By now, more and more people are, thankfully, starting to realize that nothing much adds up about our “Corona” experience, and in particular, that our interventions consistently made things worse. Don’t believe me? Africa, with 6% vaccination, was over Covid long ago,...
How was SARS-CoV-2 Created in the Labs and Why is it from China’s Military Network
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 4.5 million deaths worldwide and an unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. However, the alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this first Yan Report below, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.
Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic in preventing similar, future pandemics.
The key point is the real backbone of SARS-CoV-2 is coronavirus ZC45 and its twin-like virus ZXC21, which were found and isolated successfully by People’s Liberation Amry Chang-Jun Wang’s team in Zhoushan (East China, in Zhejiang province) from 2015-2017.
They published the virus sequence in 2018. ZC45/ZXC21 can potentially infect mammals’ brains, which is important for CCP’s non-traditional bioweapon (=unrestricted bioweapon) strategies.
After that, ZC45/ZXC21 went through a serial of gain-of-function modifications by many military-civilian teams, finally became SARS-CoV-2. Then it was released in WuHan (not lab accident).
Based on the scientific evidence left in the SARS2 genome, my scientists and I analyzed and listed over 100 references in the first report to explain what they have done, how to make it, why they are the people who have done it.
Including smoking gun evidence, I have reconstructed the protocol and schedule to demonstrate the possible progress of lab-making SARS2 using ZC45/ZXC21.
In this topic, tracing the CCP/PLA scientists’ academic publications before and after the SARS2 outbreak, it’s clear that they are the ones focusing on related GOF studies, having enough experience, and leaving specific evidence in the genome.
Btw, I have an article on Nature journal as the co-first author. It’s the first and best animal model in COVID19 transmission, which gets high recommendations in the field.
I mentioned in the Yan Reports that the lack of proper animal models in COVID19 transmission is the main reason leading to outbreaks in Wuhan.
Topic 1a. In the 1st Yan Report. Envelope (E) protein 100% identical between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 cannot happen after cross-species (hosts) evolution in nature. I explained this in this segment.
1b. In the 2nd Rep, I showed a serial of novel zoonotic CoVs from labs in China, which are all fabricated and share the same E protein.
1c. In the 3rd Rep, I mentioned E protein of ZC45/ZXC21 is associated with brain damage. So it’s highly suspicious that Military scientists kept E protein in the bat virus to the SARS2, and the high frequency of neurological damage in COVID19 needs further study.
1d. Wuhan lab woman Zhengli Shi and her long-term partner Dr. Fang Li left remarkable evidence in the S protein of SARS2. They are used to changing the SARS-like virus genome to increase the capacity to “bind human ACE2 receptor”. It is a typical gain-of-function modification. This is one smoking gun.
1e. In the 1st Rep, It showed that the Furin cleavage site in non-lineage B beta coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is a smoking gun of gain-of-function.
1f. This is the reconstructed lab process of modifying ZC45/ZXC21 to SASR2 (the experiments before animal serial passages). The proximal timetable is listed in that section too.
1g. In this part, I discussed the necessity of animal serial passages in SARS2 production. According to my expertise and knowledge in this field, SARS2 is most probably pre-adapted via transgenetic mice with human-ACE2 receptors. And lack of proper transmission model golden hamster, it’s the reason for the outbreak in Wuhan during neighborhood trials.
1h. The first Yan Report mentioned the golden Syrian Hamster (the animal model in my Nature paper).
1k. This is to refute another reviewer about restricted enzyme sites left in S protein, which shows it is batwoman Zheng-Li Shi’s work
1i. Refute the reviewer about his questions about the furin-cleavage site.
Actually, furin cleavage site and pre-adaption of human ACE2 receptors are widely admitted by many scientists, even if they didn’t realize SARS2 is a military product using ZC45/ZXC21.
Here is the 1st Yan Report:
Yan, Li-Meng, Kang, Shu, & Hu, Shanchang. (2020). Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Zenodo.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.