I’ve been in Messenger with Dr. Chavez. I needed to delete my last post by him because he feels his life is threatened. There are more details I will not disclose. But I have been allowed to post portions of this paper. It’s 62 pages long and this is just the first 7 pages. Dr. Chavez is a PhD molecular biologist who has studied the CV2 sequence extensively.
I may post another section tomorrow Enjoy! Lisa
COVID-19: Hypothesis of the Lab Origin versus a Zoonotic Event Which Can Also be of a Lab Origin
By Dr,Fernando Castro-Chavez.
To treat the cause of a disease and not only its effects are of the utmost importance; hence, we need to know the origin of this pandemic of COVID-19, to be able, if possible, to prevent an event of such a nature and magnitude in the future, and to be able to avoid all sorts of abuses to humanity, as is happening right now. Bullet points here addressed are:
1) To have, inside the backbone of a virus from a bat (mostly ~97.55% of the viral RNA (by deducting the HIV inserts found by Perez, Montagnier and others), & as per the findings of Petrovsky, see below, and also to contrast the differences), the insertion similar to that of a pangolin virus for the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD, which basically consists of six separated key amino acids, or the 0.06% of its genome for these particular 18 nucleotides), being their receptor the ACE2 of the human lung, appearing at a time (as earlier as since September of 2019), were there were already mature all of the molecular methodologies necessary to modify individual nucleotides (Crispr-Cas9, “Seamless”, etc.) that then modify at will the resulting amino acids, with the possibility to give an extra passage to the virus through ferrets (or other lab animals) that have an ACE2 very similar to the humans, to give it then a more “natural” appearance (by random trivial changes); because, had it been natural, this could had required an animal host infected with these two viruses simultaneously, and that with an unexplainable marksmanship, to specifically modify the key six codons (and a second independent of such impossible recombinants, to give raise to the differences exclusively present at the end of the long Orf1ab, into the Nsf15 and Nsf16);
2) To have an even more important and unique peculiar site, PRRAR (encompassing the needed 12 bases to complete that sequence, being this the 0.04% of the full genome), for protease cleavage (new to Plasmin and Furin, plus Trypsin, TMRPSS2, etc.) inside the protein called Spike (S), to obtain the fragments S1 and S2 to allow the viral RNA to penetrate the cell (expanding the range, not only to lung cells as the previous modification but also to white and neural cells), whose nucleotides producing it are highly strange to the rest of the viral sequence, because they contain more than an 83% of richness in its nucleotides GC, being these 12 nucleotides alien to the rest of the virus: CCUCGGCGGGCA (similar to bacterial and to methodological sequences patented by Moderna, Inc., cleavable by restriction enzymes BsaJI, AciI, Cac8I, MnlI…), that are engrained to the three remaining bases: CGU present in the frame of the bat virus to complete the necessary sequence. This will require, either a third virus completely unknown until now, either in the same utopian animal described before, or through a second passage of the first chimera into another animal, and then that such viral beast, could also be able to target exclusively this region, and no other site whatsoever; then, it is explored,
3) The biggest shot in variation, when it is compared to the first sequence obtained of the virus of COVID-19, with its immediate ancestor, that according to Shi Zheng-Li is the RaTG13 (submitted a posteriori of the COVID-19 first sequence, and which researchers demonstrate that this is a partially made-up sequence (see below), having her deliberately ignored even to cite her previous identical reference called BtCoV/4991 (2016), or even her most recent reference of the same that she put under the name of SARSr-CoV Ra4991 (2019), being very dishonest for her to change in at least three identified times the names of her same sequence, actions that render her highly suspicious, because she hid the rest of the sequence at least during the last four year (having been obtained from excrement in a cave, she says, after a call due to a serious case of miners infected at Yunnan, and nobody knows still what was inside those at least six miners), but her publishing it until now, after the emergence of a similar virus, makes her highly suspicious, rather than making her look innocent; and, who can say that she did not manipulate as well artificially such sequence, or that the CCP Chinese military did not do the same to the other two previous sequences that are also somehow similar to Sars-CoV-2?, and how many more hundreds of sequences will they be hiding?, because nobody independently has been able to verify the accuracy of their claims, being everything based only in what they say), given that the nucleotides of six proteins exhibit a 99% of similitude between both sequences, while twelve of them go down to a 96% or even are below of this number, being the most extreme changes, the ones that are inside the sequence for the protein Spike, which while exhibiting a global similitude of 93%, is the one having the highest discrepancy between the two sequences, and within this same one there are extreme shorter variations, with a low similitude of 44% on that specific of the RBD mentioned before, which goes down to some 17% for the region of those 18 key bases, and of only the 20% percent for that sequence of 12 bases for the resulting protease cleavage site; other changes