CDC Finally Admits SARS/CoV-2 is A Chimeric Virus Deliberatedly Made By Humans?

originally posted by: chr0naut

The majority of geneticists and virologists have said that the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a lab is unlikely, but no-one can be entirely sure. Despite this, there are people who for sensationalist or political reasons promote the idea.
...

False. It's actually quite the opposite more so when we have government documents proving that Fauci and the Obama administration outsourced this biological weapons program to Wuhan, China.

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab.NIH did Outsource GOF research to Wuhan

Sharon Lerner, Mara Hvistendahl

September 6 2021, 7:06 p.m.

Newly released documents provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of documents detailing the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization that used federal money to fund bat coronavirus research at the Chinese laboratory. The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as project updates relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic.

The documents were released in connection with ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation by The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health. The Intercept is making the full documents available to the public.

“This is a road map to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of Covid-19.
...
The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments. The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”
...

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

Despite Dr. Death Fauci lying to the public and lying to Congress about it more evidence has come forward showing that the NIH, under the direction of Fauci, did fund GOF (Gain Of Function) research to Wuhan China to make Coronaviruses more lethal and infectious to humans.

The documents released include:

Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence

Understanding Risk of Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia

Did coronavirus originate in Chinese government laboratory? Chinese Scientists believe "it did."

Chinese scientists believe the deadly coronavirus may have started life in a research facility just 300 yards from the Wuhan fish market.

A new bombshell paper from the Beijing-sponsored South China University of Technology says that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (WHCDC) could have spawned the contagion in Hubei province.

'The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus,' penned by scholars Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao claims the WHCDC kept disease-ridden animals in laboratories, including 605 bats.

It also mentions that bats - which are linked to coronavirus - once attacked a researcher and 'blood of bat was on his skin.'
...

Did coronavirus originate in Chinese government laboratory? Scientists believe killer disease may have begun in research facility 300 yards from Wuhan wet fish market

There were even other scientists from China who blew the whistle, a few of those scientists are now dead, and others had to escape China. But you want to claim these people that gave up everything, including their families and even their lives, are/were lying?...





You should stop it with the disinformation.

a reply to: Antisocialist

Yeah, but only through the boosters.
They’ll never release something that deadly as a live, wild virus. Too risky. Once 70% is on the vax subscription, then all it will take is 33% of the next booster being the ‘next pandemic’.
Then every year, rinse and repeat.
Just like that dugal site.

Anyways. They’ll blame the unvaxxed as they go. Causing more issues and getting more people to roll up the their sleeves and take the death jab.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The evidence you provided was evidence of funding, not of gain of function.

The articles you linked to mentioned of "gain of function", and of "altering" viruses, but, as near as I can tell, their source information made no actual mention of it. They seem to have merely assumed that because there was funding, that it must have been for GOF research.

Specifically, the article made reference to two specific grants and there being two viruses involved in the research, SARS and MERS. But if there had been a lab leak, why was it of a different virus than those that were being studied, as noted in the source FOIA request?

I also read through the "complete documentation" which was supposed to be "over 900 pages" according to the article. What the article link actually pointed to was a 31 page 'court complaint' process document, with little to no support for what is alleged in the article. As such, I cannot make specific comment or rebuttal to it.

The research that was supposed to have been going on was to identify and isolate various bat borne viruses and to test these against human cultured cells and humanized mice. This can be done without modifying the viruses and without gain of function and there is no indication that it was done in any of the lab reports, papers, or in multiple site investigations.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The evidence you provided was evidence of funding, not of gain of function.

The articles you linked to mentioned of "gain of function", and of "altering" viruses, but, as near as I can tell, their source information made no actual mention of it. They seem to have merely assumed that because there was funding, that it must have been for GOF research.
...

...

Why do you have to make claims about GOF research when it is obvious you know nothing about it?

...
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH

Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
...

Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives

When research is done to make coronaviruses more lethal and infectious to humans that is Gain of Function Research...

Which is what the Obama administration, Fauci, and company wanted when they outsourced such dangerous experiments to China... The world's most dictatorial system which has murdered millions of their own people that the communist dictatorship didn't want...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

The evidence you provided was evidence of funding, not of gain of function.

The articles you linked to mentioned of "gain of function", and of "altering" viruses, but, as near as I can tell, their source information made no actual mention of it. They seem to have merely assumed that because there was funding, that it must have been for GOF research.
...

...

Why do you have to make claims about GOF research when it is obvious you know nothing about it?

...
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH

Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
...

Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives

When research is done to make coronaviruses more lethal and infectious to humans that is Gain of Function Research...

