In Study Reveals COVID-19 May Have Been Made In Wuhan Lab
Wuhan Chinese researchers are suspected of covering up research irregularities and consequently have been implicated in the illicit experiments conducted at their laboratory.
In a highly charged new research, Chinese scientists claim to have generated a new synthetic DNA base called COVID-19, synthesized in Wuhan. They then attempted to conceal their tracks using re-engineered bat viruses to make it appear as if it had arisen naturally.
The 22-page British-Norwegian vaccine paper authors write that “SARS-Coronavirus-2” - the technical name for the virus - has no credible “natural ancestor.”
As the paper’s authors, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, have stated, they have had overwhelming proof of retro-engineering in China” for over a year. Still, their findings have been rejected by academia and prominent publications.
- Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St. George’s University in London and is widely renowned for his ground-breaking development of the first HIV vaccine that could be used to treat and suppress individuals, enabling them to go off medicine for an extended period.
- Dr. Sørensen, an expert in virology, is the chairman of the pharmaceutical business, Immunor, which created a coronavirus vaccine candidate named Biovacc-19.
The paper states that there have been incidents in which Chinese labs have deliberately destroyed data, concealed data, or even used falsified data. It also describes scientists in China who spoke out as having either disappeared or been forced to recant their previous statements.
Professor Angus Dalgleish and Dr. Birger Sørensen of the University of Oslo conducted an investigation and discovered “deliberate destruction, concealment, or contamination of data” in Chinese labs. Dalgleish and Sørensen assert that Chinese scientists who want to share their knowledge cannot do so, or they have either disappeared or are openly destroying, concealing, or contaminating the data.
The scientists charge that these Chinese researchers in Wuhan, whom they believe tried to conceal their wrongdoing, were responsible for the lab’s illicit experiments.
It’s hard to tell precisely how the coronavirus started, propagated, and eventually arrived in different parts of the world due to the lack of important scientific data, the scientists note.
Based on the information available, it appears that preserved viral material and related information have been destroyed.
The journal article, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com and slated for publication in the coming days, is likely to create a buzz in the scientific community, as the majority of experts have maintained for quite some time that the origin of COVID-19 was nothing other than a natural infection jumping from animals to humans.
While studying COVID-19 samples to build a vaccine, Dalgleish and Sørensen identified ‘unique fingerprints’ in the virus, they believe, which could only have occurred if the virus had been tampered with in a laboratory.
Several scientists reportedly sought to publish their conclusions on the origins of the virus. Still, their papers were rejected by scientific journals at the time, which stood firm in their belief that the virus emerged through spontaneous animal-to-human transfer.
Even when former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove came forth suggesting that the scientists’ findings should be probed, people ignored him, believing his claims to be “fake news.”
After nearly a year, various highly respected academics, politicians, and the media finally started to speculate on the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, a facility where some of the virus experiments that the institute conducted included experimenting with viruses to see if it was possible to make them more infectious to investigate their potential effects on humans.
This week, in response to news that the Ebola virus may have originated in a lab accident, President Biden asked the intelligence community to review its conclusions, including the possibility of a lab accident.
Following the admission that an undisclosed intelligence report had been made to the White House alleging that several researchers at the Wuhan institute had been hospitalized with illness in November 2019, the White House announced the report’s existence and that other related developments would follow.
This week, the Wall Street Journal found a copy of the document lost for over 40 years.
Other criticisms have been levied at the U.S. health department for financing experiments accused of being contentious and dangerous at the Wuhan laboratory.
According to research just published in the journal PLoS ONE, Dalgleish and Sørensen have shown that “SARS-Coronavirus-2” has no believable, natural predecessor and have concluded that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that the virus was generated by “laboratory manipulation.”
The research, which is slated to be published in the scholarly journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, will have a scientific “forensic analysis,” and this study will include a detailed look back at tests done at the Wuhan facility between 2002 and 2019.
While digging through archives of publications and databases, Dalgleish and Sørensen were able to reconstruct how Chinese scientists, some of whom were working in cooperation with American universities, constructed the tools that allowed for the coronavirus to be produced.
