LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

March 19, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a question that has attracted attention from all over the world. It has been portrayed by some as a great mystery, although the laboratory nature of this virus is evident to people with trained eyes. The fundamental reason for this current situation is large-scale, multi-domain, deliberate scientific misinformation. In an effort to defeat this scientific misinformation and expose the true nature of SARS-CoV-2, we have published two scientific reports to date; the third report is below at bottom of this post.

Our first report showed, using substantial evidence and logical analyses, why SARS-CoV-2 must be a laboratory product and how it could be created conveniently by following well-known concepts and established techniques.

Our second report exposed a large-scale, organized scientific fraud, through which the nature of SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon was revealed. Our efforts were immediately met by great resistance.

Within ten days of the publication of our first report, two self-claimed “peer reviews” came out to specifically criticize our report. The first review was published by four scientists from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security led by Dr. Gigi Gronvall. The second review was published on the MIT Press and produced by a group of four scientists led by Dr. Robert Gallo. Although we welcome critical reviews of our reports, such reviews have to be honest, logical, evidence-based and produced by qualified scientists.

These two reviews, however, did not meet any of the criteria. Unfortunately, these poor reviews were nonetheless used by the media to defame our reports, label laboratory origin theories as “conspiracy theories”, and further suppress the truth of SARS-CoV-2 origin. Building on these media reports, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime then greatly amplified its own voice and promoted the falsified theory that SARS-CoV-2 must have come from nature.

In a continued effort to fight and defeat scientific misinformation, here we provide our point-to-point responses to these reviews. Part I of the document is our responses to the MIT Press review, and Part II is our responses to the review published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. We also included an opening statement at the beginning, where we summarized the main events of the Unrestricted Scientific Misinformation, including various cover-ups executed by individuals having close ties with the CCP regime, as well as Dr. Yan’s sustained efforts in exposing the truth of COVID-19.

We sincerely hope that this document may help the world recognize the ongoing misinformation campaign and come to the realization that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an Unrestricted Bioweapon developed by the CCP regime. We believe that this realization is crucial in defeating the COVID-19 pandemic and in protecting the global community from future bioweapon attacks.

To mislead the world, CCP manipulated scientific campaigns (including scientists, doctors, top medical journals like Lancet or Nature) to push propaganda. I defined it as unrestricted scientific misinformation in the 3rd report.

3a. To further explain the fundamental evidence of nature-origin, but actually fabricated “bat coronavirus RaTG13 found by Zheng-Li Shi in Yunnan Mojiang mine cave”, as well as other fabricated “zoonotic novel coronavirus in SARS2 family”, we wrote the 2nd report.

3b. This is a statistical analysis of virus genome comparison. The abnormal rate in S2 protein (SRAS2 Vs RaTG13) is a smoking gun, which means RaTG13 can’t be a natural existing virus.

3c. Even the so-called bat host does not “like” RaTG13 (cannot bind well with bat ACE2 receptors) indicated that RaTG13 is not a natural bat virus as WIV claimed.

3d. The whole 1.6 in the 3rd report I explained the fatal problems in the popular Yunnan mine cave theory. Therefore, RaTG13 is not the virus from Yunnan cave, and Yunnan cave is not the birthplace of the ancestor of SARS2. These fabricated viruses are made to drive people’s attention from the Chinese military and the real backbone virus.

Here, I recommend you to read this interview for further clarification:

The real virus came from Zhoushan and Chinese military found it: Dr. Li-Meng Yan

3e. I listed part of fabricated viruses which mislead the origin of SARS2 here. Behind these fake data, PLA scientists are very important.

Here is the 3rd Yan Report:


Yan, Li-Meng, Kang, Shu, & Hu, Shanchang. (2021). The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited “Peer Reviews.”

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
peter gutierrez
peter gutierrez
2 years ago

Dr. Yang uses the word ‘unrestricted’ in a rather loose sense. Does ‘unrestricted’ mean ‘no holds barred’, highly optimized for the kill? In this posting, I try to review Western scientists take on the optimalness of Covid-19 coronavirus.

In the article ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2’, the authors Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut and others state that Covid-19’s RBD (receptor binding domain) binds to human ACE2 in an “optimized manner (high affinity) “, but not an optimal manner. Therefore Covid-19 is “not the product of purposeful manipulation”.  
 