Which is what the Obama administration, Fauci, and company wanted when they outsourced such dangerous experiments to China... The world's most dictatorial system which has murdered millions of their own people that the communist dictatorship didn't want...

But the grants did not call for research that required altering the genotype of the viruses under study. There was enough work just identifying and isolating the viruses and then testing them to see if they might, in their natural state, cause disease in humans or stock/food animals and other organisms.

The fact that research was funded does not mean that it was gain of function research.

As yet, no-one has found evidence to show that gain of function was being done.

There would have been significant sign in that genomic manipulation requires specific equipment and chemicals and takes time, lots of it. Time when other research would not be able to be done because all lab resources would be dedicated to the extremely repetitive and time consuming task of trying to effect just a single heritable and functional genomic change that didn't sterilize the virus.

a reply to: chr0naut

For crying out loud, you lied here claiming that there were no documents in the hundreds of pages given, when i added these...

BTW, i gave several links including to the entire documents.

For example, in the following link there is a 528 page research paper...

Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence

This other link goes to a research with 386 pages...

Understanding Risk of Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia

So it is obvious you didn't even look at the evidence, and it's obvious you are making claims which are completely wrong. Why is that?

a reply to: chr0naut

In page 298 you can read this.

...
In Vivo Infection of Human ACE2 (hACE2) Expressing Mice with SARSr-CoV S Protein variants Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, WIV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued. In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rW IV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while rWIV1 and rWIV-4231 S produced less body weight loss. In the mice infected with rWIV1-WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.
...

Understanding-Risk-Bat-Coronavirus-Eme rgence-Grant-Notice

You do remember what "chimeric viruses" are right?

They isolated different traits, spike protein from 3 different strains of chimeric coronaviruses. They genetically modified them(adding the different traits from different strains of chimeric coronaviruses) to construct a new recombinant virus. (which is also a chimeric virus)

SHC014-CoV is a SARS-like coronavirus which infects horseshoe bats.
en.wikipedia.org...

WIV16 is another strain of SARS like coronavirus.

www.viprbrc.org...

Rs4231 is another strain of SARS-related coronavirus.

Then they infected mice with ACE2 human receptors with the reconbinant virus. This was Gain of Function Research despite Fauci and company lying about it. The goal was to make a coronavirus that would be more lethal and infectious to humans.

BTW, do note that they state these three strains are chimeric. Hence the three strains are not natural strains, and neither is the recombinant virus they produced from the three chimeric strains of coronaviruses.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: chr0naut

In page 298 you can read this.

...
In Vivo Infection of Human ACE2 (hACE2) Expressing Mice with SARSr-CoV S Protein variants Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, WIV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued. In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1) and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rW IV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while rWIV1 and rWIV-4231 S produced less body weight loss. In the mice infected with rWIV1-WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.
...

Understanding-Risk-Bat-Coronavirus-Eme rgence-Grant-Notice

You do remember what "chimeric viruses" are right?

What they are doing here is taking the spike protein sequence and add it to a benign virus. One which will not cause disease. This is very similar to the way the AstraZaneca vaccine delivers the mRNA sequence to the ribosome, but in this case the adapted virus includes the protein itself, and not just the mRNA that codes for the protein. The resultant virus is chimeric (which the CDC is now putting a ban on) but it isn't the potentially pathogenic virus that is being modified, but is a known benign virus (usually an adenovirus).

The new virus becomes the delivery system that allows them to test just the spike protein, to see how it works against a cell.

The research is not adding function to the existing virus to make it more pathogenic. It is just a delivery method for a tiny component of a natural virus, delivered in a way that does not add function to the original virus, nor that will produce a viable disease causing chimeric virus.

It isn't gain of function because it doesn't enhance pathogenesis, transmissibility or host range. The result of the research is non-viable as a viral pathogen, but gives clear information about how individual components work.

They isolated different traits, spike protein from 3 different strains of chimeric coronaviruses. They genetically modified them(adding the different traits from different strains of chimeric coronaviruses) to construct a new recombinant virus. (which is also a chimeric virus)

SHC014-CoV is a SARS-like coronavirus which infects horseshoe bats.
en.wikipedia.org...

WIV16 is another strain of SARS like coronavirus.

www.viprbrc.org...

Rs4231 is another strain of SARS-related coronavirus.

Then they infected mice with ACE2 human receptors with the reconbinant virus. This was Gain of Function Research despite Fauci and company lying about it. The goal was to make a coronavirus that would be more lethal and infectious to humans.

BTW, do note that they state these three strains are chimeric. Hence the three strains are not natural strains, and neither is the recombinant virus they produced from the three chimeric strains of coronaviruses.

