May 19, 2020
The National Institutes of Health have in recent years funded
dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the
biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China
Gain of function research refers to research in which pathogenicity
or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced to make a pathogen more
dangerous to humans
To gain entry into a cell, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or
CD147 receptor. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be
proteolytically cleaved. Without this protein cleavage, the virus
would be unable to enter
There are several enzymes that cleave spike proteins, including
plasmin, which also degrades fibrin. When a blood clot is dissolved,
a byproduct called D-dimer is created, and many patients with
serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is
indicative of blood clots
Another protein cleaver is furin, and the presence of a furin
cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 is "the smoking gun" that proves
SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created
Since the breakout of
COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken
out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and
those suspicions are only getting stronger.
As reported 1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function
research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4)
laboratory in Wuhan, China.
This research was
backed by the
National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led
by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House
pandemic response team.
According to Newsweek:
with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health
committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included
some gain-of-function work.
The program followed another $3.7
million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4
have criticized gain of function research, which involves
manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for
infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a
pandemic from accidental release."
As noted by GM
"Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is
the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated
its assessment of the
origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may
have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to 'unsafe
mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long
history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and
Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a
May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.
journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the
right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
In his May 4,
2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,
who has a PhD in pathology, carefully details the science behind
his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory
The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and
really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still
What Is Gain of
As explained by
Martenson, gain of function research refers to,
research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced.
words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them
deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease.
also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct
experiments to make them transmissible to humans.
As noted by
Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we
need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily
figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions
naturally, there's not a shred of evidence suggesting we've learned
anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2.
If we're not actually
learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research,
then why are we doing it?
How Viruses Enter
Martenson goes on
to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your
This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering
into and infecting a cell.
To gain entry,
virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell.
Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved
Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach
to the receptor and not get any further.
There are several
enzymes that can do this job, including
which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin - plasma
protein that can cause blood clots.
When a blood clot is dissolved,
a byproduct called D-dimer is created.
As explained in "Might
Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?" many
patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated
which is indicative of blood clots.
cites the review paper
"Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19
Susceptibility," which found that COVID-19 patients who have
comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness
(i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart
disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of
In other words,
it's this elevated plasmin that - at least in part - puts these
people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection.
In his May
6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem
encountered in many COVID-19 patients.
As he points out, COVID-19 is,
"really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder," than a
normal lung infection.
Furin Cleavage Site
Is the 'Smoking Gun'
As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein
subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain
proteins by snipping off specific sections.
As explained by Martenson,
contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific
about the locations it cuts. What's more, when arginine is present
in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the
efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.
This, he says, is "the smoking gun" that proves SARS-CoV-2 was
created in a lab.
well-written article 7 in Medium also addresses this finding and
explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining
whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.
In "Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19," 8,9
Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a
furin cleavage site.
Not even distant
relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it
share only 40% of CoV-2's genome.
As reported in this
"It was found that
all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than
40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13
and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%,
The furin cleavage site 'RRAR' in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its
family, rendering by its unique insert of 'PRRA.' The furin
cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from
MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.
From the currently available sequences in databases, it is
difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still
many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be
Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2
According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in
SARS-CoV-2 "is unique in its family" and "is unlikely to have
In other words, the virus
must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a
furin cleavage site, as there's no apparent source for this
Put another way, there's no coronavirus out there that is similar
enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.
Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so
I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this
in his Medium article, 11 so if you prefer reading, you
can review much of the same data there.
Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a
natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to
humans, are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it.
furin cleavage site PRRA found
in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or
pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.
The fact that this
furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has
been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy
to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and
an insert in his video.
It is extremely unlikely that 12 new
nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there
was nothing before.
What About the
Studies Saying It's Natural?
Two studies heavily
cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a 'natural'
mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3,
2020, Nature paper,
which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then
However, one of the authors of this paper,
Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the
SARS virus, and
therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.
A second paper,
published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers,
on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome," and discusses "scenarios by which they could have arisen."
According to this
clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a
purposefully manipulated virus."
though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site
(PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these
12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally.
are not part of the mutation pathway."
Community Has Reason to Hide Origin
He goes on to cite
several studies showing how scientists around the world have been
working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more
Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and
scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many
Martenson calls out
leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020,
interview with Joe Rogan, stated that,
"we could not
have crafted a virus like this to do what it's doing; I mean we
don't have the creative imagination or the skill set."
research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and "creative imagination" to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply
cannot be ignorant of that fact.
Another source you
may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,
which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created
SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here.
A summary of the
evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under
must be people in the scientific community who would now want to
cover-up any link to such research.
Would you want to be responsible
for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a
virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed
the world economy and put people out of work around the globe...?
Would you want to
be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism
Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life
The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:
knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires,
retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery
system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state
or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this
section committed by or against a national of the United
Challenge Natural Evolution Claims
Martenson is far
from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically
An April 27, 2020,
GM Watch article16
Stuart Newman, who also believes,
engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus'
Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical
College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the
argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in
the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which
stated "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a
laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus") actually
points to the exact opposite...
GM Watch writes:
"As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and
infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical
School, has noted,
Andersen's paper argues that,
'the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key
differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses
- the ones a laboratory would be working with.
This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the
result of a laboratory 'escape'.'
Professor Newman says
that this is totally unconvincing because,
'The 'key differences'
were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the
subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the
world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades...'
In an email
interview with GM Watch, Newman... amplified this speculation by
'The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two
sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the
authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.
genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor
binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to
help generate vaccines
against these viruses
of SARS Coronavirus Spike Receptor').
It is puzzling that the authors of the
commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the
prominent journal Science...
site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a
target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of
viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a
similar coronavirus in a paper
they do cite.
This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.'
that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately
introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain,
but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered
components in its history before being inadvertently introduced
into the human population."
There Are Many Ways
to Manipulate Pathogens
Those who claim the
lack of "fingerprints" in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence
of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do
not leave clearly identifiable traces.
As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass
(my interview with her will be posted May 24):
"Prior to genetic engineering
techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late
1970s), more 'primitive' means of causing mutations, with the
intention of developing
biological weapons, were employed...
These methods can result in
the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a
lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.
They resulted in biological
weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases,
In fact, it would be desirable to
produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they
were deliberately constructed in a lab.
Here are just a few
possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:
microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause
high mutation rates and selecting for desired
virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of
In my opinion, the
strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2
being a laboratory creation.
As Martenson asserts, the presence of
furin cleavage sites
makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code
wouldn't just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation.
got released, however, is anyone's guess.
Sources and References
April 28, 2020
April 28, 2020
Watch May 4, 2020
Science News May 5, 2020
Chris Martenson bio
6 - Physiol
Rev July 1, 2020; 100(3):1065-1075
April 22, 2020
8 - Fairdomhub.org,
10 - ChinaXiv,
DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062, Page 6 of the downloaded PDF
April 22, 2020
12 - Nature
February 3, 2020; 579: 270-273
13 - Nature
Medicine March 17, 2020; 26: 450-452
14 - Project
Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in
15 - S.993
Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
16 - GM
Watch April 27, 2020
Watch April 27, 2020
18 - Live
Science, Wuhan lab says there's no way coronavirus
19 - Twitter
response from Stuart Newman April 18, 2020
20 - Science
September 16, 2005; 309(5742): 1864-1868
21 - Virology
July 5, 2006; 350(2):358-369
22 - Anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com
April 2, 2020