Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories

(ORDO NEWS) — Jeffrey Sachs, an American scientist who led a commission to investigate the origins of the coronavirus in the most respected medical journal The Lancet, said that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from “American biotechnology laboratories” and was not “natural”.

The statement made a lot of noise, although it is unlikely to lead to a corresponding investigation in the West. But there are a number of details that do not allow us to believe that the mystery of the pandemic has been solved. Let’s try to figure out why.

In general, Jeffrey Sachs is a famous economist, not a biologist. However, the scientist really enjoys great prestige and reputation as an impartial researcher. He actually chaired The Lancet ‘s Covid-19 commission for a long time. Therefore, the video below produced the effect of an exploding bomb on many:

Here is a translation of what Sacks says: “I chaired the Lancet Covid commission for two years. I’m almost convinced that it came from American biotech laboratories and not from nature. I’ll just note that there were two years of intensive study: this is a blunder, in my opinion, of biotechnology, and not a natural distribution.

We don’t know for sure, I have to make it absolutely clear, but there’s ample evidence that it’s worth looking into, and it’s not being looked into, either in the US or elsewhere. I think there are reasons: they don’t want to look under the carpet.”

Why does the natural origin of the coronavirus raise questions?

Earlier, Sachs, together with another scientist , published in the very prestigious American scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a call for an investigation into the version of the laboratory origin of the coronavirus. There he sets out his point of view in some detail, and in such a way that the reader willy-nilly imbued with it.

As Sachs notes, there are two main versions of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. According to the first, a person picked it up from an infected animal. According to the second, the researchers in the laboratory “did something wrong” and accidentally released the virus.

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 2
Horseshoe bats are common in China. Usually these species are considered the source of a new disease

The first version – and this is true – has weaknesses and questions that have not yet been answered. And perhaps there won’t be. The main problem is this: when a virus passes from an animal to a person, it cannot immediately die out from the animal source. That simply doesn’t happen.

The classic example is monkeypox. In Europe, many thousands of people are already sick with it, but no one says that it was bred in laboratories. You can simply come to Africa, catch monkeys or rodents suffering from this disease, and find antibodies to monkeypox in them, or even the virus itself, if the animal is sick in the active phase.

But you can’t go to China and find a bat with Covid-19 there. No one can: such mice have never been found . Moreover, when scientists tried to infect them with SARS-CoV-2, it didn’t work out very well for endemics in China.

Natural or even close to natural cases of the transition of coronavirus from humans to bats are unknown. This is strange: genetically, it is bat coronaviruses that are closest to SARS-CoV-2.

This is the moment that looks especially bad. Suppose bats have strong immunity that humans do not have. Let’s say that on a human the virus is “toothless” so much that it cannot infect a mouse, and the original line of the virus among all the same mice, by incredible chance, quickly died out, leaving no “descendant”.

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 3
The Egyptian flying dog in the experiments was at least infected with SARS-CoV-2, although it was even difficult to understand without tests – the disease passed so easily. But in China, this animal is not found. That is, it could not be the source of a new disease

But even in this case, it should penetrate at least into the cells of bat tissues grown in laboratories. After all, they are not reached by the antibodies of the working immunity of the “whole” live mouse.

However, it is often not possible to introduce the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 of the 2019 sample into the cell culture of bats (there is a species of bats in which it was possible to induce a mild, rapidly passing infection with this virus intranasally, but they do not live in China).

But SARS-CoV-1 (the coronavirus of the 2002 model, which was called “SARS”), on the contrary , multiplied there.

As the authors of the work that tells about this write , the above suggests a “different evolutionary origin” of the two coronaviruses – SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2.

Let’s face it: the inability to reproduce even in bat cells indicates a significant genetic distance between the pathogen of these animals and another virus that has kept humanity in suspense for two years.

Meanwhile, it looks absurd. It is known that coronavirus spreads well from humans to other species of animals: wild deer, lions, leopards are massively infected with it, even the Russian Amur tiger Jupiter in an American zoo recently died of Covid-19.

