LAWSUITS FILED OVER SARS-CoV-2 ORIGIN. NIH REFUSED TO RELEASE INFO.

YOU CAN READ THE COURT DOCUMENT FILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA <HERE>.

We’ve thus far been unable to identify the immediate virus parent or parents of SARS-CoV-2, and this is a key piece of information. 

The two closest relatives — RaTG13 and RmYN02 — aren’t close enough to have mutated into SARS-CoV-2. 

SO WHERE DID THE VIRUS ORIGINATE IF NOT IN NATURE?

IF IT DOES NOT EXIST AS A VIRUS N NATURE, IT HAD TO BE LAB-CREATED. 


Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is VERY important as it would improve our pandemic response, allow us to anticipate or prevent another pandemic and advance discussions about once again HALTING risky gain-of-function research.

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has filed a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health after the agency failed to respond to its July 2020 FOIA (Fredom of Information Act) request for records of gain-of-function experiments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the EcoHealth Alliance.

LAB ANIMALS COULD HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF THE PANDEMIC

One possibility is that SARS-CoV-2 might be the result of RaTG13 (or another close ancestor virus) being passed through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors.

DID MICE ESCAPE A LAB? 

DID A HUMAN BECOME INFECTED BY THE MICE AND SPREAD THE VIRUS?


The USRTK's lawsuit seeks access to nonexempt records of gain-of-function experiments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and funded the Wuhan Institute.2 According to the USRTK's November 5, 2020 press release:3


"Today's litigation against the NIH is one part of our efforts to try to uncover what is known about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and the risks of bio-safety labs and gain-of-function research, which seeks to augment the infectivity or lethality of potential pandemic pathogens.

Since July, we have filed 36 state, federal and international public records requests about these subjects."


USRTK is also concerned about new claims that PLOS Pathogens, Current Biology and the journal Nature published key papers on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 despite those papers being flawed.

These disturbing findings were revealed in "Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up." It appears data sets were changed without notices of correction being published.

November 9, 2020, USRTK published a series of emails they'd sent to the lead authors and editors of the papers in dispute.

The questions raised by the responses they received "put in doubt the validity of these key studies," USRTK writes. As noted by USRTK reporter Carey Gillam:

"Chinese governmental authorities first promoted the idea that the source of the causal agent for COVID-19 in humans came from a wild animal in December. Chinese government-supported scientists then backed that theory in four separate studies submitted to the journals between February 7 and 18 …

The four papers in question are Liu et al.; Xiao et al.; Lam et al, and Zhang et al.

PLEASE SEE THAT ZHANG STATED:  
"Only SARS-CoV-2 contains a potential cleavage site for furin proteases.
Both Pangolin-CoV and RaTG13 lost the putative furin recognition sequence motif at S1/S2 cleavage site that can be observed in the SARS-CoV-2. 

Due to unavailability of the original sample, (LIU ET AL WOULD NOT PROVIDE ONE) we did not perform further experiments to confirm our findings, including PCR validation, serological detection, or even isolation of the virus particles."

So, the two papers that are currently being investigated by the journal editors are Liu et al and Xiao et al. 

In communications with the authors and journal editors of those two papers, USRTK has learned of serious problems with the publication of those studies, including the following:

•Liu et al. did not publish or share (upon being asked) raw and/or missing data that would allow experts to independently verify their genomic analyses.

•Editors at both Nature and PLoS Pathogens, as well as Professor Stanley Perlman, the editor of Liu et al., have acknowledged in email communications that they are aware of serious issues with these papers and that the journals are investigating them.
Yet, they have made no public disclosure of the potential problems with the papers.


… The problems with the research papers raise 'serious questions and concerns' about the validity of the zoonotic theory overall, according to Dr. Sainath Suryanarayanan, a biologist and sociologist of science, and USRTK staff scientist."

In a November 3, 2020, PNAS opinion, Dr. David Relman — a microbiologist and professor of medicine, microbiology and immunology at Stanford12 — explains why it's so important to identify the origin of SARS-CoV-2:


"SARS-CoV-2 is a betacoronavirus whose apparent closest relatives, RaTG13 and RmYN02, are reported to have been collected from bats in 2013 and 2019, respectively, in Yunnan Province, China. COVID-19 was first reported in December 2019 more than 1,000 miles away in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China.

