Origins: Evidence Grows Covid-19 Is Lab Creation & Leaked from WIV

Birger Sorenson, a well-known and highly respected Norwegian virologist with an extensive background in cutting-edge HIV vaccine research, has concluded that SARS-CoV-2 possesses certain properties which would not evolve naturally. However, as has been the norm, the scientific community is actively and aggressively seeking to suppress his research and discredit the strengthening theory that Covid-19 originated in a Wuhan Institute of Virology lab and subsequently leaked—triggering a global pandemic.

The powers that be within the scientific community have made a concerted effort to shut down all forms of discussion and debate regarding the origins of Covid-19. Why? Because the free exchange of ideas (one of the principle pillars of the pursuit of science) has been stifled in order to protect a narrative—one that is both highly lucrative and in the self-interest of researchers to maintain.

Many alternative media sources—like Wicked Prepping—are becoming the only source of and platform for that discussion. We agree with Sorenson, who, in an interview with Aksel Fridstrom and Nils August Anderson of Minervanett, stated, “I understand that this is controversial, but the public has a legitimate need to know, and it is important that it is possible to freely discuss alternate hypotheses on how the virus originated.”

In this article, we will examine the case presented by Sorenson—a logical and empirically-backed argument in support of the strengthening theory (not conspiracy) that Covid-19 originated from a lab-manipulated construct and leaked from a Wuhan Institute of Virology facility in China… evidence that is being knowingly and intentionally ignored, suppressed, and discredited by the scientific community at large.

The Start of the Sorenson Covid-19 Origin Controversy

The controversy surrounding and the blacklisting of Sorenson by the preeminent scientific and medical journals (part of a far-larger scientific network) began when he was linked to statements by Sir Richard Dearlove, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).

Dearlove has publicly stated that he believes the Covid-19 virus was created in a lab and spread accidentally—an informed opinion predicated on peer-reviewed research by Angus Dalgleish, of St George’s Hospital at the University of London, and Sorensen.

Specifically, Dearlove noted their identification of “inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface,” which enable the virus to bind to human cells—and do so very efficiently and effectively.

Sir Richard recently doubled down on his assertion as the WHO prepared to travel to China to “investigate” the origin of the novel coronavirus, stating, “I subscribe to the theory… that it’s an engineered escapee from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” adding, “I am not saying anything other than it was the result of an accident and the virus is the consequence of gain-of-function experiments that were being conducted in Wuhan.”

Sir Richard Dearlove, former Chief of MI6, asserts that Covid-19 was an engineered virus (the consequence of gain-of-function work) that escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab.

And just like that, in the blink of an eye, Sorenson went from being a highly respected member of the “cool” club to a despised and discredited conspiracy nutcase and outcast. Oh, how fickle and capricious the scientific community has become—especially when you threaten their precious status quo.

Engineered Virus Leaked: Sorenson’s Covid-19 Theory

Sorensen and his colleagues have brought a chemistry-based vaccine-development approach to bear on understanding the Covid-19 virus, asserting that “by considering the virus from a chemistry perspective, [we have carried] out more detailed analysis, zooming in on certain components.”

The foundation of that approach is identifying which parts of the virus are stable and which parts are unstable—a critical process for developing vaccines.

Their findings?

Sorensen states, “What we found was that this virus was exceptionally well adjusted to infect humans… so well that it was suspicious.”

Remember, G4 EA H1N1 (an emerging novel swine flu strain) is a perfect example of a natural virus making the leap from animal to human. It demonstrates that—in nature—it is a very slow process and new strains are NOT well adjusted to infecting humans and transmitting between them.

Upon further study, what Sorenson and his team discovered was precisely what we revealed back in early May—a highly suspicious insertion of a furin cleavage site.

Hidden24

Sorensen notes, “What we have discovered is that there are properties in this new virus which enables it use an additional receptor, and create a binding to human cells in the upper respiratory tract and the intestines which is strong enough to produce an infection.”

It is this additional binding ability that allows SARS-CoV-2 to transmit so effectively between human—without having to attach itself to the ACE-2 receptors in the lower respiratory tract (as SARS-1 Classic and MERS must do).

This additional (and entirely novel and unique) pathway provides us with a critical explanation for several big questions:

  • Why so many are asymptomatic
  • Why asymptomatic patients are contagious
  • Why we see asymptomatic “super spreaders”
  • Why this novel coronavirus is capable of doing tremendous long-term damage to patients—without the typical tell-tale deep pneumonia impacts

Why SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Insertions are So Suspicious

Sorensen notes that “this part of the virus is very stable; it mutates very little. That points to this virus as a fully developed, almost perfected virus for infecting humans.”

