Planned or Unplanned, That is the Question

SINCE this pandemic began a little over a year ago now, many people have been quite rattled by it. A pandemic. Who in the World knew this would have happened? It has perplexed many people, and it is why questions into the origins of the COVID-19 disease have become so voluminous lately. Many people have begun turning the above question, into a demand, “Who in the World knew this would have happened?”

Did anyone actually plan this virus? Is this virus a zoonotic fluke which just so happened to arise in 2020, which was quite a pivotal year on the geopolitical stage. If this virus is planned, then perhaps one of the largest and most intense controversies in all human history would unfold. But, if it was not, then perhaps we could cool the end-times hysteria and begin focusing on the rather incompetent and corrupt government responses that are actually provable and worth condemning. Those, at the very least, are conspicuous and worth judging.

I am going to take the time to research the information out there, which has come out in recent weeks and over the months, work through it all, and figure out where the verifiable data points. From all the way back in May of 2020, to this month, pundits and writers and all other outlets have been declaring to the people that the truth and origin of COVID-19 is known with an absolute fact.

But two major speedbumps were levied upon these accusations: first, in April 2020, a report was released by The Washington Post that the State Department had received concerns about the safety of the Wuhan lab as early as 2018; then, this month, it was Doctor Fauci himself declaring he was “not convinced” COVID-19 had a natural origin. The rule of thumb with Flip-Flop Fauci is that whenever he says something that is not being propelled by the mainstream media (such as the lab origin theory) he is more than likely to be telling the truth, unlike when he does line up with them (such as with double-masking).

However, of course, this is just one man – who evidently has proven himself to have a bit of…poor judgement – and one superficially disconnected episode. Nonetheless, it does strongly establish a basis – especially a strengthening one – that COVID-19 might not be all that the mainstream narrative about it says it is. It gives us a reason to rationally scrutinize the majoritarian paradigm and present a plausible alternative to the consensus. Considering how significant unraveling such a truth would be, you can see why this really is something we should look into. It would be another huge piece to the puzzle of conspiratorial elitism being uncovered in recent years (and, as you know, I am all about that).

So, in my view, the best starting place for all this research would be with science. We are not just dabbling in politics and conspiracy and humanities, but we are focusing on biology and virology. Does scientific truth set a foundation for the potential lab origin of the COVID-19 disease that has traumatized human civilization for over a year now?

In November of 2020, an independent (but peer-reviewed) research paper was published by an Austrian microbiologist and Russian-Canadian biotechnologist that makes the following claim: “We here describe how the two main SARS-CoV-2 features, (1) the presence of a furin cleavage site missing in other CoVs of the same group and (2) a receptor binding domain (RBD) optimized to bind to human cells might be the result of lab manipulation techniques such as site-directed mutagenesis.” (Segret and Deigin 2020, p. 2) Rather than simply highlighting there is a vague research paper out there that superficially backs my point, I am going to be more in-depth and show exactly how these researchers make their case.

First, the authors cite the “presence of a furin cleavage site missing in other CoVs of the same group” as a feature of COVID-19 pointing towards a lab origin. The closest relative to COVID-19 known, confirmed by science, is called [bat coronavirus] RaTG13 (Poudel et al. 2020, p. 244). The genetic similarity is over 95%.

However, what this paper states about RaTG13 and COVID-19 is this: “The most striking difference is the acquisition in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 of a cleavage site activated by a host-cell enzyme furin, previously not identified in other beta-CoVs of lineage b and similar to that of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus” (Segret and Deigin 2020, p. 2). So, what they are saying is that while RaTG13 – again, the closest relative of COVID-19 – and other coronaviruses of the same lineage/type lack furin, COVID-19 does not, and instead looks more similar to MERS.

The importance of this furin enzyme is expanded upon in another paper from early in 2020, which states: “Furin is a protease ubiquitously expressed in a variety of organs and tissues, including brain, lung, gastrointestinal tract, liver, pancreas and reproductive tissues. With the furin cleavage site on the S protein, 2019-nCoV probably gains ability to infect organs or tissues insensitive to other coronaviruses, leading to systematic infection of 2019-nCoV in the body. Even worse, the wide distribution of 2019-nCoV in a patient body may release the virus into the environment via more diverse ways, severely enhancing the transmission of 2019-nCoV” (Wang et al. 2020, p. 339). So, this enzyme, which is not found naturally in any of the viruses of immediate relation to COVID-19, provides the benefit of severely increasing the power of the virus. How great.