The resultant virus was chimeric, but they did not alter the source strains. They took the spike proteins from them and applied them to a benign virus which would not be a viable replicable reinfector.

originally posted by: chr0naut

What they are doing here is taking the spike protein sequence and add it to a benign virus. One which will not cause disease. This is very similar to the way the AstraZaneca vaccine delivers the mRNA sequence to the ribosome, but in this case the adapted virus includes the protein itself, and not just the mRNA that codes for the protein. The resultant virus is chimeric (which the CDC is now putting a ban on) but it isn't the potentially pathogenic virus that is being modified, but is a known benign virus (usually an adenovirus).
...

wow...you sir continue lying or you can't understand what you are reading. Which strain of coronavirus is benign?... WIV1 (rWIV1) is the only non-chimeric/natural virus as it is the coronavirus that infects bats, but the other three are chimeric coronaviruses (made in a lab) and they combined the three chimeric coronaviruses with the bat virus to attack ACE2 HUMAN RECEPTORS in humanized mice. Nothing you have claimed is true. They were not trying to make any vaccines. They were not trying to investigate natural viruses either. They were weaponizing coronaviruses and making them more lethal and infectious to humans.

As a matter of fact i just found the posts from Richard H. Ebright in which he talks about this research. In case you don't know who he is here:

Richard H. Ebright is an American molecular biologist. He is the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University and Laboratory Director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology.
...

Richard H. Ebright

Here is part of what he found about this research.



Link

There is even some random person in those posts claiming that Ebright is not a serious scientist and claiming this is not a bombshell, like you "chr0naut" are attempting to do here.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
On November 17th 2021 the CDC made the following announcement about SARS/CoV-2.

Today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Division of Select Agents and Toxins published an Interim Final Rule adding SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2 chimeric viruses resulting from any deliberate manipulation of SARS-CoV-2 to incorporate nucleic acids coding for SARS-CoV virulence factors to the list of HHS select agents and toxins. In addition, the work to create this chimeric virus is a ‘restricted experiment’ and requires prior approval from CDC before performing the experiment.

The regulation, available at www.federalregister.gov... icon, was published in the Federal Register and CDC will be accepting public comments on the addition of the agent for the next 60 days.

HHS/CDC believes that immediate regulatory oversight of these experiments and the resulting chimeric viruses is essential to protect the public from the potential consequences of a release of these viruses.
...

Import Permit Program (IPP) SARS/CoV-2

Here is the definition of Chimeric:

chi·mer·ic (kī-mĕr′ĭk, -mîr′-)
adj.
1. Relating to or being an organism, part, or molecule that is a chimera: chimeric mice; chimeric proteins.
2. Relating to a monoclonal antibody produced from the cells of a nonhuman organism, usually a mouse, in which a portion of the antibody has been replaced with a human sequence of amino acids. This is done in the laboratory by replacing part of the DNA sequence in the nonhuman cells with a sequence of human DNA.

chimeric

Remember that when president Trump stated we had evidence this virus was created in a Wuhan lab in China the mainstream media and even democrat leaders, the WHO, etc all claimed this statement by President Trump was based on "racism" and not on fact.

Well, on November 17th 2021 the CDC added the SARS/CoV-2 viruses as a chimeric deliberate manipulation, and any further manipulation of the virus has now to get the go ahead of the CDC.

Since almost the start of this plandemic we started getting information that proved the bio-weapons program to make SARS/Coronaviruses more lethal and infectious to humans was outsourced on purpose under the Obama administration and with the help of Fauci.

There is no other way the outsourcing of this virus to a communist dictatorship that has murdered millions of their own people on purpose had any other intention by Fauci and the Obama/Biden administration than to murder as many people as possible through such viruses. The claim by the Obama administration and Fauci that outsourcing these bio-weapons program to the U.S. and world's number 1 enemy, China, was to avoid any accidental release of the virus was an obvious lie because China has a history of more accidental release of viruses from labs than the U.S. has had.

Since the virus escaped apparently before they were able to weaponize it more then the goal was moved to make the vaccines as the delivery method to continue such bio-weapons program. Anyone who dared/dares release info on this bio-weapons program by China, the Obama administration and the Fauci's of the world has found themselves to be shunned from "the scientific community", has been denied funding, etc, and now the CDC is once again making it impossible for independent scientists to investigate this virus without the consent from the CDC itself which has been lying and continues to lie day in and day out about this plandemic.

Now no scientist/scientific group can investigate how to fight this virus or attempt to make any vaccines/mutate the virus unless they have permission from the CDC. Why?

oh thank god!

i thought my hamsters were up to no good again!

originally posted by: sarahvital

oh thank god!

i thought my hamsters were up to no good again!

