By Carlos Esteban
The fact that billions of people were forced for years to believe that the virus that changed the world forever had a natural origin is perhaps the most incredible “psy-op” ever applied to humanity.
They claimed it was an accidental zoonosis transmitted from a bat or pangolin to a Chinese restaurant with exotic flavors, it was told, with all contrary opinions subjected to iron censorship.
Read also: Check out our coverage on curated alternative narratives
Jon Stewart, one of the most followed progressive television people in the U.S., has explained it humorously.
If a new coronavirus suddenly appears in a city where one of the world’s few most advanced coronavirus experimentation laboratories is located, it comes from that laboratory.
The transmission of a virus from one species to another is an extremely rare event (otherwise, we would have a pandemic every month), and to think that a new coronavirus has appeared in, of all places, the city that boasts one of the most advanced coronavirus experimentation laboratories in the world is just crazy.
What are the chances of such a coincidence?
A new study titled “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2” published on the preprint server bioRxiv, which is less than one in a hundred million.
Unlike previous studies that looked at qualitative aspects such as viral characteristics, the new study is the first to evaluate the likelihood of a laboratory origin.
This innovative methodology allows the authors to present objective results surpassing all previous studies.
What is interesting about the new study is that it does not rely on the evidence already known to point to a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2.
For example, it does not consider the highly unusual furin cleavage site that makes the virus particularly virulent and is most likely intentionally inserted into the virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Nor does it consider the remarkable coincidence that the pandemic began right on the doorstep of the world’s leading coronavirus laboratory.
Instead, the authors-Valentin Bruttel, a molecular immunologist at the University of Würzburg, Germany; Alex Washburne, a mathematical biologist at Selva Science; and Antonius VanDongen, a pharmacologist at Duke University-took, a novel approach that looks at the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from an entirely new angle.
The authors examined the tiny “fingerprints” created when viruses are assembled in laboratories.
While the use of seamless genetic engineering techniques to produce viruses in laboratories typically hides evidence of tampering, the new study developed a statistical method to reveal such hidden clues by comparing the distribution of certain strands of the genetic code in wild and laboratory-produced viruses.
Bruttel, Washburne, and VanDongen estimate that the probability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus arising naturally is between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1400.
However, this estimate considers only the distribution of borderline sites.
The authors also observed a concentration of mutations within the cut-off sites that is extremely unlikely in wild-type coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses.”
When these mutations are considered, the probability that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus drops to 1 in 100 million.
Taking into account additional criteria, such as the “sticky ends” where the viruses are “stuck together.”
If they all fit together perfectly, the authors estimate that the probability of a natural origin is even lower.
The authors conclude that SARS-CoV-2 was produced in a laboratory using standard methods for assembling viruses.
The authors do not speculate on which laboratory the virus escaped from.
Join us on Telegram: t.me/theriotimes