            In fact, the original paper I quoted cites another article posted in May of 2020 that states – in its very title – “a multibasic cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for infection of human lung cells” (Hoffmann et al. 2020, pp. 779-784). That cleave site is the furin enzyme, the enzyme that this research paper states is not found naturally in COVID-19’s family.

The next crux which this paper’s argument for the potential lab origin of COVID-19 leans on is the “receptor binding domain”. The article cites other research that shows COVID-19’s similarity with bat coronavirus Rs3367, which binds to ACE2 (a known entry point for COVID-19), which also shows a similarity with WIV1 coronavirus (Bringas and Booth 2020, pp. 2, 3). Basically, what this means is that this shows a plausible natural capability among bat coronaviruses for binding to ACE2. The paper’s hypothesis regarding the RBD, however, is that: “In this context, SARS-CoV-2 could have been synthesized by combining a backbone similar to RaTG13 with the RBD of CoV similar to the one recently isolated from pangolins, because the latter is characterized by a higher affinity with the hACE2 receptor” (Segreto and Deigin, p. 5).

The major study “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”, which was published in March 2020 by an intermural team of researchers which has been cited over 1,000 times in other papers, is quoted by the researchers as providing an objection to the lab origin hypothesis. The exact words of this study state that: “The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios” (Andersen et al. 2020, p. 452). “Culture-based scenarios” evidently meaning the lab origin of the virus. However, what do our two researchers claim in response?

The authors state, “Methods for insertion of a polybasic cleavage site in infectious bronchitis CoV are given in Cheng, et al. and resulted in increased pathogenicity. Concerning the predicted O-linked glycans around the newly inserted polybasic site, it should be noted that this prediction was not confirmed by Cryo-EM inquiry into the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein” (Segreto and Deigin, p. 5). So, in other words, there is pre-existing scientific evidence for how to add a polybasic cleavage site to a coronavirus, and furthermore a detailed structural analysis of COVID-19 did not confirm that O-linked glycans arose naturally.

Furthermore, they say, “The most surprising observation was that RaTG13, unlike SARS-CoV-2, is unable to bind ACE2 in R. macrotis bats, a close relative of RaTG13’s purported host, R. affinis… At the same time, RaTG13 was observed to bind hACE2, but not as well as ACE2 of rats and mice, to which SARS-CoV-2 did not bind at all. Is it possible that just as SARS-MA15 was a mouse-adapted strain of SARS, RaTG13 is actually a mouse-adapted version of a [coronavirus] extracted from the Mojiang cave, rather than a strain obtained from a bat fecal swab?” (Segreto and Deigin, p. 6) It is quite complex science to understand, but at the very least you must understand that what scientific research is showing is that the mechanisms of COVID-19 versus its natural relatives indicate a laboratory adaptation rather than a natural one.

Putting these together, this paper concludes that there is decent basis for hypothesizing a lab origin of COVID-19. Their arguments certainly make sense, but are they it? Can I produce just one more research paper to my favor giving a scientific basis for a potential lab origin? Well, how about we go with one of the most notorious reports arguing for the lab origin of COVD-19, the Yan Report?

Li-Meng Yan, the well-known whistleblower, states in the opening of her paper that, “The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy... The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. ...SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus.” What does she and her colleagues base this assertion upon? Let the next 20 pages of her report explain.

Yan’s primary assertion is that COVID-19 has been subjected to in vitro manipulation. Why? She gives these three points: First, “The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories…” Second, “The receptor-binding motif within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2…resembles that of SARS-CoV…in a suspicious manner.” Third, “SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity… Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature.”

We have already discussed that third point due to the previous article, so in this section I will instead highlight Mrs. Yan’s arguments behind the first two points she makes for the artificial origin of COVID-19. These points are, again, the genetic similarity between COVID-19 and a military-owned coronavirus, plus the resemblance between the “receptor-binding motif” of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV.