Beyond these facts, the 'origin story' is missing many key details, including a plausible and suitably detailed recent evolutionary history of the virus, the identity and provenance of its most recent ancestors, and surprisingly, the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection.


Even though a definitive answer may not be forthcoming, and even though an objective analysis requires addressing some uncomfortable possibilities, it is crucial that we pursue this question. Preventing the next pandemic depends on understanding the origins of this one …


If we find more concrete evidence of a 'spill-over' event with SARS-CoV-2 passing directly from bat to human, then efforts to understand and manage the bat-human interface need to be significantly strengthened. 

But if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab to cause the pandemic, it will become critical to understand the chain of events and prevent this from happening again."

Relman goes on to review the top three contending origin hypotheses:


1- The virus evolved in bats and then spread directly or via an intermediate host to humans through natural mechanisms.  
[BUT NO STUDY, NO ONE CAN PROVE THIS HAPPENED]

2- SARS-CoV-2, or a recent ancestor, was collected from an infected animal and then was either knowingly or accidentally propagated or genetically manipulated before accidental release.

3- SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered through gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and was intentionally released

As noted by Relman, we've thus far been unable to identify the immediate parent or parents of SARS-CoV-2, and this is a key piece of information needed to unlock the full puzzle. 

The two closest relatives — RaTG13 and RmYN02 — aren't close enough to have mutated into SARS-CoV-2."

"Recombination between different viruses is common both in nature and in laboratory research, and to determine which route the virus took, we need to identify the starting point. Relman's opinion ends with the following comment:


"A more complete understanding of the origins of COVID-19 clearly serves the interests of every person in every country on this planet. It will limit further recriminations and diminish the likelihood of conflict; it will lead to more effective responses to this pandemic, as well as efforts to anticipate and prevent the next one.


It will also advance our discussions about risky science. And it will do something else: Delineating COVID-19's origin story will help elucidate the nature of our very precarious coexistence within the biosphere."


Unfortunately, evidence suggests data scrubbing and cover-ups have already occurred, which makes establishing SARS-CoV-2's origin all the more difficult. The question is, why was this done?

Was there a political purpose behind it? Was this a purposely engineered virus released to provide justification for the globalist "reset" plan? Was it an accidental release that was covered up to protect the future existence of dangerous gain-of-function research?

Indeed, pinpointing the virus' origin is key to answering these important questions, and it would seem that only someone with something to hide can be held responsible for the any attempted cover-up.

NO ONE ELSE would have anything to gain from shielding the public from the truth, whatever it might be.

THERE ARE SOME STRANGE FINDINGS ABOUT THIS NEW VIRUS.

-- HIV/SIV sequences have been identified by a Nobel laureate, who discovered the HIV pathogen, in a small localized region of SARS-CoV-2's genome that allows the virus to infect human cells.

"This region has been 'manipulated' by humans," the authors state, adding that since deletions in this region have been observed in COVID-19 patients, "we can expect a faster genetic evolution of the virus toward a less pathogenic strain lacking this human-made region."

Also according to those two authors, SARS-CoV-2's master code ** "shows optimal spike PRRA site inserts" that are also shared with RaTG13.

Again, RaTG13 is one of the most closely related viruses to SARS-CoV-2. It was discovered by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2013 after it was reported that six miners had contracted a mysterious viral infection that resulted in severe pneumonia. Three of the miners died.

IS THAT WHAT WUHAN USED TO MAKE THE SARS-CoV2  CROSS TO HUMANS?

As reported by The Jackson Laboratory, structural differences between the mouse ACE2 and the human ACE2 proteins make regular lab mice unsuitable for research relating to SARS-CoV-2, as the virus cannot readily infect them.

