Introductory videos:

I quote heavily below from the Yan Report only because almost no scientifically credible statement has been made dealing with the substance of the report. Various interviews showed the political and personal dimensions of the story. As the only Mandarin speaker on the Hong Kong team, who all speak Cantonese, she formed a crucial link between Hong Kong’s research and the mainland. Her friends and family all faced threats and repression or, “were controlled” as she called it, from the Chinese government. Her mother has been arrested. Twitter, temporarily, and Facebook have banned circulation of her work.

From the WSWS article: “The viruses named RATG13 [sic] and SARS-CoV-2 were found to be 96 percent genetically similar.”

This statement seems to rely on the ignorance of the readership on genetics. The similarity between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 falls far short of the similarity between mice and men which measures in at 97.5%. Yet these two viruses should pass as identical? This “science” appears highly suspect.

From WSWS article: “A feature of SARS, MERS and COVID-19 is that they had a zoonotic origin, that is they originated in animal populations and then jumped into humans.”

Dr. Yan from Tucker Carlson interview: “So basically, this is very clear that this virus is like Frankenstein, so they created basically a cow that has a deer’s head, a rabbit’s ears, and also has monkey’s hands. So they can never get it from the nature. And there was evidence left in the genome.“

The WSWS has not discussed any of the science related to the manipulation or engineering of genes, DNA, RNA, or proteins. The science exists in many documents, even in the mainstream media. Yet none of this genetic modification or genetic engineering science enters into the writing of the WSWS article. Perhaps they found none of it entertaining? A real scientific perspective, however, and not a pop-science perspective should have informed the work.

The Yan Report tells us more about the RaTG13 virus, “What strengthens our contention further is the published RaTG13 virus [18], the genomic sequence of which is reportedly 96% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. While suggesting a natural origin of SARSCoV-2, the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC214,[18]. In fact, a Chinese BSL-3 lab (the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre), which published a Nature article reporting a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 rather than with RaTG13[35], was quickly shut down for “rectification”[36]. It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. On the other hand, substantial evidence has accumulated, pointing to severe problems associated with the reported sequence of RaTG13 as well as questioning the actual existence of this bat virus in nature[6,7,19-21]. A very recent publication also indicated that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the RaTG13’s Spike protein could not bind ACE2 of two different types of horseshoe bats (they closely relate to the horseshoe bat R. affinis, RaTG13’s alleged natural host)[2], implicating the inability of RaTG13 to infect horseshoe bats. This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated as the Spike protein encoded by this sequence does not seem to carry the claimed function. The fact that a virus has been fabricated to shift the attention away from ZC45/ZXC21 speaks for an actual role of ZC45/ZXC21 in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

The WSWS article attempts to completely eliminate any evidence contradicting this RaTG13 “discovery”, including the fact that RaTG13 cannot actually infect horseshoe bats, their alleged host!

From the WSWS article: “SARS-CoV-2 appears to bind with great affinity to the human ACE2 receptors, but computational analysis predicted that the interaction is not ideal. According to the New York Times, “the authors indicate that the high-affinity bindings of the virus’ spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely a by-product of natural selection that has permitted another ‘optimal binding solution to arise.’ They then conclude that this is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not a product of genetic reconstruction or tampering.”

“These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rule out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2,” wrote Kristian Andersen, associate professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, and co-leader of the study.”

The first argument above proves the flimsy logic that underlies their “science”. We are meant to believe that because the virus does not follow the “ideal” predicted by their “computational analysis”, that the lab did not create the “ideal” virus, that no lab had created it. This idealist thinking could just as easily prove that God created Covid-19 in the Book of Genesis! What better punishment to curse humanity? Marxists should know better and approach the problem from a historical-materialists perspective, not the idealist philosophy rejected long ago by revolutionaries.

What methods exist for the lab to create a virus? What historical advances has science made to make genetic manipulation of this type possible? Why do you leave out this vital history? The fact is, the spike protein on SARS-CoV-2 matches the spike protein on SARS-CoV, the virus responsible for SARS from 2002. The science exists to cut the genes which produce this spike and attach them to another viral backbone. SARS may not be the ideal predicted by the computer, but it does have a history of infecting human beings effectively. Can you understand that we learn from history more effectively rather than comparing reality to ideals?

The second argument, contains two flaws exposed by the Yan Report:

“Importantly, ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat coronaviruses that were discovered (between July 2015 and February 2017), isolated, and characterized by military research laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China). The data and associated work were published in 201833,34. Clearly, this backbone/template, which is essential for the creation of SARS-CoV-2, exists in these and other related research laboratories.”

In other words, Chinese military laboratories had viruses with backbones similar to that of Covid-19. The backbone was not “distinct” by any stretch of the imagination. This fact alone discredits the hypothesis that only nature could produce this virus.

