Debate - Origins of Covid-19 May 30, 2023, Théâtre de la Ville, Paris!
72
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10dItXAr0Si2CYfHb-UYPz8EfSc6Sg65I1vQNcUXtrY0/
https://youtu.be/RDwvDzSbmbU?si=kRIPICM2xy2wotaB
New Evidence Supports Animal Origin of COVID Virus through Raccoon Dogs!
73
Genetic sequences show evidence of raccoon dogs and other animals at the Wuhan market sites
where SARS-CoV-2 was found in early 2020, adding to evidence of a natural spillover event,
Scientific Alerican, March 17, 2023, accessed November 8, 2023 https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-evidence-supports-animal-origin-of-covid-virus-through-
raccoon-dogs/
We should also mention the opinion of Prof. Patrick Berche, who spoke at the Académie de
Médecine on April 18, 2023 (dedicated session: "from the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to dangerous
virology/biology"); he published on this subject in June 2023: he concludes that the artificial origin
of the virus, leaked from the Wuhan laboratory, should be considered .
74
Conclusion
The problem of the origin of the SC2 virus is a complex one: to form a serious opinion, of course,
you need access to specialist knowledge of coronavirus virology, but you also need to take into
account the biopolitical aspects. In this text, I also stress the essential contribution of evolutionary
theory to solving this enigma.
Biopower tends to impose health standards on the entire human population, in particular through
widespread vaccination against known and future pathogens. To this end, health authorities fund
research aimed at anticipating the emergence of new viruses: functional gains are part of this
process. The aim is to design and produce viruses that are supposed to be able to emerge. Scientists
look for molecular characteristics likely to increase the pathogenicity and transmissibility to humans
of known viruses. They then manufacture chimeric viruses based on existing viruses, to which they
add these characteristics. At the same time, they look for vaccines to protect the population against
these viruses, which are expected to emerge in the future.
The vaccine ideology, which dates back over two centuries, and the huge profits made by the
pharmaceutical industry from the sale of vaccines, explain the commitment of governments and
NGOs to this type of research.
The history of gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses clearly shows which molecular
features were identified, and how they were added to low-transmissibility viruses such as SARS-
CoV-1 in 2002.
These experiments were initiated at the University of North Carolina by Ralph Baric and his teams
in the 1980s. Over the course of the 2000s, an increasingly close collaboration was established with
Chinese virologists through the US government-funded NGO EcoHealthAlliance. Justified concerns
about this type of research led to a moratorium in 2014 and their increasing relocation to China, but
GoF had to continue secretly in the USA.
Examination of the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence reveals exactly these important parts of the
genome: the virus's high affinity for human ACE2 (the "key" that enables the virus to open the door
to many cell types), the furin site (the virus's "arm" that opens this door) and other sequences that
enable the virus to enter immune cells that lack the ACE2 "lock".
The history of human coronavirus epidemics since the end of the 19th century shows that this type
of virus is only capable of causing a pandemic if it passes from a domestic animal to man, and then
several times in a row in a population living in very close contact with this animal: from an
evolutionary point of view, the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from an animal is
impossible. And this is confirmed by the unsuccessful search for the animal that served as
intermediate host: for almost 4 years it has been impossible to find a similar or closely related virus
in any wild animal. What's more, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 for animal ACE2 is lower than that
for human ACE2, and has been so since its official emergence.
There are very strong arguments in support of the hypothesis that the virus originated in the USA
and then spread naturally (or deliberately) to China.
PMID: 37269978
74
From the start of the pandemic in 2020, the GoF players logically did everything in their power to
conceal the artificial origin of the virus. They finally acknowledged it (at least in the USA), but put
the blame solely on China and the Wuhan laboratory. In France, the omerta reigns on this subject,
even though coronavirologists published their doubts and arguments in favor of artificial origin as
early as 2021. Two eminent French microbiologists reinforced these arguments in 2023.
Unfortunately, the GoF experiments didn't stop with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2: the American
CDC (Centers of Disease Control) feared the production of a chimeric virus between SARS-CoV-2
and SARS-CoV1, which would have the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and the pathogenicity of
SARS-CoV-1 .
