Dr. Li-Meng Yan: Covid-19 Whistleblower

[Star Tsar]

Meet Dr. Li-Meng Yan, A virologist from Hong Kong.
She arrived in the US at the beginning of April, She is in hiding as she uncovered that the communist party of China & The World Health Organisation covered up human to human transmission of Covid 19.

Here are her interviews with Fox news

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gFvCv-tvwhk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7voTUuVT5i4

[Star Tsar]

Zooming In with Simone Gao

The Coverup Of The Century

Published 28th June 2020

Zooming In’s one-hour documentary movie follows investigative reporter Simone Gao’s inquiry into critical questions about the pandemic: What did the Chinese Communist leadership do at the early stages of the outbreak? What significant truth have they concealed from the world, and why did they do that?

The documentary also casts light on why the Chinese Communist Party was not held accountable for the past 40 years and what can be learned from the western world’s history of dealing with Communist China.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MZ74NhEUY-w

[Star Tsar]

Zooming In with Simone Gao

What Did She Not Reveal? Part One - The China Angle

Published 14th July 2020

Today we will focus our investigation on Dr. Yan Li-meng, a new whistleblower from Hong Kong who was interviewed by Fox News about the CCP’s coverup of the pandemic. In the interview, Dr. Yan said she had uncovered evidence that the Chinese authorities were aware of human-to-human transmission of the outbreak in late December.

Most of that information had already been made public, so why would Fox News spend the 13 minutes of their broadcast focused on that information despite having 4 hours of interview material with Dr. Yan? What did they leave out? How early did the Chinese government know this could become a pandemic?

The Fox News interview did not address these questions, but we did. Two weeks ago, in our one-hour documentary “The Coverup of the Century,” we exclusively investigated why the Chinese leadership encouraged Chinese people to travel abroad while placing a nationwide lockdown.

Did the CCP simply want to cover up the source of the pandemic? Or did they have more sinister motives in mind, like an intentional spreading of the virus to the rest of the world? In this episode of the China Angle, we delve into these questions.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dg1EcIZ5tFA

[chancy]

Hello Everyone: This is the information we have all waited for! This corona virus is just doing too many things for it to be a natural corona virus.
Now we have a Virologist who says she can prove it was engineered in the Wuhan Laboratory!
chancy

Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Claims Coronavirus Lab 'Cover-Up' Made Her Flee China

Video Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lq3_rsBJ9w

Story:
Chinese Virologist Claims She Has Proof the Covid-19 Virus Was Made in Wuhan Laboratory
[News18]
News18September 14, 2020
Chinese Virologist Claims She Has Proof the Covid-19 Virus Was Made in Wuhan LaboratoryChinese Virologist Claims She Has Proof the Covid-19 Virus Was Made in Wuhan Laboratory

Almost ten months into a global pandemic, the cause of the news SARS-Cov-2 virus is still undecided. It has been speculated by health experts, scientists and epidemiologists that the virus may have originated from a wet-food market in Wuhan, China.

The new novel coronavirus outbreak was first reported in Wuhan, China and was traced back to the sea-food market, which soon became the hotspot and was considered to be the origin centre, where a virus jumped from a bat or a pangolin onto humans.

Conspiracy theorists, however, have mentioned multiple times over that the virus is "man-made" in a Wuhan lab, located dangerously close to the wet sea-food market. Back in April, a French Nobel prize winning scientist Luc Montagnier had also sparked a fresh controversy by making the same claim.

Now, a Chinese virologist who has allegedly fled China, claims that she has proof that the SARS-Covid-2 virus is in fact man-made in a Wuhan lab.

Speaking on ITV's Loose Women, Dr. Li-Meng Yan who is described as "a scientist who was working at the Hong Kong School of Public Health when she turned whistleblower on the Chinese Government, after she alleged they knew about the spread of the coronavirus before publicly acknowledging the outbreak."

The description also adds that "a result, Dr Li claims she had to flee to the US for her own safety and is now determined to spread her findings to the world. She joined the Loose Women from a secret location to tell us why she felt compelled to speak out, even if it meant putting her life on the line."

