LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

February 23, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier report titled “How was SARS-CoV-2 Created in the Labs and Why is it from China’s Military Network,” we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is fundamental because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak.

These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARS-CoV-2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.

The revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.

The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signify the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.

Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We, therefore, define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare.

We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community.

Unrestricted bioweapon is what I defined in the 2nd Report. Later the concept is verified by the PLA official textbook published in 2015.

SARS2 is not a traditional bioweapon. It’s a product of CCP’s long-term strategy. It generates more damage but is more hidden. The principle is “looks like natural occurring,” and the best way to recognize it from the lab is that it’s inconsistent with nature evolution principles (which I revealed in topic 1).

However, once the unrestricted bioweapon is recognized, using misinformation/lies/denial (in Topic 3) to drive people’s attention and waste time is another important strategy to achieve the goals.

The death rate of unrestricted bioweapon doesn’t need to be high. Lower than 2% is enough, and the secondary damage in medical facilities, economy, causing social disorder and even destroying democracy, is the goal. This tweet is important for your understanding, which is a hot topic.

2a. In the 2nd Rep, I defined unrestricted bioweapon and unrestricted BioWarfare. I refer to the PLA bioweapon expert’s definition of bioweapon; SARS2 is beyond it and “out of restrictions.”

2b. In the 3rd Rep, I translated part of the content in the PLA textbook, and further explained unrestricted bioweapon (compared with the consistent theory in the book.)

2c. It is not an accidental leak from the lab, but intentionally released for community trial in the neighborhoods but got out of control.

2d. The importance of the clinic to realize the unrestricted bioweapon nature of SARS2.

2e. CCP regime and People’s Liberation Army are the root cause of the COVID19 pandemic. Without understanding it, we can’t solve the pandemic. For better understanding, see this tweet.

Here is the 2nd Yan Report:


Yan, Li-Meng, Kang, Shu, & Hu, Shanchang. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. Zenodo.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pedro gutierrez
pedro gutierrez
2 years ago

A few observations Dr. Yan should recognize, as she continues to posit a CCP and Nanjing origin for Covid-19.

(1) Bat coronavirus BtKy72 is in Covid-19 evolutionary history. It is an Atlanta CDC bat coronavirus, not a CCP nor Nanjing Military command bat virus. As of May 2019, the Atlanta CDC stated they could not sequence BtKy72. “Complete genome sequencing was not performed due to limited viral loads in fecal samples”, as explained in the Atlanta CDC article, “Complete Genome Sequence of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus from Kenyan Bats”. But, somehow, a “complete genome sequence” for BtKy72 was filed with NCBI February 5, 2020.

The Beijing CDC had knowledge of BtKy72 genome at least by January 29, 2020, six days before the Atlanta CDC filed BtKy72 with the NCBI. See the online publish date of Beijing CDC article, ‘Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding’. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8. Their ‘Figure 3 phylogenic analysis of full genome of 2019-nCov’, references BtKy72 complete genome.

If the Atlanta CDC found additional viral load for BtKy72 in other fecal samples, to complete BtKy72’s sequencing in 2019, they should inform the American public. ‘COBG’ (create a bat genome) is more illegal than GOF.

Dr. Yan, BtKy72 is an Atlanta CDC bat coronavirus, not Nanjing military command.

(2) In Guangdong province in 2019, two lungs of dead Malaysian pangolans filled with bat coronavirus, were discovered. Based on the contents of the two lungs, this new pangolin coronavirus was later named MP789. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT121216.1 For details, reference Guangdong Institute articles,

(a) ‘Viral Metagenomics Revealed Sendai Virus and Coronavirus Infection of Malayan Pangolins (Manis javanica)’, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v11110979, by the Guangdong Institute
(b) ‘’Are pangolins the intermediate host of the 2019 novel coronavirus
(SARS-CoV-2)?’, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1009664, by the Guangdong Institute
(c) ’Correction: Are pangolins the intermediate host of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARSCoV-
2)?’, by the Guangdong Institute