include the optimal nucleotides of an even shorter region of 16 segments similar to immunodeficiency genes (plus two more distant ones), and even a couple of concatenated Plasmodium yoelii found by Perez and Montagnier at the S2 place, all that could be better explained with artificial processes already in place to do this and more within the frame of the awful Gain-of-Function sinister and dual-purpose (or double-talk) research. So, it is their word against the world, and that is why since at least 2010 I have been proposing an independent verification by at least three other labs of results reported, especially by CCP Chinese researchers, as they did cost me already my first job in the US by their lying during at least ten years about a methodological artifact that I called “Palindromati”, and that they kept on reporting as “natural” while receiving grants to explore a chimera, and how more is it costing their apparent lying about the artificial origin of COVID-19 at this time?) So, all of these points and so much more, because Jesse Morrell, for example, is reaching a set of almost 40 (and counting) pieces of evidence of a lab origin versus cero otherwise, things and persons that are leading us to conclude that it is evident to see that there was human intervention in the emergence of this Sars-CoV-2 virus because in 2015-2018 there was not in existence any zoonotic history of any class in Wuhan, so, having been originated this virus already mature and fully capable to attack the human population, implies an artificial “injecting” source.
“…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of DARKNESS, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by THEM in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the LIGHT…” An inspired Paul inEph. 5:11-13.
Dedicated to Francis S. Collins, so as for the many to be able to see…
A balanced set of voices is needed in this COVID-19 Pandemic, and such is the purpose of this work, to speak the pros and the cons of every claim. I also want to make this presentation a personal one, as scientists tend to simulate isolation of themselves from their research. But in the end, they are still as human as anybody else and their personal bias and experiences always show up. So, here we will be just another lonely human. Especially within this Pandemic that has tended to “dehumanize” humanity. So, here am I, back to the simplicity of what is meant to be “human” and with feelings. Three pieces of evidence in science are normally required to establish something as evident (Crombie, 1994). In this case, we will see three minimum reasons, and one more to give a certain range of tolerance (plus another at the beginning, aimed at those with eyes to see), and this will be the determining factor in identifying if COVID-19 is artificial or otherwise, which will show prominently to the reader that this COVID-19 virus is of a human design. Currently, there are zero shreds of evidence in favor of the opposite view.
I hope that other scientists, especially all those honest virologists, immunologists, infectiologists, epidemiologists, molecular biologists, human physicians (excluding those “inhuman”), veterinarians, etc., etc., are also doing this kind of vital work, as it is to “Define the origin” of this COVID-19 pandemic, which is mainly devastating morally the people of this planet (humans against humans), and needless to say, devastating the infected victims (from all of those tainted statistics that we are all aware of).
It is necessary to know the truth to prevent something like this from happening again, and to prevent a recurrence in the course of the current pandemic, as there is still the slightest chance that more of the same pathogens will continue to be released with the purpose of “escalating” such crisis, which by all accounts has been designed globally, but with the final target of the USA. The fact that an official denial appears in all articles related to the human engineering of COVID-19, saying that: “There is no evidence of it”, indeed speaks volumes about a deliberate attempt to silence the truth, as well as does the unrequested invasion of our privacy by the WHO in all social platform available on the internet, and the censorship by the same WHO under higher orders, of every posting or video that does not agree with the narrative that they pretend to impose over the whole of the human race.
Here, I present then, this minimal evidence that shows just the opposite: That “there is evidence” indeed of a lab-leak, and even further, of an even engineered virus as the most plausible explanation of the current malady, as if planned. This is presented for the free evaluation of the reader.
This work is also an attempt to respond to the most recent question posed in Nature, talking about the WIV of Zheng-Li Shi: “The lab does hold coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2, so it is possible that one could have escaped, perhaps if a lab worker accidentally became infected from a virus sample or animal in the facility and then passed it on to someone outside the facility. It is also theoretically possible that scientists at the lab tweaked the virus’s genome for research purposes before it escaped, but, again, there is no evidence that they did. Shi declined to respond to Nature’s questions about her experiments, saying that she has been inundated with media requests” (Cyranoski. 2020) So, Shi, the main suspect in this story is declining to explain her research, however, in what she has published thus far there is vast evidence that COVID-19 may have been designed there at the WIV, the evidence available for anybody willing to dig into her publications. This article wishes to help a little on that aspect.