In her report, Yan notes this about COVID-19: “The structure of the ~30,000 nucleotides-long SARS-CoV-2 genome is shown in Figure 1. [To see this image, I suggest going to the report itself.] Searching the NCBI sequence database reveals that…there were two related bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, that share the highest sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 (each bat coronavirus is ~89% identical with SARS-CoV-2…).” This is very important to note, because not only does a similarity between viruses help us fill in the gaps – since we could make inferences about a virus based on what we do know about its close relatives – but it helps us infer its origins. It would be like determining which parent a child takes most of their looks from based on the appearance of the parents (not that hard to imagine, right?)

The bone-chilling fact about this similarity, however, is revealed on the next page by Yan: “Importantly, ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat coronaviruses that were discovered...isolated, and characterized by military research laboratories...and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command. The data and associated work were published in 2018.” Yes, that is right, these coronaviruses – which are so similar to our current COVID-19 foe – were first ever procured by the Chinese military. The military research into these viruses were published in 2018, as Yan notes, the year that the State Department first received concerns over the safety of the Wuhan lab.

Yang continues: “What strengthens our contention further is the published RaTG13 virus, the genomic sequence of which is reportedly 96% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. While suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of…the scientific field…away from ZC45/ZXC21. In fact, a Chinese BSL-3 lab…which published a Nature article reporting a...close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC2 rather than with RaTG13, was quickly shut down for ‘rectification’.” It seems like the Chinese authorities are much more favorable toward a natural origin of COVID-19 in RaTG13, rather than these military-owned strains…how fascinating.

Following this, Yan makes her case for the unnatural elements of COVID-19’s Spike protein’s receptor-binding motif. Briefly, Yan explains this mechanism of coronaviruses: The Spike protein has two halves, the first is S1 (which is responsible for binding the host receptor) and the second is S2 (which mediates cellular entry of the virus). After this, she says, “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 [them], the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid identity being only 69%.”

Yan continues to explain that the nature of the two SARS coronaviruses’ RBMs’ resemblance and the overall similarity between COVID-19 and the two military-owned coronaviruses are all highly suspect. She then puts forward the assertion that if SARS-CoV-2 is in fact natural, its RBM could have only came about by “an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.” She, of course, then lays out in great detail why neither of these natural causes make sense biologically and probabilistically.

What we see here is that COVID-19 is riddled with virological mechanisms that are highly suspect by just so happening to all be in the right place in this specific pathogen. Its overall nature is just too perfect of a virus. Immense concern should also be produced by the very fact that COVID-19 has such genetic similarity to military-owned coronaviruses. We already know, thanks to the efforts of Mike Pompeo, that military activity was occurring at the Wuhan lab, and that coronavirus symptoms were actually being reported in the lab as early as September 2019 – closing the gap between the mid-2018 research of the military coronaviruses and the beginning of the outbreak substantially.

Please, investigate this science further. I do not think any other conclusion can be met. This virus is a highly suspicious little thing, and the evidence points towards some sort of military research gone wrong (or, perhaps, gone right). The scientific evidence is there.

Next, we will turn to the less exclusively scientific data that is pointing towards some sort of greater involvement by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the initial exposure of COVID-19 to the public. A lot of very fresh and detailed news has come out in the last few weeks about this, so there is a lot to take from. Let us sift through it.

One of the earliest pieces of evidence that circulated came in January of 2020, first promoted by Senator Tom Cotton. Cotton’s early comments cited a study by The Lancet that showed “of the original 40 cases in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, 14 people who contracted the virus never set foot in the Wuhan wildlife market where Chinese authorities have claimed the virus originated.” This is also cited by The Epoch Times’ documentary about COVID-19’s origin, where they also document how a good portion early cases had no connection to the Wuhan market. The data clearly throws into question that the assumed epicenter is the real epicenter; the nearest place to the market where biohazardous material is abundant would be the Wuhan-Jianghan Disease Prevention and Control Center, literally right across the street.

          The abundance of cover-ups and shady activity on part of the Chinese government is also pretty damning evidence that the CCP had some skin in the game, necessitating some whitewashing before the crisis could go public. Long before the WHO was still touting that COVID-19 was not contagious just because China saidso, we had valiant Doctor Li Wenliang who had been raising the alarm since late-December, and who was then promptly arrested by the Chinese regime. China also began clamping down on research into COVID-19, deleting a number of research papers off cyberspace, and further data uncovered shows evidence of a concealed incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology all the way back in October of 2019 (this matches with our understanding of the virus originating even earlier than December). You also have the fact that the Chinese lab that first published the COVID-19 genome was almost immediately shut down afterwards, and the whole continuing host of suspicious activity on part of the Chinese regime (see here, here, and here).