                                                                                                                                
“While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity (optimized), computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding….SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimized for binding to the human receptor ACE2;
“The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review”, by Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Kristian Anderson, Robert Garry and others, 

 
Rambaut, Holmes, and Anderson base their conclusion regarding optimalness of Covid-19’s RBD/RBM (receptor binding motif), on the January 2020 Ralph Baric and Fang Li article, “Receptor recognition by novel coronavirus from Wuhan”.   Rambaut, Holmes, and Anderson reference this latter article seven times in their own article.    

                                                                                                                             
In January 2020, Baric and Fang Li listed optimal RBD to bind to human ACE2 is F442 F472 N479 D480 T487 using in vitro design.  See figure 1B of the article, ‘Receptor Recognition…”. The January 2020 Baric and Fang Li research was actually based on 2011 Fang Li  research, where he ‘designed’ optimal human RBDs at the University of Minnesota,

                                                                                                                   
“To corroborate the above analysis, we designed and characterized two optimized RBDs. The human-optimized RBD contains all of the hACE2-adapted residues (Phe-442, Phe-472, Asn-479, Asp-480, and Thr-487) and possesses exceptionally high affinity for hACE2 but relative low affinity for cACE2. The civetoptimized RBD “                                         ‘Mechanisms of Host Receptor Adaptation by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus’, Fang Li and others, University of Minnesota, Department of Pharmacology,  JBC Papers in Press, January 30, 2012, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111.325803
 
 
So the optimization of human RBDs (and civets and possibly pangolin RBD), in the context of  optimal human ACE2 residues, is a Baric and Fang Li area of expertise.   Rambaut, Holmes and Anderson are just the public face, of Baric an Fang Li optimization research. 
                                                                                                                                                                    Covid-19 RBD/RBM not optimal, thus not created in a laboratory, according to these scientists.   

                                                                                               
In August 2021, Rambaut, Holmes, Anderson, an Garry built on this Covid-19 not optimal theme, when they applied the words suboptimal , and ‘only optimal’, to the Covid-19 furin cleavage site, amino acids RRAR.
                                                                                                                                                            
‘The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site (containing the amino acid motif RRAR) does not match its canonical form (R-X-R/K-R), is suboptimal compared to those of HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC43……There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a poor (non-optimal) furin cleavage site, which would entail such an unusual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering.’
“The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review”, by Edward Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Kristian Anderson, Robert Garry and others, 

 
The canonical/preferred  furin cleavage site is amino acid sequence RSRR,  according to the authors, and research done by Gary Whittaker at Cornell University in 2013.  But, in this ‘The Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Critical Review’ article above, it is the suboptimal  cleavage site, RRAR-Covid-19, that is the bad, non-laboratory made, and impliedly the optimal, RSRR, that would be signs of ‘engineered’ laboratory made bioweapon. 
                                                                                                                              
In 2014 Gary Whittaker at Cornell University stated that RSRR sites cleavages furin at a 100% rate per minute, according to Figure 4 of that article.    .

                                                                                                                   
‘We used fluorogenic peptides containing the canonical motif (RR-S-R-R-S) or with substitutions from positions P1′ through P7 (Figure 4, panel A). The canonical peptide was efficiently cleaved by furin (Figure 4), with average Vmax of 235 Relative Fluorescence Units (RFU) per minute…. Modifications of the P1 arginine in the canonical peptide, regardless of the residue tested, for example, glycine (G), methionine (M) or threonine (T), abrogate cleavage by furin.   When P2 arginine is changed to histidine (H), there is complete inhibition (0% of canonical cleavage).’,
‘Mutation in Spike Protein Cleavage Site and Pathogenesis of Feline Coronavirus’, Gary Whittaker and others, Cornell University, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1907.121094
 
                                                                                                                                                          
100% furin cleavage by the canonical RSRR site after a short period of time. Quick virus entry into human cells.  Whittaker showed himself to an expert in optimizing and minimizing furin cleavage sites in 2014.
                                                                                                                                                                   Whittaker also used the PiTou algorithm to predict cleavage of a viral protein by human furin in many of his articles.                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                        
“furin has the ability to cleave and activate viral proteins….PiTou utilizes a hidden Markov model, specifically targeting 20 amino acid residues surrounding furin cleavage sites and important for binding and solvent accessibility. The final score in PiTou is based on log-odds probability. ProP utilizes an artificial neural network to predict furin cleavage”,
 in the article ‘ Furin cleavage sites in the spike proteins of bat and rodent coronaviruses: Implications for virus evolution and zoonotic transfer from rodent species’, by Whittaker and others, June 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100282 

                                                                                                      
In 2021, Whittaker using the PiTou 2.0 furin prediction algorithm, stated that Covid-19 RRAR cleavage site had a PiTou score of 9.19. See  Figure 1 in the article,   “Functional evaluation of proteolytic activation for the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: role of  the P681H mutation”, by Gary Whittaker and others, April 2021.     
 