75
There are also arguments in favor of the artificial origin of certain later variants of SARS-CoV-2:
the "English" and Omicron variants could also have originated in laboratories. Some laboratories
are investigating how Omicron could become more virulent, and are manipulating the virus to this
end. Peacock TP et al, The altered entry pathway and antigenic distance of the SARS-CoV-2
Omicron variant map to separate domains of Spike protein, bioRxiv, 2021. Omicron could have
been selected by SARS-CoV-2 passages in mice, as proposed by two eminent evolutionary
virologists: F Balloux and L van Dorp . This hypothesis is also proposed by Chinese
76
virologists.
77
According to Baric himself, it is possible to adapt SARS-CoV-2 to mice in 10 passages .
78
In 2022, Baric's collaborators proposed a live attenuated vaccine made from modified SARS-CoV-2
to combat SARS-CoV-2 itself . This proposal raises safety issues, given the potential risks
79
associated with the use of live attenuated viruses.
CALL FOR A NEW MORATORIUM ON GAIN-OF-FUNCTION EXPERIMENTS
In 2022, French virologists specializing in coronaviruses published a shocking article . They call
80
for a moratorium on gain-of-function experiments involving viruses with pandemic potential, on
genetic forcing projects and on self-disseminating vaccines.
These positions should be widely publicized, as should the international "Biosafety Now "2
initiative based in the USA , which is also calling for a halt to these dangerous practices
81
Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 219/Wednesday, November 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations , 75
Xavier Becerra, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/17/2021-25204/possession-use-and-transfer-of-
select-agents-and-toxins-addition-of-sars-covsars-cov-2-chimeric
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to animals and potential host adaptation!
76
Cedric C.S. Tan, Su, Datt Lam, Damien Richard, Christopher Owen, DorotheaBerchtold, Christine
Orengo, Meera Surendran Nair, Suresh V. Kuchipudi, VivekKapur, Lucy van Dorp, François Balloux
bioRxiv 2020.11.16.384743; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.16.384743!
PMID: 35005525
77
PMID: 33031744
78
. PMID 35896528
79
"Les apprentis du génome$». Bruno Canard, Étienne Decroly, Jacques Van Helden, «$ Les
80
apprentis du génome". Bruno Canard, Étienne Decroly, Jacques Van Helden, "Genetic forcing,
self-disseminating vaccines, chimeric viruses... The genome's sorcerer's apprentices".!
Le Monde Diplomatique, février 2022, voir : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2022/02/
CANARD/64333
https://biosafetynow.org/
81
but has little weight in the face of biopower. Unfortunately, the authorities and the media continue
to sow the greatest confusion on this subject to prevent the population from fully understanding the
seriousness of the threats. That's why it's urgent to inform the general public of the danger of these
GoFs, so that they can hopefully influence their elected representatives. Knowledge is power!
A public and democratic debate is urgently needed. After four years of questioning the origin of
SARS-CoV-2, this debate on GoFs is still a moot point. Worse still, research using GoFs continues,
with impunity, on many viruses, and in the silence of the media. One thing is certain: this research
was of no use in the Covid crisis. The whole of humanity has been able to see not only the total
vacuity of the idea of "mastering" viruses to prevent pandemics, but above all that this type of
experiment was de facto creating the risk they hoped to protect us from.
In January 2024, the mainstream press pretended to be moved by the creation by the Chinese of a
deadly variant of coronavirus (on humanized mice): "Chinese researchers have modified a
coronavirus named GX_P2V discovered in 2017 on pangolins. Tested on mice carrying human
proteins, the virus created from scratch has a 100% lethality rate."
82
The media at the helm forget that the search for gains in function continues in the USA, at the heart
of biopower. In November 2021, the CDC, part of the US Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), amended its regulations on toxic agents and toxins. This amendment now includes
the SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses and describes certain genetic manipulations subject
to the new regulations, suggesting that they were most likely already underway at that date. These
included the creation of a chimeric virus with the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and the
pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-1. The virulence factors of SARS-CoV-1 to be added to SARS-CoV-2
are precisely described. These manipulations could lead to the emergence of a highly pathogenic
and transmissible SARS-CoV-3 .
83
In 2023, we also learn that the same team whose research led to the 2014 moratorium on GoF
continues to adapt avian flu viruses to ferrets, the model animal for studying the transmissibility of
these viruses to mammals and humans. This is happening in Canada, and the same type of
experiment is being carried out in Japan in 2023 (Getting it right Biosafety Now January 31, 2024
https://biosafetynow.org/getting-it-right/?mc_cid=7d13ce4e11&mc_eid=03958db8c8 ).