Dr Li, states that while working at Hong Kong's School of Public Health, her supervisor first asked her to investigate a new "SARS-like" virus in Wuhan on December 31 - but that her efforts were later stifled.

She said she reported back that cases appeared to be rising exponentially but was told to "keep silent and be careful."

"We will get in trouble and we'll be disappeared," is what was allegedly told to her.

She also said she has proof that the virus came from a virology lab in the city and not from the wet-food market.

"The genome sequence is like a human fingerprint," she says in the video released on YouTube.

"Based on this you can identify these things. "I will [use this] evidence to tell people why this has come from the lab in China, why they are the ones who made it," she adds. "Anyone, even if you have no biology knowledge, will be able to read it, and check and identify and verify it yourself."

She added that the Chinese authorities began to discredit her even before she fled the country. "They deleted all my information and also they told people to spread rumours about me," she said.

The Chinese National Health Commission, World Health Organisation and University Of Hong Kong disputed her claims.

In March, a paper published in science journal Nature on the proximal origins of Covid-19 found that "analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus."

An author of the paper, "By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that [Covid-19] originated through natural processes."

[sunwings]

Thanks for posting this, a very brave young woman who could blow the lid on this whole cover-up. She will release a paper shortly explaining her investigation. At the end of December, being the only virologist who speaks Mandarin the HK University, she was secretly sent in December to investigate an outbreak of Pneumonia in Wuhan. Her first-hand experiences and evidence collected really could help us to definitively proove the virus was created in Wuhan.

[Star Tsar]

Dr. Li-Meng Yan's recent appearance on UK television's "Loose Women".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Lq3_rsBJ9w

[Agape]

Here I’m seeing the article the world has been waiting for long enough:

Unusual features of the SARS-Co-V 2 genome suggesting laboratory modification rather than natural evolution

and Covid 2 genetically engineered to target humans

reiterating the timeline of its origin (2015-2017) and close resemblance to the SARS coronavirus, researched then by several laboratories ...together with related bat viruses.


Dr. Li-Meng Yan Twitter account has been suspended following her initial statements as “Twitter administrators” can’t wrap their heads around or agree with such findings.

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?


How long are they all going to lie to themselves ?

🛸

[Star Tsar]

With all the space related terminology involved in this issue these words cannot escape my mind since reading them...

Posted by Agape (here)
genetically engineered to target humans

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Agape (here)

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?

How long are they all going to lie to themselves ?

It has to be malice, part of the global malice that's now so very highly co-ordinated. I truly don't see any other explanation.

It's not unawareness or unintelligence. These social media corporate executives are not dumb.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Agape (here)

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?

How long are they all going to lie to themselves ?

It has to be malice, part of the global malice that's now so very highly co-ordinated. I truly don't see any other explanation.

It's not unawareness or unintelligence. These social media corporate executives are not dumb.

I think malice too, and it could be their undoing. The Streisand effect.



- which then went viral.

[Franny]

Spiro asks a few questions regarding Dr Li Meng Yan.

This photo raises a question or two as well.

[Tintin]

A copy of Li-Meng Yan's report is now in the Avalon Library, here.

It's also downloadable from here.

[Agape]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Agape (here)

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?

How long are they all going to lie to themselves ?

It has to be malice, part of the global malice that's now so very highly co-ordinated. I truly don't see any other explanation.

It's not unawareness or unintelligence. These social media corporate executives are not dumb.

I agree it’s a deep regretful ignorance dwelling on political correctness while suppressing the release of acutely needed information that may save millions of lives and destinies in its implications if well understood.

China was obviously well prepped forwards and contained the epidemic outbreak in Wuhan with great efficiency and smallest numbers of victims compared to lasting epidemic outbreaks in many other countries.
Yet they’ve never answered to information requests about the virus true origin that could have been even accidental leak from one of the labs or an attack from one of their inner terror groups supported by wealthy patrons we in most cases know nothing about than they exist.

But obviously the genomic profile of the virus and its risky behaviour was known to them earlier than everyone else yet they never released details.


