by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 03, 2022
According to new research, the chance of SARS-CoV-2 having a natural
origin is less than 1 in 100 million. SARS-CoV-2 has a telltale
signature of genetic engineering, not previously identified
That genetic fingerprint suggests the work of Ralph Baric, Ph.D.,
was used in the creation of the virus. There's a direct match
between Baric's published research - which describes how to hide
telltale signs of genetic engineering - and the genetics found in
In 2002, Baric invented a technique called
'seamless ligation', which
conceals all evidence of genetic engineering in lab-created
pathogens. Baric's nickname for this technique is the "no-see'm
method." Baric taught the method to Shi Zhengli in 2016, and Shi and
her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) demonstrated
mastery of Baric's technique in a series of gain-of-function
However, while 'seamless ligation' conceals human tampering in
lab-created pathogens, the method leaves a signature of its own, and
that's the signature discovered in SARS-CoV-2
The findings raise the possibility of liability for the University
of North Carolina where Baric works, the National Institutes of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which funded Baric, the WIV and
According to new research, the chance of SARS-CoV-2 having a natural
origin is less than 1 in 100 million. 1,2
The paper (Endonuclease
Fingerprint indicates a Synthetic Origin of SARS-CoV-2) 3 was posted on
the preprint server BioRxiv October 20, 2022.
One of its authors, mathematical biologist
Alex Washburne, also
summarizes the work in a Substack article, 4 posted that same day.
The other two authors are
Valentin Bruttel, a molecular
immunologist, and Antonius VanDongen, a pharmacologist.
two key take-homes from this paper:
SARS-CoV-2 has a
telltale signature of genetic engineering, not
That genetic fingerprint also suggests the work of
Ph.D., was used in the creation of the virus. There's a direct match
between Baric's published research - in which he describes how to
hide telltale signs of genetic engineering - and the genetics found
Seamless Ligation Conceals Genetic Tampering
In 2002, Baric and three other researchers published a paper 5 in the
Journal of Virology titled "Systematic Assembly of a Full-Length
Infectious cDNA of Mouse Hepatitis Virus Strain A59."
In it, they
describe a technique called "seamless ligation," which conceals all
evidence of genetic engineering in lab-created pathogens. Baric's
nickname for this technique is the "no-see'm method."
The research was funded by two National Institutes of Health grants,
AI 23946, for studies into the mechanism of MHV (mouse hepatitis
virus) replication and SARS reverse genetics 7
GM 63228, for
reverse genetics with a coronavirus infectious cDNA construct 8
Seamless Ligation Leaves Signature of Its Own
However, while 'seamless ligation' conceals human tampering in
lab-created pathogens, it turns out the method leaves a signature of
its own in the amino acid code, and that's the signature Washburne
and his coauthors discovered in
In summary, the telltale signature left behind by the no-see'm
method are unique and odd "spellings" in the "genetic vocabulary"
that you normally do not find in the genome of a natural virus.
lay summary in the paper describes it like this: 9
"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.
researchers modify these sites can serve as fingerprints of in
vitro genome assembly."
In an October 21, 2022,
Defender article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jay Couey, Ph.D., and
Charles Rixey clarified the findings as follows:
"The magic of Baric's
'no-see'm' technique is to invisibly weave
these telltale 'spelling' changes into the viral sequence between
relevant genes without altering the viral protein.
This is like
changing the 'spelling' of the word without changing its meaning;
the casual listener will never notice the difference.
The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute
'spelling differences' in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray
laboratory tampering using the 'no-see'm' technique.
how a Brit would spell 'color,' 'maneuver' or 'pediatric.'
The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your
nation of origin.
nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the
laboratory origins of this virus."
Regularly Spaced Cutting Sites Reveal Manipulation
They were able to identify the signature left behind by seamless
plotting the distribution of cutting sites on the
SARS-CoV-2 virus and then comparing it to the distribution of
cutting sites on wild-type SARS viruses and other lab-created SARS
SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint
that is typical for
The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2
anomalous in wild coronaviruses,
and common in
Washburne, Bruttel and VanDongen
Wild-type SARS viruses had cutting sites that were randomly
Lab-created SARS viruses, on the other hand - and
SARS-CoV-2 - had regularly spaced cutting sites.
According to the
authors, that's a clear indication that SARS-CoV-2 was manipulated
in the lab using Baric's no-see'm technique.
Another telltale sign of human manipulation is the length between
the cutting sites.
The longest segments found in wild-type viruses
were found to be far longer than those found in lab-made viruses,
The reason for this is because lab-made viruses are stitched
together from smaller pieces, so the genetic segments tend to be
In nature, however, the lengths of the segments are
completely random and include both very short, medium and very long
The types of mutations in SARS-CoV-2 also didn't conform to what you
see in wild-type, naturally evolved viruses.
So, SARS-CoV-2 looks
like a lab creation in more ways than one.
As noted in their lay
"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
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
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-CoV-2."
Genetic Fingerprints Point Directly at Baric, Fauci and the WIV
According to Washburne and his coauthors,
this artifact in the amino
acid code of SARS-CoV-2 could only have emerged through the use of Baric's 'seamless ligation' (no see'm) method.
That's bad news for
Ralph Baric, who created the method, and Dr.
Anthony Fauci, who funded the development of the technique through the
National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Shi Zhengli, aka "the Bat Lady" at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology.
As reported by Kennedy:
"Baric taught his 'no-see'm' method to... Shi Zhengli in 2016.
return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from
bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19
genome's pedigree to closely related bats.)
Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently
demonstrated their mastery of Baric's high-risk technique in a
series of published - and highly controversial - gain-of-function
experiments 13,14 at the Wuhan lab ...