Gain of function study was most of the research that was done in this project. This study was briefly forbidden in the United States during the Obama administration.
An additional crucial part of gain of function is identifying and altering naturally occurring viruses so that they become more infectious, which may be done in a laboratory so that the virus’s effect on people can be researched and understood.
Dalgleish and Sørensen assert that scientists working on Gain of Function studies were inspired by natural coronaviruses found in Chinese cave bats and took these natural coronaviruses and spliced them with a new “spike,” thereby creating the transmissible and fatal SARS-Cov-2.
The two scientists discovered a row of four amino acids on the SARS-Cov-2 spike. They pointed out that this might indicate SARS’ suspected use of macrophotography to manipulate the spike’s appearance.
In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Sørensen said that all amino acids have a positive charge, which increases the virulence of the virus, enabling it to stick to human cells like a magnet. This causes the virus to become more contagious.
When paired, positively charged amino acids resist each other, resulting in very little evenness in naturally existing creatures. According to the scientist, four peptide strings in a row are ‘very uncommon,’ meaning that, in general, you would only find three in a row.
As a fundamental principle of physics, the law of charge prohibits having four positively charged amino acids in succession.
You’ll only be able to acquire this if you make it yourself by manufacturing it artificially, Dalgleish told DailyMail.com.
SARS-Cov-2 includes distinct fingerprints and provides conclusive evidence of conscious effort; in short, they believe these distinct fingerprints’ indicate deliberate manipulation’. The possibility of it being the consequence of natural processes is very limited.
We now believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the purposefully manipulated chimeric virus, known as SARS-CoV-2, had a clear ulterior motive. As a result, we must revisit the topic of Gain of Function experiments, as the societal impact of this study’s findings cannot be left solely to the researchers.
During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci openly confessed that U.S. funds earmarked for Wuhan laboratory researchers might have been used to make Gain of Function tests controversial and carry significant risk.
Fauci confirms that $600,000 in grant funding available over five years was put toward studying whether bat coronaviruses could be transmitted to humans. He believes the funding was well spent, but he cannot conclude whether or not it was actually used for its intended purpose.
When asked to account for the money by Congress, the head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated that he could not locate or quantify where or how the money was spent.
There’s no way of ensuring it,” Dr. Fauci said to Republican Senator John Kennedy at a subcommittee hearing on Wednesday.
In addition, the GOP was also very critical of Fauci following his recent statements that it is probable COVID-19 may have originated in a lab, following the members of Congress. They were harshly criticized last year for frequently expressing this theory.
Some say a search for an intermediate host has not begun since finding that stage of the infection is a higher priority. They are saying who should lead the inquiry into where the virus originated from because it may be a lab or another location.
Dr. Fauci believes it will be challenging to provide a timeline due to the absence of the intermediate host for Ebola. They are confident did not originate from a laboratory. He would like the WHO to keep investigating.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) pointed out that “China’s history of lab accidents” had caused him to raise concerns about the current outbreak in Zhejiang, saying the disease broke out in a city that happens to be the home, by coincidence, of a lab that we know is heavily involved in intensive research and what they do is they use this naturally occurring virus. They manipulate it, and they change it to make it infectious to humans.
The Florida Republican wondered why Fauci had previously played down the idea that the virus may have been created in a lab.
Concerning this possible discovery, Sen. Lindsey Graham stated that if it is determined that the deadly virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes there must be major repercussions.
I believe we should send a signal to China that if this had occurred in the lab, something catastrophic should happen, as we have done before since this only sends the message that something bad will occur in the future. If we don’t, we’re sending the message that this will happen again.
I am open-minded to the thought of working on a project, but I am closed-minded to the thought of doing nothing.
My comment in the past has always been that the probability of this is that it is a natural occurrence.
To be clear, I am not saying anything is absurd. This may be simply a naturally occurring phenomenon that has not yet been discovered from the source of an animal reservoir we do not yet know about.