How different this turned out to be from the situation of Wikileaks. But now, the ignorance and hesitation and malice that initiated this global pandemics no matter who started it costs lives and families.

It’s quite faulty to overlook such information instead offering full protection to the team researching it risking both common and scientific credit and forsaking all consideration for the rest of this mankind.


😷

[HaveBlue]

Thank you to OP. This is great info and when we join it up with the Chair of Harvard med school Dr Leiber caught working for Wuhan Lab and lying to the FBI, along with 2 of his students caught at Boston Logan Airport with vials of genetic material hidden in their luggage.

Dr Fauchi is caught up in all this for sure and he looks more and more nervous every time he appears on camera now. Fauchi seems to be linked to every questionable lab and germ 'study' in the world! He certainly looks the villain having obviously being told to get out there and 'remind them why they need us' (borrowed straight from V for Vendetta) of which it seems is being played out in real life, along with a virus at the centre of it all. More predictive programming.

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Agape (here)

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?

How long are they all going to lie to themselves ?

It has to be malice, part of the global malice that's now so very highly co-ordinated. I truly don't see any other explanation.

It's not unawareness or unintelligence. These social media corporate executives are not dumb.

About who/what can be behind that vicious, malicious scheme:

"It Will Happen In The Coming Months" 8:26

Sep 4, 2020

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ttH4-52xZgc

Video Advice
2.51M subscribers


► Special thanks to PATRICK WOOD. Check out his channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSHx...

[Star Tsar]

Posted by Agape (here)
Dr. Li-Meng Yan Twitter account has been suspended following her initial statements as “Twitter administrators” can’t wrap their heads around or agree with such findings.

Why did Twitter suspend the account of Dr Li-Meng Yan ?

A decent report...

Gravitas With Palki Sharma

Wuhan Virus Lab Theory: Chinese Virologist Loses Her Twitter Account

Published 19th September 2020

Dr Li Meng Yan says the Wuhan virus came from a lab. Some scientists say her claims are highly speculative. Twitter has suspended Dr Li's account. Will Twitter use the same yardstuck against Chinese diplomats - who have been caught sharing fake news? Palki Sharma Upadhyay has more.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hks3Ve6B-fk

&

China Is Blocking Coronavirus Lawsuits

Published 19th September 2020

Zhong Hanneng and Zhang Hai tried to sue the Chinese government over the Wuhan virus outbreak. But their lawsuits were 'abruptly rejected'. Palki Sharma Upadhyay brings you the voices of two Chinese citizens, who dared to take on the Communist Party.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rWDT2D6odSY

[Bill Ryan]

A very comprehensive new Dr Mercola article:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...ronavirus.aspx

New Report Claims to Shed Light on SARS-CoV-2 Origin

27 Sept, 2020

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xJxlOgC9Yr0

Story at-a-glance

• A paper by Dr. Li-Meng Yan — a former researcher at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, a top coronavirus research lab — claims to present evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 likely underwent genetic manipulation.

• Yan previously accused the Chinese government and World Health Organization representatives in Hong Kong of covering up the Wuhan outbreak.

• On the morning of September 14, 2020, Yan posted a link to her paper on Twitter. Shortly thereafter, she posted another tweet saying Zenodo was “immediately hacked” and taken down once the report was posted.

• Yan and colleagues propose SARS-CoV-2 was made using the ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus as the backbone. The receptor-binding motif in the spike protein was then manipulated to give the virus the ability to strongly bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

• Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, is yet another scientist who questions the zoonotic nature of SARS-CoV-2. Since it sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission, Chan believes the missing intermediate phase of evolution took place in a lab.

July 31, 2020, I wrote about a Hong Kong whistleblower scientist who claims the Chinese government and World Health Organization representatives in Hong Kong covered up the Wuhan outbreak, allowing it to spread unchecked around the world.

In a Fox News interview in July 2020, the whistleblower, Dr. Li-Meng Yan — who worked at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, a top coronavirus research lab — said her investigation into the SARS-like outbreak in Wuhan could have helped prevent a global pandemic from developing, had her supervisors shared her findings.

