Interesting repudiation. This is exactly what I was discussing in the first quarter of this year. The introduction is very intuitive and logically engaging. The policy makers across the world are turning a blind eye towards this synthetic source of the virus. However, it shows the power of how human can go wrong in trying to second guess the nature and remix and refactor its native form.
Again, it is not about China. It is about the human intrigue and opportunity to produce a new organism that unleashes vast implications for us as humanity. The day we start playing nature (God) that day, we should consider as doomsday, because we now know COVID very well and we are seeing how it erupted and further fractured our fault-lines and exposed us – logically, scientifically, politically, ideologically and just the very way we are organized and evolved as humanity.
- Has SARS-CoV-2 been subjected to in vitro manipulation?
1.1 Genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2
1.2 The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering
1.3 An unusual furin-cleavage site is present in the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and is associated with the augmented virulence of the virus
- Delineation of a synthetic route of SARS-CoV-2
2.1 Possible scheme in designing the laboratory-creation of the novel coronavirus
2.2 A postulated synthetic route for the creation of SARS-CoV-2
Step 1: Engineering the RBM of the Spike for hACE2-binding (1.5 months)
Step 2: Engineering a furin-cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction (0.5 month)
Step 3: Obtain an ORF1b gene that contains the sequence of the short RdRp segment from RaBtCoV/4991 (1 month, yet can be carried out concurrently with Steps 1 and 2)
Step 4: Produce the designed viral genome using reverse genetics and recover live viruses (0.5 month)
Step 5: Optimize the virus for fitness and improve its hACE2-binding affinity in vivo (2.5-3 months)
It is noteworthy that, based on the work done on SARS-CoV, the hACE2-mice, although suitable for SARS-CoV-2 adaptation, is not a good model to reflect the virus’ transmissibility and associated clinical symptoms in humans.
We also speculate that the extensive laboratory-adaptation, which is oriented toward enhanced transmissibility and lethality, may have driven the virus too far. As a result, SARS-CoV-2 might have lost the capacity to attenuate on both transmissibility and lethality during its current adaptation in the human population.
Serial passage is a quick and intensive process, where the adaptation of the virus is accelerated. Although intended to mimic natural evolution, serial passage is much more limited in both time and scale.
The following facts about SARS-CoV-2 are well-supported:
- If it was a laboratory product, the most critical element in its creation, the backbone/template virus (ZC45/ZXC21), is owned by military research laboratories in China.
- The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has likely undergone genetic engineering, through which the virus has gained the ability to target humans with enhanced virulence and infectivity.
- The characteristics and pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented. The virus is highly transmissible, onset-hidden, multi-organ targeting, sequelae-unclear, lethal, and associated with various symptoms and complications.
- SARS-CoV-2 caused a world-wide pandemic, taking hundreds of thousands of lives and shutting down the global economy. It has a destructive power like no other.
On point 2 above, I would like to add that, it is possible the military labs never realized the virulence of the new virus since most of the experiments were done on cell lines and animal models, such as laboratory rats and monkeys.