Most recently, before the release of his second article on the subject, Birger Sørensen declared: “I think it’s more than 90 percent certain. It’s at least a far more probable explanation than it having developed this way in nature” (https://archive.vn/Wmj9p), where he also explains that the adulterations go beyond the attachment to the human ACE2 receptor (shown in my first point) and, it is within that spirit that I present my current work. So, I name this study “Anticovidian v.2” because it is in line with my previous collective research into Antiobesity (Castro-Chavez et al., 2003) and Antiatherosclerosis (Castro-Chavez et al., 2013), where I also demonstrated, as I hope to do here, that a contaminating laboratory artifact had intruded on thousands of sequences present in the Genbank and even in the Affimetrix Microarrays (Castro-Chavez, 2012). In this viral case, a most basic antecedent I would like to emphasize as many have done, and this is the article by Baric & Zhengli (Zheng-Li) from 2015 (Menachery et al., 2015), published within the time in which Obama had advised a moratorium for such studies, moratorium which lasted in the US from 2014 to 2017, and in the end, it was when, Obama before leaving office indicated its reactivation until the ban was finally lifted by Francis S. Collins (Morrell, 2020). However, in disregard of that ban, these authors managed to continuously publish their work, which again aroused an ethical conflict during that year (Akst, 2015), and as they continued doing Gain-of-Function research non-stop in Wuhan at UNC.
The experiment they carried out was to develop a super-coronavirus that was capable of killing elderly mice, a result that they do not present, as it would be expected, in the main text, but rather in a compound figure in their supplement (Fig. 3b), in which the complete death of elderly mice is observed on the fourth day (Menachery et al., 2015). In a recent interview with Baric, it was indicated that this murderous virus was “found”, but the truth is that he, with Zheng-Li and one peer, plus his team, “designed” it, but did not “find” it as it was deceivingly reported on 2020: https://www.wral.com/unc-researcher-found-deadly-virus-in-bats-in-china-in-2015/18913313/ (whose headline has been saved at https://archive.vn/DI2mT). But, just from the onset, you can start seeing that there is the desire by the seriously conflicted actors, for all of this to remain hidden or changed.
Remarkable in this Menachery et al. (2015) work is that two of the authors came from Wuhan, where the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, and that they are credited with having brought both the necessary plasmids, as well as the murderous version of the modified gene “Spike”, a key protein for viral entry into the human cells, and that Baric just now deposited its sequence MT308984: https://archive.vn/P5ay7
Now, it has been discovered that a handwritten version exists before the final version of this 2015 article by Baric for the journal Nature Medicine (now under Chinese control), and it was the first version format to be published by the NIH PubMed; what is noticeable about this previous version, is that it has two more and key methodological references that are not present in the final electronic version (Menachery et al., 2015). Art Bobroff, through Facebook, indicates that the removal of those two key methodological references is a standard procedure in GoF research, to comply with the “law” about this kind of risky research; it may be so, but indeed those references are very telling.
The first is from 2005 and shows that the Spike protein site called the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD), was also very well known, focusing since then as well, only on the six key amino-acid contacts within the so-called then RBM, Receptor Binding Motif, currently known generically as RBD mostly due to Andersen et al. (2020), whose work has been multiple times debunked, such as in Stout (2020, thanks to Rubio for the reference), which is responsible for the attachment of the virus to the receptor of the lung cells called the ACE2; in addition, since then, the state of the underground molecular art allowed already something like single nucleotide changes to be made on individual nucleotides (already known, but later made into a CRISPR/Cas9-deaminase methodology: Shevidi et al. 2017), which in turn would modify the resulting amino acid, and in such article, its authors focus on modifying the key amino acids necessary to improve the RBD binding to the ACE2 (Qu et al., 2005), and even later, to other receptors, such as CD147.
The other experimental article omitted is from 2008, and is similar to the previous one, with the difference that it already begins to outline the final optimal amino acids for the RBD of COVID-19, because it defines that an artificial substitution of a Leucine for a Phenylalanine makes the union more solid between the RBD and the hACE2 receptor, and it is precise with a Phenylalanine, as established in that article, that we finally find it, and in the same position, as relative to the RBD of COVID-19; so, as in the article it is an L472F change for the old Sars-CoV-1 (Sheahan et al., 2008), this corresponds to L486F in the case of the new Sars-CoV-2, as the COVID-19 virus is known (linking the name to China).