Yan was interviewed by Fox News again September 15, 2020 (above), this time about the report she just published, and Twitter promptly began censoring the interview from its platform.

Yan claims her supervisor, WHO consultant Leo Poon, asked her to, secretly, investigate reports of a SARS-like illness spreading in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019. The Chinese government had refused overseas experts from getting involved, and Poon wanted her to figure out what was really going on.

Yan turned to a professional colleague who works in the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and had first-hand information about the outbreak. Yan was told there was likely human-to-human transmission occurring, as they had found family clusters of cases.

The WHO, however, did not confirm the human-to-human spread potential for several weeks. On the contrary, an official WHO statement said the virus “does not transmit readily between people.”

January 16, 2020, Yan was again asked to reach out to her contacts in China to see if she could learn more. Her CDC contacts were fearful, but it became clear that patients and front-line doctors were not being properly protected, and that Chinese authorities were trying to keep a lid on the flow of information.

When she updated Poon, he told her to stay silent and not cross the Chinese government, or else they’d both be “disappeared.” The co-director of the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health laboratory, professor Malik Peiris, also stayed quiet. Yan told Fox News she believes WHO colluded with the China Communist Party (CCP) government to prevent information about the virus from coming out.

The Yan Report Is Instantly Censored

Back in July 2020, Yan claimed she had proof that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade, and that once she released it, she would make it accessible to all. September 11, 2020, The Sun quoted statements made by Yan during a British TV interview that same morning, in which she said:

“The genome sequence is like a human fingerprint. Based on this you can identify these things. I will [use this] evidence to tell people why this has come from the lab in China, why they are the ones who made it. Anyone, even if you have no biology knowledge, will be able to read it, and check and identify and verify it yourself.”

Three days later, September 14, 2020, Yan and her Ph.D. colleagues, Shu Kang, Jie Guan and Shanchang Hu, published the report, “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route” on the preprint server Zenodo.

On the morning of September 14, Yan posted a link to the paper on her Twitter account. Shortly thereafter, she posted another tweet saying Zenodo was “immediately hacked” once the report was posted. The following day, September 15, Twitter suspended her account. According to Yan’s report:

"The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.

Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.”

Before I get into the content of Yan’s report, it’s worth noting that questions have arisen as to whether she might be “controlled opposition.” Her report also appears very similar to the work of Yuri Deigin. In a September 16 Twitter post, Deigin says:

“While it is flattering to see the Yan report citing our preprint with @Rossana38510044, I have to admit, I expected a whistleblower to present much more convincing (and new) evidence than just a rehash of what was already known months ago. Also, why no mention of the 2012 outbreak?”

Interestingly, a formerly anonymous scientist has now stepped forward as one of the three co-authors of Yan’s paper. The anonymous scientist has detailed scientific evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus, and that there appears to be a concerted effort to promote the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, in a blog called Nerd Has Power.

I reviewed some of the key take-home points of this work in “Why Was Wuhan Lab Locked Down When Outbreak Began” and “Undetectable Engineering Methods Used to Create SARS-CoV-2.”

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (a nonprofit research group that exposes human rights abuses and the myth of overpopulation) has previously noted that because Nerd Has Power “published his raw data, I and others have been able to check and verify his work.”

In a September 14, 2020, Twitter post, 'Nerd Has Power' identifies himself as Shu Kang, one of the four authors of the Yan report. “Like my co-authors, I stand by this report 100%,” Kang says.

Yan Report Claims SARS-CoV-2 Was Genetically Engineered

As of this writing, the Zenodo website is back up and Yan’s paper is again available for viewing. Below are a few chosen excerpts. (If you like, you can compare it to Yurin’s Medium article.)

“The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering.

The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus.

The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor.

In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C).

In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.

Figure 3. Structure of the SARS Spike protein and how it binds to the hACE2 receptor.

A) Three spike proteins, each consisting of a S1 half and a S2 half, form a trimer.
B) The S2 halves (shades of blue) are responsible for trimer formation, while the S1 portion (shades of red) is responsible for binding hACE2 (dark gray).
C) Details of the binding between S1 and hACE2. The RBM of S1, which is important and sufficient for binding, is colored in orange. Residues within the RBM that are important for either hACE2 interaction or protein folding are shown as sticks (residue numbers follow the SARS Spike sequence).

Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.

Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS).

The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21.

Figure 4. Sequence alignment of the spike proteins from relevant coronaviruses.

Viruses being compared include SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-Hu-1: NC_045512, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1: MN997409), bat coronaviruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45: MG772933, Bat_CoV_ZXC21: MG772934), and SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02: AY390556, SARS: NC_004718.3).

Region marked by two orange lines is the receptor-binding motif (RBM), which is important for interaction with the hACE2 receptor. Essential residues are additionally highlighted by red sticks on top. Region marked by two green lines is a furin-cleavage site that exists only in SARS-CoV-2 but not in any other lineage B β coronavirus.

Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact ‘copy and paste,’ careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are ‘kept.’

Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4).

The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic ‘substitutions’ … which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have ‘mutated’ (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines).

Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction ...

The way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.”

Why Natural Origin Theory Fails

Yan’s paper goes on to explain why the natural evolution origin theory fails to hold water. She points out that were it the result of wholly natural evolution, its RBM would have to have been acquired either through a) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution, or b) a natural and fairly recent recombination event. Yan dismisses the ancient recombination/convergent evolution option, stating, in part:

“ … the virus would have to adapt extensively in its new host, where the ACE2 protein is highly homologous to hACE2 [human ACE2]. Random mutations across the genome would have to have occurred to eventually shape the RBM to its current form — resembling SARS-CoV RBM in a highly intelligent manner.

However, this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low.

The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.”

She also dismisses the second, recent recombination event, option stating

“In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination:

1. that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity;
2. that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal;
3. that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct;
4. that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.

In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans.

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 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.”

Pangolin and Other Animals Are Unlikely Intermediary Hosts

There is a third possibility for natural evolution, Yan notes, that of an intermediary host, but this theory also has a significant flaw. “The ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2,” the paper states.

It also added that several laboratories have reported that Sunda pangolins carrying coronaviruses with a near-identical receptor-binding domain to that of SARS-CoV-2 have been smuggled into China from Malaysia. Some have argued that these pangolins were likely intermediary hosts. There are several problems with this theory, however, including the following:

• Even though Sunda pangolins have been sampled between 2009 and 2019, no coronaviruses have ever been found in those samples.
• Recent research shows the receptor-binding domain shared by SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses binds 10 times stronger to the human ACE2 receptor than it does to the pangolin ACE2 receptor.
• Other research has demonstrated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined have more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein than the human ACE2 receptor. According to Yan:

“This study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak.

This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host”

Restriction Enzyme Digestion — The Smoking Gun?

Yan goes on to review what she believes is the smoking gun proving SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation. In a nutshell, she and her colleagues believe SARS-CoV-2 was created by swapping out the receptor-binding motif or RBM, not the entire spike protein.

The feasibility of such a swap has already been proven by none other than Dr. Zhengli Shi, one of the researchers arguing for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (as reviewed in this September 10, 2020, article on Minerva). According to Yan:

“In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene ... They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2.

Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 … It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 2010 ...

The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation."

Yan’s paper also details evidence suggesting the Chinese scientists tried to cover their tracks to hide the genetic manipulation, and reviews how the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is further indication that genetic engineering was used.

Summary

In summary, Yan and colleagues propose SARS-CoV-2 was made using the ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus as the backbone. The RBM in the spike protein was then manipulated to give the virus the ability to strongly bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus,” Yan writes.

The diagram below illustrates the steps required to create SARS-CoV-2:


Why the Cover-Up?

As reported by Aksel Fridstrom in a September 10, 2020, article posted on Minerva, as well as a September 9, 2020, article written by Rowan Jacobsen in Boston Magazine, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, is yet another scientist who questions the zoonotic nature of SARS-CoV-2.

