Prominent Research Scientists Suggest Plausibility of Lab-Created SARS-CoV-2
A well-known group of research scientists from France, Austria, and Australia strongly suggest the time is now to launch an objective, unbiased and apolitical probe into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. While other scientists send research letters to prominent medical journals strongly arguing for a natural origin, the strongest evidence now suggests no clear argument for a nature-based origin while a research-based human-engineered hypothesis becomes ever more plausible. The importance of getting to the truth cannot be underestimated. Given the magnitude, scope, and severity of COVID-19, the scientific and research community have a moral, ethical, and professional responsibility to investigate SARS-CoV-2 origins, unencumbered by political meddling. Too much is at stake, at least for those of us fortunate enough to live in democratic market-based societies.
While much of the scientific world conveniently agreed with a push early on, supported by Dr. Anthony Fauci and certain colleagues at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and academia—that the pathogen originated directly from a bat while making its’ way to humans via some other animal at the Wuhan wet market, the authors herein ask frankly, where is the evidence?
With the case for a human-engineered version recently published in prestigious The Lancet, corresponding author Jacques van Helden and team are no lightweights nor loony conspiracy theorists. van Helden, a Professor of bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille Université (AMU) in Marseille, and team possess the credentials for immediate attention. They put forth the argument that “so far no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports a natural origin” and that of all the references by proponents of the natural origin hypothesis, “all but one simply show that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to other beta coronaviruses.”
The authors point out that while previous coronavirus outbreaks were associated with evidence for natural origin, that simply isn’t the case with SARS-CoV-2. For example, “Neither the host pathway from bats to humans nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SRS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) has been identified.” They emphasize that even after the review of 80,000 samples collected in China, no evidence exists for a natural cause.
A Plausible Explanation: Research Origin
The authors first suggest that two questions become relevant in association with the research origin argument—which they declare is “plausible” or likely. They note that 1) “several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of research-related origin…” while the authors get closer to the heart of the matter, pointing out that “Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering” an approach “widely used in some virology labs.”
Or conversely, the authors posit 2) the origin of SARS-CoV-2 may have resulted from “undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals including humanized mice.” For this latter scenario, ample examples exist as researchers such as those at University of North Carolina were involved with the modification of mice to “display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2)…to test the infectivity of different virus strains.”
But a research-based origin points to other possible scenarios such as gain-of-function experiments testing the possibility of chimeric viruses’ crossing species barriers.
Arguments for the Lab
In Segreto et al. titled “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin, “ An Austrian and a Canadian argues that the “furin cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 confers to the virus the ability to cross species and tissue barriers, but was previously unseen in other SARS-CoV-2 like COVs.” Segreto et al. ask the uncomfortable question if “genetic manipulations” were performed as part of an effort to determine if specific animals, such as pangolins, could serve as potential “intermediate hosts for bat derived CoVs that were originally unable to bind to human receptors.”
The authors educate the reader that laboratory personnel may have employed site-directed mutagenesis leading to both cleavage site and specific RBD in a way that doesn’t leave any trace.
Enough of the Bias
While for many months anyone that wrote about a research-based hypothesis was automatically categorized as a conspiracy theorist, often censored along the way, many research scientists suggest that such purges, for example, were more political than scientific-based. During the COVID-19 pandemic, often those in power censoring the “misinformation” were actually guilty of perpetuating misinformation themselves. That is, whoever has the money, power and influence gets to write the history.
A Pathway Forward
There just isn’t enough compelling evidence pointing one way or the other—that is a natural or research-based origin.
So you want to get to the truth? The authors suggest “An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation”…necessitating “an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest.” Multi-disciplined and multi-national, the team would establish the various rational scenarios and associated hypotheses, followed by protocols and methods to ultimately capture the true origin. Not undertaking this important research opens us all up another dangerous worldwide crisis.