                                                                                                                        
See also Figure 5  in the article ‘Proteolytic Activation of SARS-CoV‑2 Spike at the  S1/S2 Boundary Potential Role of Proteases beyond Furin’, by Gary Whittaker and others, https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00701ACS Infect. Dis. 2021, 7, 264−272, where Covid-19 RRAR cleavage site shows a PiTou score of 9.19, about 66% on the canonical RSRR cleavage site.

 
‘We consider that SARS-CoV-2 could have originated via recombination with a currently unknown ancestor bat virus with a robust furin cleavage site (i.e., PiTou score: approximately 13−15), but one which cannot bind to a human receptor, and that in order to gain the ability to infect human cells, the furin cleavage site may have been downregulated.’
 

And so we look for a bat with a robust furin cleavage site score, as the progenitor of Covid-19.

                                                               
In the 2014, Whittaker article, ‘Host cell proteases: Critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis’, FCov-RM(I) with its  canonical RSRR  cleavage site showed a PiTou score of 14.4.   BCov-Quebec  with its RSRR a PiTou score of 14.1   See Table 1.  Both considerably higher than Covid-19’s RRAR PiTou score of 9.19.

                                                                              
So Covid-19 RRAR cleavage site doesn’t reflect optimization for being engineered, unless scientists wanted to create a ‘non-orthodox’ coronavirus, a ‘hobo’ coronavirus whose backbone couldn’t be traced, continually adding more African bats to its evolutionary history, two different types of Malaysian pangolans (from Guangxi-2017 and Guangdong-2019) to its evolutionary history, possibly mouse hepatitis genomic aspects in some of its features, a non-optimized S gene, a Mulligan’s stew type of coronavirus, to test the world’s preparedness, for a real zoological outbreak, or bioweapon attack, a Peachtree CDC, to Rising Sun CDC preparedness exercise, gone wrong.   
 
 
Another Gary Whittaker must read  article, ‘ Furin cleavage sites in the spike proteins of bat and rodent coronaviruses: Implications for virus evolution and zoonotic transfer from rodent species’, June 2021, where presents the PiTou cleavage scores for  bats and rodents. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100282 in his Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

                                                                                                                  
Rodent AcCov-JC34 (Shi Zhengli’s 2017 rodent from Yunnan province) has RRAR cleavage site, but a a PiTou score .15 One version of mouse hepatitus JVM has an RRAR cleavage site, but a PiTou of only 4.8. 
 
                                                                                                         
Another Whittaker 2021 article, “ SARS-CoV-2 spike and its adaptable furin cleavage site” is worth reading. 
 

‘Coronavirus entry: how we arrived at SARS-CoV-2’, by Gary Whittaker, Susan Daniel, and Jean Millet, April 2021 

As a side note, in 2009, Whittaker ‘introduced’ RSRR cleavage site into the original SARS virus.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
“To examine the potential use of the SARS-CoV S1–S2 and S2_ positions as sites for proteolytic cleavage, we first introduced furin cleavage recognition sites at these locations by making the following mutations 664SLLRSTSQSI-SLLRRSRRSI671 (S1–S2) “  
“Activation of the SARS coronavirus spike protein via sequential proteolytic cleavage at two distinct sites”, Sandrine Belouzard, Victor Chu, and Gary Whittaker, 2009, Cornell University   

 
Inserting cleavage sites into coronaviruses is old hat for Whittaker, and Baric with his patent US7223390, ‘Insertion of Furin Protease Cleavage Sites in Membrane Proteins and Uses Thereof’, since 2005.
 
                                                                                                
Gary should reexamine his cat coronavirus,

 
FCoV-Sample 08 153990-1     TDLFEFVNHTQPRRAR
 
                                                                                                
Which he mentions in many of his articles,  which is pretty close to Covid-19 PRRA   S gene insert,   and RRAR cleavage site.  That P (proline) before the cleavage site, in conjunction with the cleavage site itself, is killing a lot of people.

peter gutierrez
peter gutierrez
2 years ago

That patent mentioned in my article above belongs to Dennis Brown at NC State. My bad.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link