Another mistake enters in through the claim that the spike protein “mutations” discussion. The Yan Report also answers these arguments. It considers all the possible courses through which natural evolution of the virus could have taken place, and it presents evidence to show that none of these possibilities could be reconciled with the evidence. (Yan 8-9) The report further states:

“In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.[1]”

To the contrary, the Yan report produces evidence to support the hypothesis that genetic manipulation alone could explain the presence of the spike protein on the new virus:

“Strikingly, consistent with the RBM engineering theory, we have identified two unique restriction sites, EcoRI and BstEII, at either end of the RBM of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, respectively (Figure 5A). These two sites, which are popular choices of everyday molecular cloning, do not exist in the rest of this spike gene. This particular setting makes it extremely convenient to swap the RBM within spike, providing a quick way to test different RBMs and the corresponding Spike proteins.

“Such EcoRI and BstEII sites do not exist in the spike genes of other β coronaviruses, which strongly indicates that they were unnatural and were specifically introduced into this spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 for the convenience of manipulating the critical RBM. Although ZC45 spike also does not have these two sites (Figure 5B), they can be introduced very easily as described in part 2 of this report.

“It is noteworthy that introduction of the EcoRI site here would change the corresponding amino acids from -WNT- to -WNS- (Figure 5AB). As far as we know, all SARS and SARS-like bat coronaviruses exclusively carry a T (threonine) residue at this location. SARS-CoV-2 is the only exception in that this T has mutated to an S (serine), save the suspicious RaTG13 and pangolin coronaviruses published after the outbreak[48].”

The above refers to discoveries produced by “gain-of-function” research, that is virology designed with function in mind. This research exists, and one aspect of the research that the Yan Report described deserves to be quoted, as it answers very well the claim that animal to animal transfers could not exist in a laboratory.

“Among various available animal models (e.g. mice, hamsters, ferrets, and monkeys) for coronaviruses, hACE2 transgenic mice (hACE2-mice) should be the most proper and convenient choice here. This animal model has been established during the study of SARS-CoV and has been available in the Jackson Laboratory for many years [102-104].

“The procedure of serial passage is straightforward. Briefly, the selected viral strain from step 4, a precursor of SARS-CoV-2, would be intranasally inoculated into a group of anaesthetized hACE2-mice. Around 2-3 days post infection, the virus in lungs would usually amplify to a peak titer. The mice would then be sacrificed and the lungs homogenized. Usually, the mouse-lung supernatant, which carries the highest viral load, would be used to extract the candidate virus for the next round of passage. After approximately 10~15 rounds of passage, the hACE2-binding affinity, the infection efficiency, and the lethality of the viral strain would be sufficiently enhanced and the viral genome stabilized [101]. Finally, after a series of characterization experiments (e.g. viral kinetics assay, antibodies response assay, symptom observation and pathology examination), the final product, SARS-CoV-2, would be obtained, concluding the whole creation process. From this point on, this viral pathogen could be amplified (most probably using Vero E6 cells) and produced routinely.”

The procedure described above would likely do enough to fill the “50 year gap” in the unlikely Pangolin theory of the WSWS. This animal to animal transfer would increase the strength of the virus many times more than any natural evolutionary process. Only a bureaucrat within the scientific establishment would want these experiments hidden. These revelations would bring regulations and oversight on a growing genetic engineering laboratory industry that has already caused irreparable harm through GMO agriculture.

One would have to read the entire report to get a full view of the scientific detail involved. However, we next need to reproduce two more parts from the report that explain the general overview in simple outline form.

From Part 1:

“Has SARS-CoV-2 been subjected to in vitro manipulation?
We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:
i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).
ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.
iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this
additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.”

From the Conclusion: “Motives aside, the following facts about SARS-CoV-2 are well-supported:

1. “If it was a laboratory product, the most critical element in its creation, the backbone/template virus (ZC45/ZXC21), is owned by military research laboratories.
2. “The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has likely undergone genetic engineering, through which the virus has gained the ability to target humans with enhanced virulence and infectivity.
3. “The characteristics and pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented. The virus is highly transmissible, onset-hidden, multi-organ targeting, sequelae-unclear, lethal, and associated with various symptoms and complications.
4. “SARS-CoV-2 caused a world-wide pandemic, taking hundreds of thousands of lives and shutting down the global economy. It has a destructive power like no other.”

The authors created various demands at the end of the report, one of which should enter into the demands of the SEP or Democratic Power with regard to the virus. “Judging from the evidence that we and others have gathered, we believe that finding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 should involve an independent audit of the WIV P4 laboratories and the laboratories of their close collaborators. Such an investigation should have taken place long ago and should not be delayed any further.”

An independent audit of all P4 laboratories with a report to the public! No more secret weapons of mass of destruction! Allow scientific research a guide appointed by the public! Eliminate the influence of big banks, corporations, and the military on public scientific institutions! Any delay only furthers the infection and death of millions!