          Also, what about the recent news? Establishment outlets in recent weeks have even been giving the COVID-19 lab origin theory some airtime. What evidence has arisen that has made this once oh-so fringe concept a bit more palatable? Well, a press statement by Amanda Schoch – the Assistant Director of National Intelligence for Strategic Communications – sums up everything pretty nicely: “The U.S. Intelligence Community does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus was transmitted initially but has coalesced around two likely scenarios: either it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, or it was a laboratory accident.

Way back in February of 2017, Nature – the globally esteemed scientific publication – expressed concern over “[a] laboratory in Wuhan…on the cusp of being cleared to work with the world’s most dangerous pathogens” because “…the SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times…” In December of 2019 we find a WHO inspector mentioning “the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology”; this is just weeks before the “first” public cases of COVID-19. And, furthermore, there are the chilling arguments that Huang Yanling, a possible employee of the WIV, was patient zero and that a Doctor Xiabao Tao reported that WIV researchers were exposed to “bat blood and urine”.

So, what we have basically uncovered here is a great amount of evidence that in the [real] early days of the pandemic (October to February), the Chinese government was hard at work constructing a narrative by covering-up, suppressing, and rearranging various facts. Labs, workers, and research were all targeted. However, the evidence that was preserved and later revealed to the outside world shows that China had considerable foreknowledge of this virus, of its infectivity, and that a trail can be led back – quite reasonably – to the Wuhan lab. This is probably the data that has compelled PolitiFact and a few other platforms to discreetly retract their rejections of the lab origin theory.

          This evidence is real and valid, people. Otherwise, we would not be seeing the bipartisan push for origin probes that we are in fact seeing. No one, not even the CCP assets in our own government, can ignore the data any longer. As always, the Establishment has taken longer to respond, but the cries of the People have grown too loud. From here on out, it is a matter of making sure that the Establishment does not conduct things their way, or we really will never get to the bottom of this, since they will focus mainly on covering their own butts, rather than doing anything worthwhile (like with the 9/11 Commission).

          The question now, however, becomes something a whole lot more serious and cataclysmic. We are beginning to clearly see that the COVID-19 pandemic has much more enigmatic and potentially criminal origins. China sloppily covered up a ton of things, making it easy for outsiders to tell they were in fact covering something up. In addition, despite this, a trail of evidence was still left behind leading back to the Wuhan lab with quite some confidence. However, does it stop at China?

          Boy, what a question. If you asked me a year ago if I thought COVID-19 was artificial, I probably would have said no (in fact, when I last wrote on the disease, in October, I still thought so). If you asked me two months ago if I thought COVID-19 was artificial, I would have said, “Yeah, the Chinese did it.” If you asked me if I thought COVID-19 was artificial and [only] from China today? Buckle in.

          Fraudulent Fauci (God, I love these nicknames) has turned from the Great and Powerful Doctor of America to the Wicked Witch-Doctor of the West. We have known that Fauci was millions of dollars deep in the Wuhan lab, and that he has argued in the past for gain-of-function research (rejecting pandemic risks in the same breath, too). This man…boy, how deep does he go!? Maybe all this is why Fauci was able to prophesy in 2017 that, “there is ‘no doubt’ Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.”

          Fauci’s own history helps point us in the right direction, because back in 2001 he made a high-profile appearance with – oh boy, will you get a load of this – a practical Who’s Who of elitists: Astors, Rockefellers, Gateses, Soros, etc. Social events are not one-and-done deals; even based off the parties I’ve been to, as a mere middle-class pleb, I can tell you that these events are wonderful for networking. Plus, when you’ve been in a high-profile position like Fauci’s for as long as Fauci, trust me, you have connections. And do not worry, his ties go even deeper.

