Source: Julie Beal

Most scientists think that SARS-CoV-2 underwent a natural process and evolved into a virus that could infect humans. The widely accepted theory is that, against all the odds, a bat coronavirus managed to get inside a pangolin and then get inside the exact same blood cell as a pangolin coronavirus, and then these two viruses gave rise to a brand new kind of virus that could infect humans. This is classed as zoonotic infection – this is where a virus is supposed to jump species and start being able to infect humans by acquiring specific mutations.

Over the last 20 years, there have been loads of outbreaks where a virus has jumped species and become a threat to humans – apparently, it just keeps on happening! Flu from pigs and birds…. SARS, MERS, and Ebola from bats.i But some scientists have dismissed the zoonotic theory for the origin of SARS-CoV-2; they think the bat/pangolin theory is very unlikely, for a whole bunch of reasons. These scientists are molecular biologists and geneticists who have studied the design of the virus and come to the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 was carefully crafted in a laboratory, and that it either escaped from a lab accidentally or was released on purpose.

According to Yuri Deigin (Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research):

“If you hear anyone claim ‘we know the virus didn’t come from a lab’, don’t buy it — it may well have. Labs around the globe have been creating synthetic viruses like CoV2 for years. And no, its genome would not necessarily contain hallmarks of human manipulation: modern genetic engineering tools permit cutting and pasting genomic fragments without leaving a trace. It can be done quickly, too: it took a Swiss team less than a month to create a synthetic clone of CoV2.”

Deigin originally assumed it was bound to be a natural virus, and set out to prove the ‘conspiracy theorists’ wrong, but the more he looked, the more he started thinking they might be right, and that SARS-CoV-2 really could be a man-made virus. He says it’s “an obvious chimera” that’s based on a bat-CoV in which part of the spike (the RBM) has been replaced with the RBM from a pangolin-CoV. He also notes the unusual addition of a furin cleavage site which “significantly expands the ‘repertoire’ of the virus in terms of whose cells it can penetrate.”

This furin cleavage site is said to make the virus even more dangerous because of the way it gets processed by the body, but nobody can explain how it got there. It’s not found in similar coronaviruses so scientists can’t explain how SARS-CoV-2 came to have one. Lots of other viruses have got one, though, and the NIH came up with a solution called the pre-fusion technique, then spent several years perfecting the technique in secret tests with Moderna. In fact, all but one of the alleged outbreaks that have taken place over the last 40 years have involved a virus with a furin cleavage site. This includes HIV, influenza, MERS, Zika and Ebola; it was just SARS-CoV that didn’t have one. Moderna was secretly working with the NIH to develop vaccines for some of these viruses and this involved using viruses AND furin for testing.ii Reseachers have previously experimented with inserting a furin cleavage site into SARS-1 (e.g. in 2006 and 2008).

One of the most important reasons to study the design of the rona is that most of the changes that have aroused suspicion involve the spike protein, and it’s the spike protein that’s in the vaccines. A key feature of the spike is the RBD (receptor binding domain) because this is the bit that determines how a virus is able to infect a particular species, and the RBD of the rona is very suspicious indeed. It just doesn’t seem natural.iii It’s supposed to have evolved from a bat virus, and a pangolin virus, so it should be able to infect bats and pangolins better than it can infect humans, but in fact the SARS-CoV-2 virus is far better at infecting humans than any other species!

According to Alejandro Sousa (SARS-Cov-2 Natural or Artificial, That is the Question):

“This suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 protein S has uniquely evolved to bind to and infect cells expressing human ACE2. This finding is particularly surprising since, typically, a virus would be expected to have the highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species (bat), with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host (human). However, in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the host species, bats, or any other potential intermediate host species studied. Based on these data, the authors do not rule out that SARS-CoV-2 was created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory.”

Another reason to examine the nature of the virus is that there are a number of suspicions about how it was ‘discovered’ and the way it was ‘validated’. For example, some scientists question the way Zeng Li Shi suddenly found a bat virus in January, 2020, which was then used to validate the genome of SARS-CoV-2. This bat virus goes by the name of RaTG13 and is said to provide proof that the rona came from bats. In an article called RaTG13 – the undeniable evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus is man-made, Nerd Has Power questions the existence of RaTG13 and the way the genome of the rona was sequenced. He also explains why people are suspicious of the virus design:

“This has a lot to do with how the sequence of this virus (in other words, its genome) compares with those of related coronaviruses. When comparing sequences, one can compare either gene sequences or protein sequences. …Here, we will compare different viruses only on their protein sequences. By doing such a comparison, one can see that the Wuhan coronavirus is about 86% identical to the SARS coronavirus, which caused a pandemic back in 2003. This level of sequence identity basically says that the Wuhan coronavirus could not have come from SARS, something the field agrees unanimously. At the same time, the Wuhan coronavirus is STRANGELY similar to two bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21. Overall, the sequence of either of the two bat coronaviruses is 95% identical to the Wuhan coronavirus. In fact, for most part of the genome, such level of identity is maintained or even surpassed. The E protein, in particular, is 100% identical. The nucleocapsid is 94% identical. The membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the spike protein is 95% identical. However, when it comes to the S1 portion (1st half) of the spike protein, the sequence identity suddenly drops to 69%. This pattern of sequence conservation, between either of the closely related bat coronaviruses and the Wuhan coronavirus, is extremely rare and strange! This is extremely rare because natural evolution typically takes place when changes (mutations) occur randomly across the whole genome. You would then expect the rate of mutation being more or less the same for all parts of the genome.”