And though the Malaysian pangolin coronavirus MP789 may have originated in China, Malaysia, or anywhere in the 1,500 miles in between, the American ‘Covid-19 originated in nature’ virologists, have widely accepted and validated MP789 as a lineage 5 sarbecovirus betacoronavirus, a direct sibling to Covid-19. See the article, “The Evolutionary History of ACE2 usage within the coronavirus subgenus Sarbecovirus”, by the NIAID’s Vincent Munster and Michael Letko, and HL Wells at Columbia Univ, page 7 Figure 1 phylogenic tree lineage 5 includes pangolin coronavirus in same lineage with Covid-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4

It is the NIAID laboratory in Montana that has directed the ‘scientific’ discourse that Covid-19 originated in nature. Not the CCP nor Nanjing military command.

MP789 pangolan coronavirus is a gap filler in Covid-19 evolutionary history.
MP789 coronavirus has the right RBM (receptor binding motif) with its residues, to let Covid-19 bind human ACE2 enzyme. Not the RaTG13 related bat coronaviruses.

MP789 pangolan coronavirus has been determined to be 90% nucleotide similar to Covid-19 coronavirus. These American and European virologists don’t ask whether the pangolin coronavirus was in the Malaysian pangolin as disease or as natural reservoir. It does matter to them. The RBM (receptor binding motif) recombination event, from the pangolin to a bat, happened over 150 years ago to them, not recently.

Dr. Yan, it is this NIAID emphasis, acceptance and validation of the Malaysian pangolin coronavirus, and not Nanjing Military command, that helps us to understand where Covid-19 originated.

(3) High coincidence in America in January 2020, not Nanjing.

On Jan 22, 2020, the Guangdong Institute filed sequences SRR10168377 and SRR10168378 viromes for dead Malaysian pangolins lung07 and lung08 with the NCBI. Reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/ ?term=SRR10168377%20 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=SRR10168378 to see the filing date. These sequences would later be used to sequence MP789 pangolan coronavirus.

On January 23, 2020, the very next day, ‘tortube’ (Matthew Wong of Baylor University) posted on the Internet, the RBD (receptor bind domain) for dead Malaysian pangolin, was highly similar to RBD for Covid-19. https://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-spike-protein-receptor-binding-domain-shares-high-amino-acid-identity-with-a-coronavirus-recovered-from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362

Wong found the origin of the Covid-19 RBD, soon as the pangolin lung sequences were published. Bless that. It could only happen in America.

Dr. Yan, it is timing coincidences such as above, that helps us understand the origin of Covid-19.

(4) Why was William Jun Liu, Deputy Director of Beijing National CDC Influenza Division so conveniently out of town in St. Petersburg, Russia, November 2019 at time of Huanan Seafood Market outbreak? And George Gao (head of Beijing National CDC), was out of town, at Event 201, simulated pandemic in New York in October 2019. Zhengli herself was out of town at time of pandemic outbreak. Good alibis, plausible denial? https://www.spbstu.ru/upload/news/10-19/virology-days-2019.pdf for Liu.

William Jun Liu plays prominently in the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19the pandemic. Dr. Yan, connect the dots.

(5) The initial response of the United States epidemiology community (Homeland Security) to Covid-19 disease origin, to forego placing Ralph Baric, the world’s greatest reverse genetics bat virologist, on its Covid-19 forensic team. See the Department of Homeland Security public document, The “Master Question List for COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2) Weekly Report 18 March 2020”, page 6, lists Rambaut, Holmes, Lipkin, Andersen, and Garry (authors of ‘Proximal Origin SARS-CoV-2’) for forensics . To determine the natural or laboratory origin of Covid-19. https://nasemso.org/ wp-content/uploads/Master-Question-List-for-COVID-19-DHS.pdf Once Baric was left off of America’s Covid-19 forensic team, the cat was out of the bag.