Mass distribution among such, to put it mildly, different mammals means that the virus easily overcomes the interspecies barrier, while not in a hurry to die in the previous carriers. And this is logical: viruses by themselves, without the complete extermination of their carriers, die out reluctantly.

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 4

In principle, this is possible without biolaboratories. For example, if there was some intermediate host animal whose immunity was weaker than that of bats. The genetic ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 is precisely the bat coronaviruses, they are its “cousins”, this is clearly shown by the analysis of the virus genes.

But if the bats themselves do not have it, then the species arose after the “mouse ancestor” got into some other species. Having adapted, so to speak, to the “intermediate link”.

The trouble is that so far everything is bad with this intermediate link. Searches – even among such exotics as the pangolin – yielded nothing. However, this does not mean that they do not exist: scientists are still discovering new species of mammals, so not noticing the virus in one of them is not at all a problem.

“Yes, you yourself are laboratory!”

Until the “missing link” is found, it is impossible to completely get rid of the version of the laboratory origin of the Covid-19 pathogen. It’s no secret that many countries have been researching coronavirus since SARS-CoV-1, which caused “SARS” 20 years ago.

Then the matter was limited to an outbreak, which was quickly extinguished, since the lethality of that virus was higher than that of smallpox, and the insanely frightened medical authorities carried out quarantine for real, and not like, say, in Russia during this epidemic (that is, in no way).

In 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology discovered the RaTG13 virus in bats, the closest known relative of the 2019 Wuhan coronavirus, the same “cousin” we talked about above.

And yes, the institute is physically located literally next to the same Wuhan seafood market, which, as many believe, became the initial focus of Covid-19. It is worth noting that he conducted the work in close cooperation with scientists from the United States of America.

In order to understand the potential of pathogenic viruses, in the process of some studies, they tried to adapt it to the human body (more precisely, to an organism close to the human).

In principle, this is not so difficult: you can give large doses of the virus to monkeys, or simply plant them in the tissues of such laboratory-grown animals, until the virus mutates enough to survive on them. Other methods are possible, namely, genetic modification by various methods.

However, the recognition of such a version is undesirable in the eyes of the scientific community. If it took place, it would be difficult to avoid serious restrictions on the freedom of hands of scientists in biolaboratories.

Many areas of research would be closed. To assert this, weighty evidence is needed, otherwise we will seriously deviate from the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Therefore, a “hybrid”, natural-artificial version of the origin of the “Wuhan” appeared. She is especially loved by WHO, whose head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus once honestly stated about the origin of SARS-CoV-2: “I myself was a laboratory worker, an immunologist, and laboratory incidents happen.”

According to this view, someone collected samples of viruses from bats in nature, brought them to the laboratory, then its worker became infected and spread the disease “into the wild.”

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 5
Janet Parker, the last person to die from smallpox – just escaped from the laboratory

By the way, this is quite possible. It’s no secret that the last death from smallpox in history happened in the UK in exactly this way: the virus was stored in a laboratory, the institution’s photographer picked it up.

Since 40-year-old Janet Parker was vaccinated against smallpox a long time ago (the woman did not have a recent revaccination, and the old smallpox vaccine protects moderately – just like with the coronavirus vaccine), she died, and the laboratory employee involved, feeling guilty, committed suicide.

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 6
Professor Henry Bedson, Head of Medical Microbiology, University of Birmingham. His suicide note read: “I am sorry that I did not live up to the trust placed by many of my friends and colleagues in me and my work”

The problem, however, is that the hybrid version also leaves questions. If the virus escaped from the laboratory, then the species of animal from which it was taken should still be sick with the “missing link”. Where is it?

So far this is not known.

Why Jeffrey Sachs’ candidness will get you nowhere

All of the above does not mean that anyone seriously believes that the coronavirus is not just “laboratory”, but was also deliberately released by conditional reptilians.

It just doesn’t make any practical sense: China, the United States, and in general any country capable of “finishing” the coronavirus, suffered from it in such a way that only a madman could knowingly release such a pathogen out. Nevertheless, the “unintentional” version, it would seem, deserves to be studied.