However, there are transgenic mice that express human ACE2. The first of these transgenic mice, known as K18-hACE2, were developed in 2007. Other transgenic mice with human ACE2 have been created since then. At least two recent studies have shown that transgenic mice with human ACE2 are easily infected and killed by SARS-CoV-2:

The first, published in the July 8, 2020, issue of Cell Host & Microbe found transgenic mice with human ACE2 of all ages had far higher viral loads in the lungs, trachea and brain than wild-type mice. While none died, older transgenic mice infected with SARS-CoV-2 came down with pneumonia and had elevated cytokines. The virus was found to produce "productive infection" both via intranasal and intragastric infection.24
The second, published in the July 9, 2020, issue of the journal Cell found SARS-CoV-2 infected HFH4-hACE2 transgenic mice, causing death. The infection was primarily localized to the lungs, causing interstitial pneumonia similar to that seen in COVID-19 patients. Low levels of viral RNA were also found in the eyes, heart and brain in a small number of animals.25

In response to questions for a July 31, 2020 Science article, Wuhan Institute of Virology coronavirus researcher Dr. Shi Zhengli stated that:


"We performed in vivo experiments in transgenic (human ACE2 expressing) mice and civets in 2018 and 2019 in the Institute's biosafety laboratory. The viruses we used were bat SARSr-CoV, close to SARS-CoV …

The results suggested that bat SARSr-CoV can directly infect civets and can also infect mice with human ACE2 receptors. Yet it showed low pathogenicity in mice and no pathogenicity in civets. These data are being sorted and will be published soon".

Zhengli admits experiments were done on transgenic mice using a bat-derived SARS-related coronavirus, which closely resembles SARS-CoV, in 2018 and 2019. (SARS-CoV is the virus responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), that broke out in 2003.)

Could this be the missing intermediate species that explains why SARS-CoV-2 is so well-adapted to infecting humans via the ACE2 receptor? It's still too early to tell, but it's a possibility. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that other engineering methods were also used.

Foxes Guard the Henhouse

After months of stonewalling, investigative commissions are now being launched,29,30 ostensibly to get to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2's origin. Whether they will actually unearth the truth or simply bury it deeper remains to be seen, but based on key members' clear conflicts of interests, it doesn't look promising.

For example, The Lancet's COVID-19 Commission is being led by Dr. Peter Daszak. Not only has Daszak already spoken out about his conviction that the virus is natural and shunned theories to the contrary, he is the president of the EcoHealth Alliance and that fact deeply conflicts him from a business standpoint, seeing how EcoHealth Alliance received grants from the NIH for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Daszak has every reason to make sure SARS-CoV-2 ends up being declared natural, because if it turns out to be a lab-creation, his own livelihood as a scientist is at stake. It would be naïve to believe that safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research wouldn't be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.

IF THIS WAS A LAB ERROR, OR WAS INTENTIONAL ON THE PART OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY-CONTROLLED LAB, OLD FAUCI WOULD FACE SOME VERY HARD QUESTIONS. 

IN FACT, FAUCI's PUSH TO FUND CHINESE LABS AND BRING BACK GAIN-OF-FUNCTION LAB TESTS TO AMERICA WOULD BE TO BLAME FOR THIS ENTIRE PANDEMIC. 

Newsweek. Dr. Fauci backed controversial Wuhan lab with U.S. dollars for risky coronavirus research. Fred Guterl. April 28, 2020.

The New Yorker. The risks of building too many bio labs. Elisabeth Eaves. March 18, 2020. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. High-containment laboratories: Comprehensive and up-to-date policies and stronger oversight mechanisms needed to improve safety. April 19, 2016. GAO-16-305.

USA Today. 10 incidents discovered at the nation’s biolabs. Alison Young and Nick Penzenstadler. May 29, 2015.

US House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Hearing on germs, viruses, and secrets: the silent proliferation of bio-laboratories in the United States, 110th Congress. October 4, 2007.

CBC. Canadian scientist sent deadly viruses to Wuhan lab months before RCMP asked to investigate. June 16, 2020.


USING VIRUSES AS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN FOR MANY YEARS, SO WHY ARE LABS ACROSS THE WORLD ENGAGED IN DOING JUST THAT?

FOR POWER.
SIMPLY FOR POWER. 

WHEN MANKIND SEEKS BETTER WAYS TO KILL OTHERS, WE ARE ALL THE VICTIMS OF A MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC CRIME. 

THE FUNCTION THEY SEEK TO GAIN IS DEATH, DEATH THAT CANNOT BE STOPPED. 