          In fact, let us take the time to examine some of these figures that Fauci was spotted with. Such as the Rockefellers. Back in 2014 an investigative journalist named Harry Vox – who was quickly “forgotten” – uncovered that the Rockefeller Foundation had a gameplan set out called “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. This document contains such gems such as: “A world of top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback…,” and, “…in 2012 the pandemic the world had been anticipating for years finally hit,” and, “The Chinese government's quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing of all borders, saved millions of lives...” People, all this was exposed in 2014 from a document made in 2010. None of this comes from 2020 or afterwards, its all unbelievably powerful and conspicuous foreknowledge (foreknowledge, or preparations?).

          This is the Rockefeller Foundation, whose late patriarch was with Fauci at a high-class elitist conference. The Rockefeller Foundation, which played a key role in the rise of John Hopkins University; John Hopkins University, which sponsored the infamous Event 201 exercise in October 2019 (hey, isn’t that when COVID-19 started spreading in China?); Event 201 which had the participation of the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates Foundation; the Bill Gates Foundation, which met in AUGUST OF 2019 to discuss a $100 billion contact tracing deal with Democrat Bobby L. Rush at the 2019 Aspen Conference in Rwanda. How deep does this all go!?

          I mean, honestly, what a horrible theater troupe we are putting together here:

• The Rockefellers, who were at the receiving end of a $1 billion lawsuit for mass sterilizing Guatemalans.
• Gates, with his deep ties to theWHO’s coffers, connections to abortion cartels, speeches about using vaccines to depopulate, and other items in his portfolio.
• And Fauci, well, we have already discussed him and his ties.

Plus, we are also talking about organizations: the WHO, John Hopkins University, these two big private foundations, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (and therefore the CCP), and perhaps cadres of the U.S. government itself. These are huge amounts of human, financial, and political capital, with schemes and webs dating back far before this pandemic was even a morsel of a notion in the minds of most people. I must also direct you to the fantastic research done by Senta Depuydt into the connections of WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus.

          What conclusion should you make from all this? First off, COVID-19 has a strong likelihood of being artificial. Second off, the Chinese government were likely involved in that manufacturing. Third off, the genesis of COVID-19 seems to be linked to the machinations of the insidious elitist cartel out there, representing some of the greatest dynasties in human history (that all happen to exist right now). Everything is too unnerving and so bone-chilling, is this really the World we live in?

          I have just laid out over ten pages with nearly fifty sources listed for you. I hope you can feel confident in making an informed conclusion from all this. I certainly have. We live in wicked times, people, and I am shocked this is not more obvious to so many more people. Please, let this article enlighten and encourage you. Be a freethinker and a disciple of the Truth, because someone has to be.

          Because of how intense the contents of this article are I give full permission for the following: the sharing of this article; the republication of this article on alternative media platforms; and whatever else is necessary to get it circulating. Just make sure you give credits to me (The Hot Air Machine) for producing this and compiling all this info. Let us bring light into the darkness of this World, and perhaps pursue a fleeting hope of turning it away – perhaps just for a moment? – from its current course.

          We can do it together, God willing. Thank you for your time and attention.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Andersen, Kristian G., et al., “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine 26:4, pp. 450-452 (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020).
• Bringas, Conchita F., and Booth, David, “Identification of a SARS-like Bat Coronavirus That Shares Structural Features with the Spike Glycoprotein Receptor-Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2.” Access Microbiology 2:11, pp. 1-8 (Microbiology Society, 2020).
• Hoffmann, Markus, et al., “A Multibasic Cleavage Site in the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 Is Essential for Infection of Human Lung Cells.” Molecular Cell, 78:4, pp. 779-784 (Elsevier BV, 2020).
• Poudel, Uddab, et al., “Animal Coronaviruses and Coronavirus Disease 2019: Lesson for One Health Approach.” Open Veterinary Journal 10:3, pp. 239-251 (ScopeMed, 2020).
• Segreto, Rossana, and Deigin, Yuri, “The Genetic Structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 Does Not Rule out a Laboratory Origin.” BioEssays 43:3, pp. 1-9 (Wiley, 2020).
• Wang, Qiong, et al., “A Unique Protease Cleavage Site Predicted in the Spike Protein of the Novel Pneumonia Coronavirus (2019-NCoV) Potentially Related to Viral Transmissibility.” Virologica Sinica, vol. 35:3, pp. 337-339 (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020).