And, Dr. Yan wants us to believe that Covid-19 originated only in China.

(6) A 2020 president and his cabinet who from day one did nothing but stir up the fervor and foment emotions of the American people against China, regarding the origins of the virus, that intentionally led to the distancing of China from America regarding determining virus origins. It was the United States that started the confusion that exists today. And Dr. Yan wants us to believe that Covid-19 only originated in China.

(7) The response of the ‘greatest’ virologists in the world to the Covid-19 pandemic, writing nonsensical papers as “Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2” and “The Origin of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review”. It is their cynicism and outright taunting that lets you know that Covid-19 did not originate in China only. They discuss at least four unique features of Covid-19, and conclude,

“since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible.”

These world renown scientists conclude, since the features of Covid-19 can be found in nature, no laboratory origin for them. Is this nonsense conclusion from the world’s greatest virologists the basis for an European and American coverup?

(8) Michael Letko and Vincent Munster, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in January 2020, showed just how untrue that conclusion is.

“We replaced the RBD (receptor binding domain) of full-length clade 2 and 3 spike gene (29 different bat coronaviruses) with the consensus RBD from clade 1, and tested pseudotypes on cells expressing the clade 1 receptor.” ‘Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for lineage B β-coronaviruses, including 2019-nCoV’, by Michael Letko and Vincent Munster, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseaeses, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.915660;

Showing utter disdain for the pandemic, the NIAID was replacing RBDs in 29 bat coronaviruses Spike genes, at the exact same time the Covid-19 outbreak began. Then they synthesized the new Covid-19 RBD.

‘’While our study was ongoing, a novel lineage B virus tentatively named 2019-nCoV was identified as the cause of a pneumonia outbreak in Hubei, China. Once the sequence was publicly available, we synthesized, cloned and tested the RBD from 2019-nCoV in our assay with human variants of known coronavirus receptors.”

The NIAID synthesized (artificially created) and cloned that which was found in nature (Covid-19 RBD in its spike gene), in an NIAID laboratory in Montana. All of this synthesizing and cloning of an RBD that leads to Covid-19’s pathogenicity, before January 22, 2020, shows that nature imposes no limits on laboratory. The authors of “Proximal Origin of SARS-Cov-2” wants the public to believe their conclusion of a nature origin of Covid-19. Dr. Yan wants us to believe that Covid-19 originated only in China. Which is worst?

The NIAID synthesized the Covid-19 RBD and probably Spike gene itself, in less than ten days in January 2020, after the Covid-19 genome was first available. We would love to have seen the Montana NIAID work in 2019. The NIAID were the only people in the whole world swapping bat coronavirus RBDs coincidentally, at the time of Covid-19 pandemic outbreak.
And Dr. Yan, the American NIAID is not Nanjing Military Command, I don’t believe.

(9) The fierce blowback of American virologists and the American media in 2020 against anyone who suggested that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory, let many know that at least three American coverups was going on in 2020, one political, one media, and one science community. And they still persist. If any of these were covering up or protecting the misdeeds of Chinese virologists, it is because those Chinese virologists may ‘’drop a dime’ on those Westerners as virus originators, or accomplices. Someone should check Shi Zhengli’s bank accounts in Wuhan, and ascertain whether she is receiving regular or one time payments from Western virologists, that would be prima facie evidence of ……… Possibly bit coin. Is she “tooling”” around Wuhan in a brand new BMW.

And, Dr. Yan wants us to believe that Covid-19 originated only in China.

Well worth reading articles.

The article, ‘An Evolutionary Portrait of the Progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and Its Dominant Offshoots in COVID-19 Pandemic’, by Sudhir Kumar and many others, where they determine the progenitor of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, is impressive. Up to date early lineages for Covid-19, as some try to ascertain were there multiple original sources for the virus outbreak.

‘WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part Joint WHO-China Study 14 January-10 February 2021’, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part, and the
Annex.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link