The importance of these findings is that it is not necessary to invoke a natural cross-linking in a fantastic animal intermediary that seems to be meant to never to be found, as to have obtained the new virus, through trial and error during all of these twenty years or so, that they were already doing tirelessly during that time, the needed work to experimentally obtain the best optimal combination in the real world as it is currently present in COVID-19 (and not necessarily a “theoretical” best).
And apart of these three basic antecedents (2005, 2008, 2015), and that’s not all, as there are more as if when penetrating the rabbit hole of Alice, but for reasons of time, I note an “opinion” piece (Andersen et al., 2020, also from China-controlled Nature, and with endless conflicts of interests, as it happens with all of those “defending” and covering-up against the right kind of research as to track its real origins), which is basically what has deliberately blinded the critical spirit of most scientists, and has been taken as “the consensus”, even though such article doesn’t even solve anything and omits many of the basic and necessary references. That article notes that the RBD of COVID-19 resembles more closely that of a pangolin virus, while the rest of the viral background is of a bat virus. It is this kind of non-granted opinion that has made “people of science” “strive for politics”, instead of looking at the evidence, because: What could have been the intermediary animal inside which the mentioned combination (of the backbone of the virus of the bat, with the precise RBD similar to that of a pangolin virus), and could that have been recombined in such a very punctual and targeted manner? So, the hypothesis without a solution that they pose of a mythological or utopian “beast”, while many lack the critical spirit to do science, consider as if it were the last word but which would require that two different viruses to exchange information in a very precise and targeted way such as that performed in a lab, in the same animal to be true: The bat virus, recombining with the pangolin virus, so that, in an extremely incredible way, exclusively inserting the optimal site of the RBD from a “pangolin”-like virus (18 nucleotides within a total of approximately 29,903 for the complete sequence of the COVID-19, or just a 0.06% of the sequence); as if the pangolin virus had become embedded in a very localized way with no trace in any other place of its genome within the framework of the bat virus. A noncritical belief is required to think in such a way, to be blindly convinced that the pangolin virus was so accurate as to transmit those 6 x 3 sites that are indeed distant or separated within the RBD region, aiming precisely at the proper targets towards the bat virus to optimize those 18 nucleotides at only their precise positions.
To end with these antecedents, I must say that this is not all, although this is what we are made to “believe” in an extremely simplistic way, by most of those who want to end this uncomfortable exploration of the true origins of the virus once and for all. Uncomfortable because legally it would involve China and so many localized factions within the USA, since the financing for the Chinese in Wuhan to continue working with these viruses come in part and during several deliveries, from the North American NIH (Mulraney & Owen, 2020), which sent 3.7 x 2 millions of dollars to Wuhan and more (Morrell, 2020), but this amount pales in comparison to what Gates delivered to “buy” the WHO in 2010 to establish “the decade of the vaccines” or a “Digital” “vaccination,” as he has called it, consisting of 10 billion dollars (Gates Foundation, 2010), being today Gates to the sole biggest financier of the WHO once Trump decided to stop funding it. However, during that time of the year that COVID-19 was released (September 2019), the bats were asleep, hibernating, and no bats are sold in that, blamed first by the CCP with no previous investigation, and now destroyed, Wuhan wet-market and the first three infected with COVID-19 had no contact with that market (Sirotkin & Sirotkin, 2020), plus there has been no transparency at all in any kind of delivery of results. This is now old news because, at this point, even the Chinese CCP acknowledges that there is no evidence that such market did anything at all to modify those sequences, making them lethal to old and sick humans, as the excellent review appeared at the “Bulleting of Atomic Scientists” has just informed us (Leitenberg, 2020). But, I leave it in your hands to explore all of that (if you can find it now that Google is modifying its algorithms to make sure the results of the thousands of serious researchers exploring the lab origin of COVID-19 are harder and harder to find, coupled this to the deletion of all sorts of evidence by China, from notebooks to databases, from actual samples to blocking and international inquiry team other than the WHO). However, since this work is rather molecular, I will be mostly focused on it.
 Previously: Molecular Postdoctoral at the Baylor College of Medicine and at the New York Medical College; email@example.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9661-5672, https://bcm.academia.edu/fernandocastrochavez, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernando_Castro-Chavez (v.1 Self-Published in Spanish: Yola, 05/08/2020). The full number is: https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume20/E-Journal_GJSFR_%28I%29_Vol_20_Issue_3.pdf, and the final published reference of this article (which has also been submitted to the PubMed of the NIH) is: https://web.archive.org/web/20200811115437/https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume20/2-Anticovidian-v-2-COVID-19.pdf