Closer to home, in Belgium, a BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratory is proposing tools to anticipate future
pandemics, including the manufacture of viruses by reverse genetics (insertion of plasmid mutations
into the genomes of known viruses). These experiments are being carried out on various virus
families, including Flaviviruses (such as Zika and Chikungunya), coronaviruses and RSV .
84
Covid-19: mutant coronavirus, a 100% mortality rate... in China, several experiments worry
82
scientists, La Dépêche, January 19, 2024 https://www.ladepeche.fr/2024/01/19/coronavirus-cest-
une-etude-epouvantable-un-virus-mutant-cree-en-chine-a-un-taux-de-mortalite-de-100-chez-
des-souris-humanisees-11706074.php and An infection and pathogenesis mouse model of
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR)!
Lai Wei, Shuiqing Liu, Shanshan Lu, Shengdong Luo, Xiaoping An, Huahao Fan, WeiweiChen,
Erguang Li, Yigang Tong, Lihua Song!
bioRxiv 2024.01.03.574008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008 !
Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 219/Wednesday, November 17, 2021/Rules and Regulations ,
83
Xavier Becerra, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/17/2021-25204/possession-use-and-transfer-of-
select-agents-and-toxins-addition-of-sars-covsars-cov-2-chimeric
SARS Virus Bank Platform consulted March 10, 2024, https://virusbankplatform.be/ 84
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Preprint
Full-text available
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) can cause 100% mortality in human ACE2-transgenic mice, potentially attributable to late-stage brain infection. This underscores a spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans and provides a unique model for understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses.
Preprint
Full-text available
To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident. The genome of SARS-COV-2 contains a peculiar pattern of unique restriction endonuclease recognition sites allowing efficient dis- and re-assembly of the viral genome characteristic of synthetic viruses. Here, we report the likelihood of observing such a pattern in coronaviruses with no history of bioengineering. We find that SARS-CoV-2 is an anomaly, more likely a product of synthetic genome assembly than natural evolution. The restriction map of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with many previously reported synthetic coronavirus genomes, meets all the criteria required for an efficient reverse genetic system, differs from closest relatives by a significantly higher rate of synonymous mutations in these synthetic-looking recognitions sites, and has a synthetic fingerprint unlikely to have evolved from its close relatives. We report a high likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated as an infectious clone assembled in vitro . Lay Summary To construct synthetic variants of natural coronaviruses in the lab, researchers often use a method called in vitro genome assembly. This method utilizes special enzymes called restriction enzymes to generate DNA building blocks that then can be “stitched” together in the correct order of the viral genome. To make a virus in the lab, researchers usually engineer the viral genome to add and remove stitching sites, called restriction sites. The ways researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly. We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.
Bioinformatics analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome shows codon usage bias 60 suggesting possible genetic manipulation
https://www.jle.com/fr/contenu_libre.phtml?code_contenu=covid19-le-rapport-de-la-mission-OMS-peine-a-retracer-les-origines-de-l-epidemie-de-SARS-CoV-2 PMID: 36037920 Bioinformatics analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome shows codon usage bias 60 suggesting possible genetic manipulation (interview in Italian, September 2020 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=243062757106162) 61
and An infection and pathogenesis mouse model of SARS-CoV-2
  • La Scientists
  • Dépêche
scientists, La Dépêche, January 19, 2024 https://www.ladepeche.fr/2024/01/19/coronavirus-cestune-etude-epouvantable-un-virus-mutant-cree-en-chine-a-un-taux-de-mortalite-de-100-chezdes-souris-humanisees-11706074.php and An infection and pathogenesis mouse model of SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR)
possession-use-and-transfer-ofselect-agents-and-toxins-addition-of-sars-covsars-cov-2-chimeric SARS Virus Bank Platform consulted
  • Xavier Becerra
  • Secretary
  • Human Department Of Health
  • Services
Xavier Becerra, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/17/2021-25204/possession-use-and-transfer-ofselect-agents-and-toxins-addition-of-sars-covsars-cov-2-chimeric SARS Virus Bank Platform consulted March 10, 2024, https://virusbankplatform.be/ 84