It is not even so important whether there was a modification of the virus for scientific purposes, or we simply “missed” what was collected in nature. In both cases, experience means a lot: it will allow us to avoid such sad mistakes in the future.

After all, after the negative example of laboratory smallpox, there were no more such incidents. Considering that more people have already died from the coronavirus than in the world war , it is highly desirable to do without “doubles” of such an event.

But there’s a problem. The appeal of Jeffrey Sachs went to deaf ears. There are both subjective and objective reasons for this.

Subjective: Sachs has an independence of views that is unacceptable in modern Western society. Of course, the bearer of such views, to put it mildly, is subjected to censure in the United States, as well as attempts at the notorious “cancellation”.

Equally unacceptable to the media is that Sachs dares not to stigmatize China in his speeches, which is considered good form in the Western world.

Of course, the opinion of such a person cannot be weighty in the modern States or the European Union: in this sense, Sachs is a real anachronism, from the past of the Western world.

But there are objective problems. Let’s say Sachs would not have the above views, which is why he would be absolutely respected member of society in all respects.

What then? How to find out what really happened? In the PNAS article cited above, he calls for the publication of a number of currently closed materials on biological projects in the United States.

But the likelihood of this scenario developing is low. No one will declassify questions of this kind: it is, to put it mildly, unsafe.

And it’s even more troublesome, because it’s all not that legal. Just like the CIA’s poison development program or the so-called mind control program once carried out by American intelligence on experimental people, the notorious MKUltra.

However, this is not the only thing. Let’s ask ourselves a question: if the virus leaked out of the laboratory, would its employees really not know about it?

You can’t work on coronaviruses for years and not notice that one of them has slipped away. What will you do then? Either go to the press in repentance – or even take your own life in repentance, like that professor from the British laboratory where smallpox escaped – or hide it.

Judging by the fact that the first did not happen, even if the virus originated from the laboratory, we will not know about it. In the two years since the start of the pandemic, even a slow-thinking person would have cleared all traces long ago.

And by the SARS-CoV-2 genes themselves, it is unrealistic to find out whether it was bred in the laboratory or arose naturally. It turns out that now it’s too late to “wave a saber” in search of an invisible enemy.

Head of the Lancet commission considers the coronavirus a product of American biological laboratories 7
By the spring of 2022, it has been determined from DNA in Chinese forests that there may be dozens of species of hawk-nosed bats that have not yet been discovered by scientists. Simply put, the original reservoir could be an unknown species of mammal. Although not necessarily bats

With the same success, he could come to us from some little-known species of the same bats or from their population, tightly isolated in normal times. But we emphasize that it is extremely difficult to reliably separate this scenario from the artificial one.

Still, it would be worth trying. Will we get lucky?

We won’t catch up – so at least we’ll warm up

Even if the investigation does not yield anything, it will at least refresh the topic, return the attention of the population to it. Recall: the media have long written little about the coronavirus, which is often interpreted as “it is not ordered to write.”

This is hardly the case. And not only because the same Kremlin honestly admits that inside its walls the mask regime and restrictions work.

Another thing is more important: media workers often turn to topics that attract attention and collect more views, while the “coronavirus” one has long been collecting little. The reasons why this is happening are clear: there is little public interest in Covid-19 anymore.

But it cannot be said that there is nothing to write about this topic. Insufficient desire to be vaccinated in our country leads to the fact that the period of effective action of the vaccine (about six months) in the population is exhausted, it does not revaccinate, as a result, even those vaccinated some time ago are often left without effective protection against the virus.

Those who are ready to be revaccinated every six months, as the vaccine developers recommend, will finally receive a big gift this summer. It is injected into the nose, which not only prevents infection “from the very beginning”, but also deprives the vaccinated of possible side effects: a slight rise in temperature, mild muscle pain, and the like.


Contact us: [email protected]

Our Standards, Terms of Use: Standard Terms And Conditions.