Missing from this plausible scenario, of course, is any mention of Dr. Fauci's $3.7 million grant to that very lab, after funding of such "gain-of-function" research had been banned:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211257/Wuhan-lab-performing-experiments-bats-coronavirus-caves.html MCM > Blocked on facebook. > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/rogue-chinese-virologist-joins-twitter-publishes-evidence-covid-19-created-lab > 'Rogue' Chinese Virologist Joins Twitter, Publishes "Smoking Gun" Evidence > COVID-19 Created In Lab > [image: Profile picture for user Tyler Durden] > <https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden> > *by * *Tyler Durden <https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden>* > Mon, 09/14/2020 - 11:35 > > On Saturday we reported that Dr. Li-Meng Yan > <https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/chinese-doctor-claims-she-has-evidence-coronavirus-was-created-lab?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29> > - a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who fled the country, leaving her job at a > prestigious Hong Kong university - appeared last week on British television > where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, *was > created by Chinese scientists in a lab*. > > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/yan%201a.PNG?itok=NGmp6oYA> > > On Sunday, *Li-Meng joined Twitter > <https://twitter.com/LiMengYAN119?s=21> - *and on Monday, just hours ago, *she > tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese > scientists* titled: > > Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome *Suggesting Sophisticated > Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution* and Delineation of > Its Probable Synthetic Route > > She also posted a link to her credentials on ResearchGate, revealing her > (prior?) affiliation with The University of Hong Kong and 13 publications > which have been cited 557 times. > > Cutting to the chase: > > *"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.* > > Here is the extended punchline: > > *The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature > and should have been created through genetic engineering.* > > The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. > They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction > with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and > tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves > (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully > responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 > infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around > 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly > named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and > SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The > C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 > includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease > cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating > membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus. > > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/yan%201.jpg?itok=vqc5uevP> > > Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 > shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark > contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates > which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with > the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%. > > Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β > coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic > (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses > (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, > SARS). The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite > the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 > differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21. *Intriguingly, the > RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. > Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the > Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either > hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is > highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”. * > > Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those > involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic > interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural > integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4). The few changes within the group of > essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” > (I428àL, L443àF, F460àY, L472àF, Y484àQ), which should not affect either > protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the > amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM > residues not labeled with short red lines). *Judging from this sequence > analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the > SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, > precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent > structural work has confirmed our prediction.* > > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/yan%20fig%202.jpg?itok=riAtYLYh> > > As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM > and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and > ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. *Collectively, this suggests that portions > of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species > viral particle evolution.* > > The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that > SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin: its RBM could have only been acquired in > one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed > by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred > fairly recently. > > She first dismisses option 1: > > "this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation > of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the > overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity > between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do > not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- > 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus > through this convergent evolutionary route." > > She then dismisses option 2: > > In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have > recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had > successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The > likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements > of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share > significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present > in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would > not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the > recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible > within the host species. > > In regard to this recent recombination scenario, *the animal reservoir > could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous > enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an > RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. *This animal reservoir also could not > be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect > humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or > SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late > 2019. *Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, > SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.* > > Which leaves just one option: > > *Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that > the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM > could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is > homologous to hACE2. *Several laboratories have reported that some of the > Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, > the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of > SARS-CoV-227-29,31. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the > likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31. However, recent > independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. > Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been > detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia > and Sabah between 2009 and 201943. A recent study also showed that the RBD, > which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, > binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further > dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in > silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an > intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins > examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the > SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did. This last study virtually exempted > all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is > consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans > from the start of the outbreak. This is significant because these findings > collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for > SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a > recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host. > > Fast-forwarding to the smoking gun: > > Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 > binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure > 3)37,38, this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike > swap. In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. > In 2008, *Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike > proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a > restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene (Figure 5C)*. They > then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with > hACE2. Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was > swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a > chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 (Figure 5C)39. Strikingly, *in > both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM > defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites *(Figure 5C). > Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47, it is > conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the > spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in > introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest. *It is > noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. > Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since > 201049-53. *Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally > elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the > leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions. > *The > striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of > the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has > been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, > respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a > coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of > SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation."* > > It gets better, because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to > cover their tracks: > > Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it > would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. *The > more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues, > while preserving the ones critical for binding. *This design could be > well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38. This way, > when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from > that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved. We > believe that *all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red > sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure > 3C) should have been “kept”. *As described earlier, while some should be > direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with > similar properties, *which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even > strengthen the association further [ZH: i.e., the virus was weaponized and > enchanced]. *Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at > non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM. > > Yan also discusses the infamous furin-cleavage site: > > ... a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage > site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues > within the inserted sequence (- PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG > (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7). > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/FAUL.jpg?itok=7gTS5l2n> > > In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the > SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. *This > observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a > result of genetic engineering*. Adding to the suspicion, a FauI > restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the > possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique > that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved. There, the > fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor > the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage > site is prone to deletions in vitro. Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene > of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be > carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion. > Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield > distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of > interest. > > And another critical allegation: once again, the Wuhan Researchers were > doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the "*enhancement > of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus":* > > The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the > SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the > result of genetic manipulation. The purpose of this manipulation could have > been to assess any potential *enhancement of the infectivity and > pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus*. > > Summarizing the above:Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain > aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to > being a result of natural evolution. The alternative theory we suggest is > that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat > coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template. *The Spike protein, > especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, > upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect > humans. *This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme > digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may > have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike > protein, *which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity > of the virus. * > > These transformations have then staged the SARS CoV-2 virus to eventually > become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and > massively disruptive pathogen. > > *Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created > through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV is significant and should > be investigated thoroughly and independently.* > > Finally, those curious how the virus could have been created synthetically > in Wuhan, here is a diagram proposed by Dr. Yan explaining all the required > steps: > > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/how%20virus%20was%20created.jpg?itok=05RS3USB> > > Her full paper is below: > > And for those who missed it, here's Li-Meng's interview on UK television: > > As a reminder, Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter on Jan 31 for making > just this allegation, following a hit-piece written by an alleged > pedophile > <https://www.zerohedge.com/political/buzzfeed-journo-reportedly-blogged-about-pedo-fantasies-rape-jokes-and-doxing> > (who was later fired for plagiarism > <https://www.zerohedge.com/political/buzzfeed-reporter-who-got-zerohedge-banned-twitter-fired-plagiarism>) > and countless so-called "scientists" screaming that our take was fake news > and nothing but propaganda. Five months later Twitter admitted it had > made a mistake > <https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/twitter-reinstates-zerohedge-after-admitting-it-made-error>, > stating "we made an error in our enforcement action in this case." > > > --- Support News from Underground: http://bit.ly/NFUSupport You received this email because you are subscribed to News from Underground. To unsubscribe from this email list, please go to: http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=pIdjNUgiG2h8yxbhC54SSy4SEskAoEMs For archives, please go to: http://archives.simplelists.com/nfu
