Interesting article.
The motive to suppress the origin of COVID is valid. "Not in the public's best interest." Liberal icon Tony Fauci was the ring leader.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ory-man-made-virus-weapon#amp-readmore-target
Whilst looking closely for these features it became immediately obvious that this virus was extremely unlikely to have come from a bat, even via another animal, as it had inserts around the receptor binding region and - a feature not present on any similar virus - that would make it more infectious.
Moreover, these features had been previously published by researchers in Wuhan, which was the largest coronavirus research laboratory in the world.
We, therefore, concluded that the chances that this virus was not natural but had escaped from the laboratory were extremely high and pointed out that SARS-1 had escaped from high-security laboratories on over six occasions since its isolation.
We wrote a manuscript and shared it with the Government, Cabinet and scientific advisors saying that it was extremely likely that this was a laboratory escape and had clear and present security implications. Imagine our surprise when we were told quite categorically that there was no way it could have been a laboratory escape and was a natural zoonosis. We tried to publish this on many occasions and each and every one of the top journals, including Nature, Science, The Lancet and many others refused to publish this as it was not in the public interest.
The motive to suppress the origin of COVID is valid. "Not in the public's best interest." Liberal icon Tony Fauci was the ring leader.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ory-man-made-virus-weapon#amp-readmore-target
Whilst looking closely for these features it became immediately obvious that this virus was extremely unlikely to have come from a bat, even via another animal, as it had inserts around the receptor binding region and - a feature not present on any similar virus - that would make it more infectious.
Moreover, these features had been previously published by researchers in Wuhan, which was the largest coronavirus research laboratory in the world.
We, therefore, concluded that the chances that this virus was not natural but had escaped from the laboratory were extremely high and pointed out that SARS-1 had escaped from high-security laboratories on over six occasions since its isolation.
We wrote a manuscript and shared it with the Government, Cabinet and scientific advisors saying that it was extremely likely that this was a laboratory escape and had clear and present security implications. Imagine our surprise when we were told quite categorically that there was no way it could have been a laboratory escape and was a natural zoonosis. We tried to publish this on many occasions and each and every one of the top journals, including Nature, Science, The Lancet and many others refused to publish this as it was not in the public interest.