Experts say that the implications of this new study could be
By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the
possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and
the University of North Carolina and other parties ...
The closest known coronavirus relative
- a coronavirus from the
Wuhan lab - is 96.2% identical 15 to SARS-CoV-2.
The peculiar spike
accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly,
there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in
the rest of the genome.
Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed
evenly across the genome.
The fact that virtually all the mutations
occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that,
particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the
direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted
However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were
absent - leaving many experts wondering whether Baric's technique
was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike
while removing the evidence of lab generation.
This new study
16 connects the biological breadcrumbs that link
federally funded research to a global 'pandemic'.
That trail leads
directly to UNC and NIAID...
In an interview last spring, Baric
himself confessed, that at the time the 'pandemic' began, only two or
three labs in the world were using his protocol - including his UNC
lab and the WIV."
A Big, Risky Research Agenda
Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, whose
taskforce tried, unsuccessfully, to investigate the origins of
COVID-19, commented on these latest findings: 17
"Baric's technique has long been controversial.
'It's the artist
that doesn't sign his name to the painting; the virologist that
doesn't put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or
not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a
All of it says... there was really a big, very risky
research agenda underway'."
Incidentally, Baric's research was also the basis for
shot for COVID, 18 and he's been involved in the development of COVID
drugs as well.
As reported by The News & Observer
19 in December
2021, Baric's team,
"conducted the preclinical development for the
only approved direct-acting antiviral drug, Remdesivir," and "studied
which is the first antiviral pill shown to treat COVID-19 ..."
Other Incriminating Evidence Involving Seamless Ligation
Incidentally, Baric's 'seamless ligation' method was also detailed in
the now-infamous DEFUSE proposal 20 submitted by the EcoHealth
Alliance to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in
DARPA rejected the
proposal, reportedly because it had "several weaknesses." 21
The research EcoHealth Alliance proposed involved inserting
human-specific cleavage sites into SARS-related bat coronaviruses - the same puzzling cleavage sites found in SARS-CoV-2 that make it so
well-adapted to human lung cells.
As the Daily Mail put it:
"The $14.2 million
(£10.5 million) grant bid was rejected. But did another funder
pick up the proposal?
At the very least,
this proves the researchers were toying with precisely the sort
of risky science that could have cooked up a virus eerily
similar to the one behind the 'pandemic'."
Was There Nefarious Intent Behind Creation of SARS-CoV-2...?
While Washburne, Bruttel and VanDongen are clear about SARS-CoV-2
being a lab creation, they don't want people to assume there's
anything nefarious about the virus.
In his Substack article,
Washburne writes: 23
"...our use of the word
'synthetic' derives from 'synthesis.'
are methods to synthesize viruses in the lab, and we study those
methods. In talking with friends & family, I learned that
'synthetic' can have a more nefarious connotation, so I want to
clarify that we find no evidence of anything nefarious.
We find no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being a bioweapon (on the
contrary, this looks like an accident) or any gain of function work.
We find evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 may have been synthesized in
the lab with known methods, probably for normal pre-COVID research
While I can certainly understand
their 'desire' to avoid the
conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 is a
bioweapon, I disagree with their
assumption that it wasn't intended as such.
Too many geopolitical
agendas point toward COVID being intentionally used for global
wealth transfer and the
implementation of The Great Reset.
But even if there was no nefarious intent behind its creation, the
end results remain the same.
The global economy is crashing, wealth
has been stolen from the lower and middle classes, fear of the virus
has been used to force us to not only surrender our rights and
freedoms but also to submit to medical experimentation under duress,
and much more.
If there was no nefarious intent, governments'
reaction to the virus would likely have been saner.
The Smoking Gun
What's more, even if the virus was intended as a bioweapon or not,
and whether it got out by accident or intentional release, we need
to hold people accountable for its creation in the first place.
Unless we ban the creation of Frankenstein viruses, we'll never be
safe. Another lab creation could slip through the doors of a lab on
any given day.
As noted by Kennedy:
"The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered
laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph
Baric with U.S. government funding.
Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by
the COVID-19 'pandemic' now have a smoking gun...
have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the
lethal pistol's grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina ...
UNC's role in enabling [Baric's] questionable conduct may have
precipitated a global 'pandemic' that could easily give rise to
liability for negligence.
UNC and NIAID's liability is now clear. But do we have positive
proof that the Wuhan lab created the monstrosity that caused
The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that the Wuhan
lab used Baric's methodologies to cobble together the chimeric virus
that caused the COVID-19 'pandemic'.
But a few missing puzzle
pieces still prevent us from definitively proving that this
dangerous construction project occurred at the Wuhan lab.
Lastly, Twitter user Justin B. Kinney makes a very good point:
"Bioweapons are more likely to be used post-COVID-19, in part
because bad actors now know that virologists and biosecurity experts
will cover for them by reflexively insisting the attack was a
Times October 23, 2022, Updated October 24, 2022
2, 10, 12, 17, 24 The
Defender October 21, 2022
3, 16 Endonuclease
Fingerprint indicates a Synthetic Origin of SARS-CoV-2
4, 23 Alex
Washburne Substack October 20, 2022
of Virology November 2002; 76(21): 11065-11078
of Virology November 2002; 76(21): 11065-11078,
Ralph Baric item 25 and 26
Ralph Baric item 22
9, 11 BioRxiv
October 20, 2022 DOI: 10.1101/2022.10.18.512756, Lay Summary
of Virology September 2015;89(17):9119-23
Medicine December 2015;21(12):1508-13
Microbes and Infections December 2021; 10(1): 1507-1514
18, 19 The
News & Observer December 26, 2021 (Archived)
Intercept September 23, 2021
September 22, 2021
Mail October 2, 2021
Justin Kinney October 25, 2022