So there are lots of questions to ask about RaTG13, but scientists have, on the whole, merely accepted its authenticity and used it to validate the zoonotic theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nor do they question how it was that, in February 2020, a pangolin virus was suddenly discovered which further validated the zoonotic theory. According to Yuri Deigin,

“another group of Chinese scientists discovered a peculiar strain of pangolin coronavirus in their possession, which, while generally being only 90% similar to CoV2, in the RBM region was almost identical to it, with only a single amino acid difference. .…Surprisingly, in the first quarter of the S protein, the pangolin strain is highly dissimilar from CoV2, but after the RBM all three strains (CoV2, Pangolin, RaTG13) exhibit a shared high degree of similarity. Most strikingly, RaTG13’s RBM itself is quite different than that of CoV2…” (Note, the RBM is the receptor-binding motif and it’s part of the RBD!)iv

The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are heavily focussed on the design of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) because this is the part that binds to ACE2 and leads to antibody production. According to the EMA Report for Pfizer, the two formats they selected for further development were BNT162b2, which encodes a “full-length, P2 mutant, prefusion spike glycoprotein”v and BNT162b1, which only contains the code for the RBD part of the spike.

Engineered Viruses Are the New Biological Weapons, Here’s What You Need to Know

All in all, then, there are plenty of reasons to examine the origin of the virus, although trying to prove who released it would be like trying to prove who farted…. If it’s the case that ‘he who smelt it, dealt it’, then we can just say it came from a lab in Wuhan. It’s where most of the gain-of-function research took place, after all. On the other hand, this whole thing is clearly about the ‘Great Reset’ so we need to take a broader view of the situation, and ask who would want to release a virus and who profits, as explained by Meryl Nass:

“Did this virus originate in a lab? Almost certainly. Was it spread deliberately? I don’t know. It could have been accidental. If it was spread deliberately, who did it? I don’t know that either. If you approach this question by asking who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit such a crime, we can at least begin the discussion.

a. Means: Scientists in multiple countries, including the US and China, had the means to produce a virus like this.

b. Motive: who is benefiting from the pandemic? The $US dollar, Amazon, Elon, Facebook, Zoom, Twitter and the surveillance state, for a start.

c. Opportunity: Since the world military games were held in Wuhan in October, military staff from dozens of countries had the opportunity. Wuhan is also an international trading center. Maybe anyone visiting Wuhan last fall had an opportunity. If this theory is so easy to debunk, why does it keep popping up? I am starting to wonder if it isn’t a psyop, repeatedly inserted into the discourse to stop people from looking into the true origin of the virus… looking into the funders of Gain of Function research on coronaviruses at NIAID and elsewhere… and looking into what exactly they were trying to do, and for whom…”

Are there any further motives you can think of? What about the vaccines? Do you think the virus was released to begin the Reset?

Further resources:

According to the Daily Mail, Nikolai Petrovsky said the rona seemed to have been, “completely optimized from day one without the need to evolve” like other viruses. “This is a new virus that has never been in humans before, but it has an extraordinarily high binding to human receptors, which is very surprising,” Petrovsky told the Mail. “It is almost perfectly human adapted, it couldn’t do any better.”

See also:

Interview with Dr Paul Goddard begins at 46:00 minutes in this video on BrandNewTube

Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly By Milton Leitenberg

Big Pharma Beware: Dr. Montagnier Shines New Light on COVID-19 and The Future of Medicine


DARPA is leading a military offensive against pathogens and a big part of this is surveillance, such as the lovingly-named One Health system: “One Health surveillance describes the systematic collection, validation, analysis, interpretation of data and dissemination of information collected on humans, animals and the environment to inform decisions for more effective, evidence- and system-based health interventions.”

ii More on this in future articles – the evidence demonstrates that Big Pharma has a lot planned for genetic vaccines.

iii Jean-Claude Perezez (Wuhan COVID-19 Synthetic Origins And Evolution) describes one of several features of the RBM that appear to be non-natural: “Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, at either end of the RBM of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, respectively. These two sites, which are popular choices of everyday molecular cloning, do not exist in the rest of this spike gene. This particular setting makes it extremely convenient to swap the RBM within spike, providing a quick way to test different RBMs and the corresponding Spike proteins. Such EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses, which strongly indicates that they were unnatural and were specifically introduced into this spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 for the convenience of manipulating the critical RBM.” Perez goes on to say, “he striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator [Dr. Fang Li], respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”

iv As explained by Perez, “The Spike protein is split into two halves. The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.” In other words, the first half of spike is what binds to (human) ACE2 at the RBM, and the second half of spike is what enables it to fuse with a cell and get inside it. The furin cleavage site is in-between the first and second halves, at the S1/S2 junction; humans make furin and this molecule cuts the virus at the junction of S1 and S2 and then it unfolds and can gain entry to cells. The pre-fusion design being used by most of the coronavirus vaccines is supposed to prevent this from happening.

v This means it’s the whole of the spike protein but it’s been modified according to the pre-fusion technique by changing two key amino acids to proline. This design was patented by the NIH in 2017, although it’s interesting to note that Curevac also published a patent for the exact same proline substitution design a couple of months later!