Again, this is not what would be expected from a natural novel virus (cf. G4 EA H1N1).

Furthermore, he asserts that there are a total of six inserts in Covid-19 that stand out compared to other known SARS viruses—indicating it could not have evolved naturally.

Specifically, he notes that four of these six inserts have properties that make them especially suited to infect humans—a kind of aggregation of a type of property that is not natural… but can be done very easily in the lab via time-series culturing and gain-of-function manipulations.

Not only is this a highly unlikely natural outcome but, if it was natural, Sorenson argues we would expect to see a virus that “had attracted other properties through mutations, not just properties that help the virus to attach itself to human cells.”

In other words, the insertions are both too clean and too biased in the whole towards efficient and effective binding to human cells to be the product of natural mutation and evolution.

But what about nature?

Legacy Food Storage

Sorenson contends that “the properties that we now see in the virus, we have yet to discover anywhere in nature. We know that these properties make the virus very infectious, so if it came from nature, there should also be many animals infected with this, but we have still not been able to trace the virus in nature.”

He adds, “The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists, is in a laboratory. So, the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory.”

Wuhan Institute of Virology Facility—The Only Known Location of Similar Coronavirus Strains… and Where We Know Time-Series and Gain-of-Function Work Was Being Performed on Them

As such, he asserts that “those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof.” We could not agree more. The burden is on them to explain how the virus acquired these inserts by proving it exists in nature—outside of the laboratory.

The Response: An Impotent & Fallacious Rebuttal from Lab-Leak Deniers

In response, Dr. Rachael Tarlington, an associate professor of veterinary virology at the University of Nottingham, once again repeated the Party line, stating, “The artificial release theories seem to be a form of ‘magical thinking’—a simplistic solution to a complex problem where if someone can be blamed then that someone can be removed and the problem go away.”

She added:

“Unfortunately, real life just doesn’t work this way—manipulating viruses in the lab to change their pathogenicity is actually quite difficult and unpredictable and any group that had the ability to work on something like this would be well aware of how hard this is.”

This pathetic attempt to discredit the lab-construct and leak theory has repeatedly been proven utterly false. Researchers do this kind work (manipulating and engineering viruses) literally all the time, across the globe. It can be done easily and quickly by just about any grad student in the field. We’ll address this in more detail in the next section.

This is about the politicization and monetization of science—not about truth.

Magdalena Skipper, the editor-in-chief of one of the largest journals (Nature), agrees that there should be a healthy debate of theories and hypotheses in science.

However, she qualified that belief by stating in an interview for Sky News, “If one doesn’t see many publications in favor of certain theory, one has to conclude that that’s because there isn’t robust evidence in favor of that theory.”

That’s a dual logical fallacy. First, it represents a false dilemma that acknowledges only two options. We would argue that there is a very clear third option (one she is intentionally ignoring)—namely, the robust evidence is being intentionally subverted and discredited by the scientific community because it violates its political and ideological presuppositions… not to mention its pursuits of professional and financial gain.

Second, it is a massive oversimplification. In essence, this view is precisely the same argument that those in power within the scientific community level against alternative theories (e.g., Dr. Tarlington’s comments above).

Gain-of-Function Research—The Belly of the Viral Research Beast

Sir Richard noted that he does not believe the research was “particularly sinister.” We would agree, arguing that it was just incredibly reckless and dangerous—something we should not be engaged in.

However, gain-of-function (GOF) research is the golden child of the research community—the source of great fame and fortune. The pandemic has demonstrated that those who are engaged in it and reaping tremendous benefits from it will go to any lengths to defend and protect this dangerous and irresponsible type of research—work that (as Covid-19 demonstrates) puts humanity in clear and present danger… with absolutely nothing of benefit to show for it.

A perfect example of this exact type of research was a collaborative effort between the University of North Carolina and—you guessed it—the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Research that also involved—you guessed it again—the “bat lady” Shi Zhengli and Ralph Baric. The work was published in 2015 and documented experiments with laboratory created corona viruses—experiments using gain-of-function methods.

Specifically, the researchers note: “Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.”

So… let me get this straight. They did exactly what Dr. Tarlington said was “quite difficult and unpredictable and any group that had the ability to work on something like this would be well aware of how hard this is”—meaning, to be crystal clear, they “manipulat[ed] viruses in the lab to change their pathogenicity.”

And it was done in the lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Shi Zhengli, the "Bat Lady," working on virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab.

And what did they discover? Exactly what the world discovered with Covid-19. Namely, that their engineered coronavirus, strengthened through gain-of-function experiments could:

“Efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis.”