Care to provide anything of substance and intelligent to the topic? Or is your entire premise to just dismiss the evidence you apparently don't want to accept?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: sarahvital

oh thank god!

i thought my hamsters were up to no good again!

Care to provide anything of substance and intelligent to the topic? Or is your entire premise to just dismiss the evidence you apparently don't want to accept?

well what else could have made it? are there other creatures on this planet with the capability to do it that some of us
don't know about? i would like to know.

i doubt it was lab monkey's that murdered the researchers and took over the lab,

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In answer to your question about why certain posters make so many incorrect claims about details, keep in mind that many people own stock in pharma and the shot manufacturers. Thus they repeat many false claims made by those companies. Stock owners have a financial stake in the outcome.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The resultant virus was chimeric, but they did not alter the source strains. They took the spike proteins from them and applied them to a benign virus which would not be a viable replicable reinfector.

The above claim of yours, among others, is completely wrong.

In another thread I posted this:

It is known as a matter of fact that the chimeric (lab made) strains like SHC014 are more contagious and more lethal (have a higher pathogenicity) than the natural strain WIV1 (rWIV1) (bat coronavirus). The natural bat coronavirus strain WIV1 (rWIV1) is relatively harmless to humans but it is more easily transmitted to humans.

Included in the excerpts I posted in the op you can even read this.

...
2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106 genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.
...

Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence

Which again it does prove intent. Chimeric (lab made viruses) coronavirus strains like SHC014S are more lethal and more infectious (higher pathogenicity) than the natural bat coronavirus WIV1 (rWIV1). The natural strain WIV1 (rWIV1) more easily infects humans than the lab made (chimeric) coronaviruses. So combining those three chimeric coronaviruses with a natural strain that is more easily transmitted to humans does make the recombinant coronavirus more lethal and infectious to humans.

originally posted by: Antisocialist
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This plandemic is just the first act, an experiment, in global population control.

Act 2, or the next plandemic will be a REAL killer. Expect it!

No matter how much I would like to deny I am afraid that you are right. The entire introduction of the virus to the world went like a procedure in progress... The media played a huge role in the scare tactics which made the population scream for a swift solution... A classic case of Hegelian Dialectic, problem-reaction-solution. It went all to organised and prepared... Its like an other 911, a global random striking enemy you can not see and potentially deadly.

There was also a part which was designed to condition the people, to make them familiar with the treath and measures to fight the pandemic. Yes...something real ugly is coming our way..

a reply to: zatara

Quite Right! Fear is a tremendous motivator in humans, and an essential part of the Plandemic.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: sarahvital

oh thank god!

i thought my hamsters were up to no good again!

Care to provide anything of substance and intelligent to the topic? Or is your entire premise to just dismiss the evidence you apparently don't want to accept?

That would be impossible, given a topic that relies on the misrepresentation of a very simple legislation on imports.

I'm amazed you managed to convince anyone you actually looked into this, starting with yourself. Not bad!

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is not saying that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric human made virus.

It is a ruling that SARS-CoV-2 is not to be used in future human made viruses. It is a ban on future experimentation that may use the virus as a basis.

It's amazing how many people read the same article as we do and conclude something entirely different.

I wonder if it's something to do with the dumbing down of the reading curriculum in schools that people can read the words but not understand what they've actually read.

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Antisocialist
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This plandemic is just the first act, an experiment, in global population control.

Act 2, or the next plandemic will be a REAL killer. Expect it!

No matter how much I would like to deny I am afraid that you are right. The entire introduction of the virus to the world went like a procedure in progress... The media played a huge role in the scare tactics which made the population scream for a swift solution... A classic case of Hegelian Dialectic, problem-reaction-solution. It went all to organised and prepared... Its like an other 911, a global random striking enemy you can not see and potentially deadly.

There was also a part which was designed to condition the people, to make them familiar with the treath and measures to fight the pandemic. Yes...something real ugly is coming our way..

Except that it is a terrible means of population control when compared to ones that already exist, such as legalized abortion, and access to contraception.

Statistically speaking, free porn is probably a better method of population control. People are who whack it regularly tend to have fewer children for various reasons, not limited to the fact that women tend not to want to date men who whack it constantly.

a reply to: Salander

Given the price of these shares, and the modest amount of rise per share, you'd already need to be a millionaire in order to really benefit in any noticeable way.

I also doubt that anything that anybody said on forums like this would have even the slightest effect on the value of those shares as they tend to hinge on the output of large news agencies rather than small forums.

You might also want to take in to account that some of the people who are speaking out own shares in rival companies. And thus gain absolutely no benefit whatsoever.