THINK ABOUT THAT. 





_____________________

MY END NOTES: 

** FROM THE PDF OF THAT STUDY:
1) 18 RNA fragments of homology equal or more than 80% with human or simian retroviruses have been found in the COVID_19 genome. 2) These fragments are 18 to 30 nucleotides long and therefore have the potential to modify the gene expression of Covid19. We have named them external Informative Elements or EIE. 3) These EIE are not dispersed randomly, but are concentrated in a small part of the COVID_19 genome. 4) Among this part, a 225-nucleotide long region is unique to COVID_19 and Bat RaTG13 and can discriminate and formally distinguish these 2 genomes. 5) In the decreasing slope of the epidemic, this 225 bases area and the 1770 bases Spike region, exhibits an abnormally high rate of mutations/deletions (cases of 44 patients from WA Seattle state, original epicenter in USA). 6) In the comparative analysis of both SPIKES genes of COVID_19 and Bat RaTG13, we note two abnormal facts: • The insertion of 4 contiguous PRRA amino acids in the middle of SPIKE (then we show that this site was already an optimal cleavage site BEFORE this insertion). • An abnormal ratio of synonymous codons / non synonymous codons in the second half of SPIKE. Finally we show the insertion in this 1770 bases SPIKE region of a significant EIE from Plasmodium Yoelii and of a possible HIV1 EIE with a crucial Spike mutation. Through the 14 facts relating to each of the 14 paragraphs of this article, everything converges towards possible laboratory manipulations (End Note below) which contributed to modifications of the genome of COVID_19, but also, very probably much older SARS, with perhaps this double objective of vaccine design and of "gain of function" in terms of penetration of this virus into the cell. This analysis, made in silico, is dedicated to the real authors of Coronavirus COVID_19. It belongs only to them to describe their own experiments and why it turned into a world disaster: 650 000 lives (on 26 July 2020), more than those taken by the two atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We, the survivors, should take lessons from this serious alert for the future of humanity. We urge our colleagues scientists and medical doctors to respect ethical rules as expressed by Hipocrates oath: do not harm, never and never !
End Note: Why could COVID-19 come from Laboratory manipulations? The following 4 proofs concern differences with respect to SARS either common to COVID-19 and bat RaTG13, or facts radically differentiating these 2 sequences of which it is claimed that the first (COVID-19) comes from a natural evolution of the second (bat RaTG13). We have ranked these 4 proofs in ascending order of importance according to our point of view. 1) Four EIE formally distinguishes COVID-19 and bat RaTG13 genomes from all other SARS or bats genomes. However, their level of HIV/SIV homologies appears much more affirmed for COVID-19 than for bat RaTG13, as if these EIE fragments had recently been “re-injected” into the COVID-19 genome. ==> see & 7, (figures 4 and 5). 2) natural deletions (USA WA Seattle state) apply in priority to EIE inserts (HIV Kenya etc ..). ==> see full Part III and Figure 12 in §13. 3) Synonymous codons mutations within the 1770 bases region of the Spike, which simulate a natural evolution of bat RaTG13 towards COVID-19 while maintaining the optimality obtained in amino acid values, probably from “gain of function” Laboratory experiments (optimality common to both RNA sequences COVID-19 and bat RaTG13) ==> see Figure 10 in & 11 and Figure 11 in §12. 4) “PRRA” amino acids was inserted exactly on the Spike location already theoretically optimal on both COVID-19 and RATG13 (of which it constitutes the main difference). ==> see Figure 13 in & 14.  

-- There is a reading list about what is known and not known about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, accidents and leaks at bio-safety and bio-warfare laboratories, and the health risks of gain-of-function (GOF) research, which aims to increase the host range, transmissibility, infectivity and/or pathogenicity of potential pandemic pathogens.

What are the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

Accidents, leaks, transparency failures in biosafety facilities

Networks of biodefense and biowarfare

Debates on gain-of-function research

Scientific papers on the origins of SARS-CoV-2

-- Dr. Joseph Mercola was perhaps the first to dare write about all of the above.
His documentation is flawless. 
Mercola and thousands of others in the medical/scientific field see the horrific unethical nature of gain-of-function testing. 

-- 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.








//WW