In other words, their Wuhan lab-created coronavirus (1) could utilize multiple ACE2 receptors, (2) could efficiently infect human airway cells, and (3) did so both in a petri dish (in vitro) and in live cells (in vivo).

Just to make it clear, this research—conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab and with the involvement of the bat lady and a major American university—”synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.”

This is a blueprint for what happened with Covid-19 and represents “robust” evidence in support of the lab-leak theory—evidence that deserves to be robustly debated… not silenced.

Concerningly, the researchers also noted that “evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.”

This demonstrates just how effective the modified spike protein of Covid-19 may be… and how difficult it is going to prove to be for us to develop an effective vaccine—or achieve any level of natural immunity.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

Incidentally, this very paper warned of the risks this type of research posed by creating more dangerous pathogens—especially in light of previously known accidents where corona viruses escaped from labs in China.

Natural Evolution or Lab Escape: Why Stifle the Covid-19 Debate Regarding Origin?

In our article The Endgame: Woldview Evolution & Why It Matters for Preppers, we discussed the devolution of our western worldview into process philosophy. The cornerstone of this framework is relativism.

The scientific community was the world’s last bastion of hope—the last place where there still existed a pursuit of truth predicated on the scientific method.

Sadly, we would argue that this stronghold has finally fallen. As a result, everything has become relative—there no longer exists any scientific truth… it is all a meaningless jumble of disjointed arguments predicated on relative factors and motivations.

Humanity has finally sunk to the point where there is no one—no “expert” out there—that can be trusted. Everything has become infected by political, ideological, and monetary drivers.

Covid-19 is no different. There is robust evidence—evidence that demands and deserves an equally robust scientific debate. A debate that seeks to discover whether this virus was the result of human engineering and gain-of-function research—research that it escaped from a lab to endanger the world.

The original paper written by Sorenson’s team suggested that Covid-19 be known as the “Wuhan virus” and stated that it was “beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID-19 virus is engineered.”

The paper was re-written multiple times after it was rejected, shunned, and blacklisted by the publishing community—a network of influential medical and science journals.

Following numerous editorial changes—none involving science-related matters, the paper was finally published in a smaller journal.

However, Sorenson and his team have been unable to find a single journal that will accept their pre-print follow-up study for publishing, which asserts that the coronavirus includes “unique fingerprints” that are “indicative of purposive manipulation.”

Again, the reasons for the rejections are not science-based. Rather, they are ideologically motivated. As we’ve repeatedly noted in our coverage of the pandemic, there are massive ties between China and the West—ties that involve significant flows of money, power, and control (especially when it comes to research).

Hidden24

These ties include global organizations (e.g., the World Health Organization), research foundations (e.g., EcoHealth Alliance), big business (viz., big pharma), elites (e.g., Bill Gates and his foundation), universities, and the publishing wing of the scientific community (aka the gatekeepers).

Conclusion

As we have seen—and repeatedly presented to our readers as new information and evidence has emerged, the most likely origin for Covid-19 was in a lab. It was developed through time-series and gain-of-function research… and it escaped from its lab confines.

While this theory has not been “proven,” the evidence has exceeded a legal “preponderance” standard and is approaching “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We must facilitate an open, transparent, and robust debate regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The world deserves and answer.

The burden of proof has shifted from the “tin hat” conspiracists to the establishment proponents of the natural hypothesis—it is now on them to provide evidence in favor of their “conspiracy” theory.

Sorenson illuminates that real battle that is going on behind the scenes when he states:

“Nobody wants to put forward the inconvenient truth, many scientists are also concerned about their own funding and position if they were to put forward such a controversial hypothesis. It is nevertheless a fact that many people on the web have engaged in such a debate. But so far, those who participate in such forums are characterized as conspiratorial. It is also the case that a debate about this type of viral research and the technologies used may damage reputation and lead to new restrictions on how to conduct molecular genetic research. With this in mind, it is not difficult to see that it must be difficult to get accepted papers in peer reviewed journals that focus on such research.”

We join with Sir Richard Dearlove, Sorenson, and a rapidly growing group of scientists around the globe in continuing to assert—based on the unbiased, empirical evidence—that the Covid-19 pandemic is the direct and exclusive result of the lab leak of a virus that was created via human engineering, including manipulation through time-series and gain-of-function work.

Why is this important? Because, if that is the case, we must ensure that it never happens again. There are things science can do… but absolutely shouldn’t be doing. If you play with fire long enough, eventually you will get burned. However, to not learn from that painful lesson would be an even greater tragedy.

Legacy Food Storage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *