Last week, multiple experts revealed that there is “damning” evidence to support that COVID-19 was altered in a laboratory.
Dr. Steven Quay and UC Berkeley emeritus professor Richard Muller explained that the microbial structure of the virus is unlike anything found in nature, which would support other claims that COVID-19 was altered in a lab, according to The Daily Wire.
The two experts go on to explain how gain-of-function research works, stating that it consists of the altering of spike proteins to make a virus more contagious or lethal.
They then claim that a specific genomic sequence, CGG-CGG (also known as “double CGG”), has not been found in nature or “in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2.” They state that this sequence could not be created by natural causes if it was not present in any other virus.
The two experts wrote:
Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?
The experts continued, discussing a Chinese scientific paper published in 2020 which did not contain any reference to this sequence.
They then stated:
There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.
Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.
Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.
If proven correct, this evidence would support additional theories, such as the Wuhan lab leak theory that has recently been gaining traction.
Over a year ago, former President Donald Trump suggested that COVID-19 could have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Increasingly, the evidence suggests that these so-called unwarranted suggestions may not have been so unwarranted after all.