If the public and politicians really knew about the dangerous pathogen research being conducted in many laboratories, they’d be outraged. Denying the possibility of a catastrophic incident like this then could be seen as a form of career preservation. ~ Rowan Jacobsen, Boston Magazine

Importantly, Chan discovered that SARS-CoV-2 has not evolved in the manner you’d expect had it jumped from an animal to a human. It sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission. Like Yan and several other scientists, Chan has come to the conclusion that the missing intermediate phase of evolution from animal to human transmissibility must have taken place in a lab.

Chan published her paper, “SARS-CoV-2 Is Well Adapted for Humans. What Does This Mean for Re-Emergence?” on the preprint server bioRxiv May 2, 2020. As in most cases, the pushback she and her co-authors received was enormous.

In his article, Jacobsen points out that one of the obvious reasons for this response is that “if the public and politicians really knew about the dangerous pathogen research being conducted in many laboratories, they’d be outraged.” Hence, “Denying the possibility of a catastrophic incident like this … could be seen as a form of career preservation.”

Interestingly, The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, which has vowed to “leave no stone unturned” in its investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the possibility of a lab escape, is being led by none other than Dr. Peter Daszak, a scientist who has already concluded the virus is natural.

As the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, Daszak is also steeped in conflicts of interest, seeing how EcoHealth Alliance received grants from the NIH for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

What’s more, the NIH is demanding EcoHealth Alliance produce records detailing its work with the Wuhan lab before further funding will be released. It seems the purpose for this “fix” is best summarized by a quote from Boston Magazine:

"Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, put it more bluntly. If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab, he tweeted, ‘it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.’”

Indeed, safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research would be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.

According to Chan, there are solutions, however. One would be to conduct this kind of research using “neutered viruses that have had their replicating machinery removed in advance, so that even if they escaped confinement, they would be incapable of making copies of themselves,” Jacobsen writes. Another would be to locate high biosafety level laboratories in sparsely populated areas rather than right smack in the middle of large cities.

New Engineered Coronaviruses Are Under Development

Getting to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 actually came from is important, because if it came from a high-security bioweapons lab, then it’s proof positive that something must be done to prevent a repeat. This is even more important now that biosafety labs around the world are looking at modifying live SARS-CoV-2 even further.

As just one example, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh are looking to insert the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what allows the virus to gain entry into human cells, into Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, an already devastatingly dangerous pathogen.

Researchers are also arguing for infectious SARS-CoV-2 research to be permitted in biosafety level 2 laboratories, which have nowhere near the same level of biosafety procedures in place as BSL 3 and BSL 4 labs do.

If the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is in fact the result of a lab escape, then the responsible way forward is to halt all gain-of-function research until safety protocols are massively upgraded. If we really want to avert another catastrophe, this kind of research should probably be abolished altogether.

[onawah]

Shi Zhengli: Weaponizing Coronaviruses, with Pentagon Funding, at a Chinese Military Lab
September 24, 2020 Organic Consumers Association
by Alexis Baden-Mayer
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blo...=OB+676+Sunday



EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the fifth article in our ‘Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame’ series profiling key players in gain-of-function research.

"She’s known as China’s “Bat Woman.” Shi Zhengli is a virus hunter and microbiologist, and director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

She also plays a central role in a whodunnit that may ultimately prove impossible to solve.

Shi’s work involves collecting bat viruses and using techniques of genetic engineering and synthetic biology to enable these viruses to infect human beings.

Since the Biological Weapons Convention took effect, what scientists like Shi do has been called “gain-of-function” research or “dual-use research of concern” (DURC).

In other words, Shi, and other scientists like her, are in the business of weaponizing viruses by genetically engineering or otherwise altering them to make them more lethal, and more easily transmitted, to humans.

Did Shi have a hand in creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the current COVID-19 pandemic?

The National Institutes of Health is investigating.

On July 8, Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, sent a letter, later viewed by the Wall Street Journal and Science Magazine in which he asked:

• For an inspection of the WIV by an outside team that would examine the facility’s lab and records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019.”

• For a sample of the new coronavirus that Shi and her colleagues at WIV used to isolate its genetic sequence during the first week of January.

• Why WIV “failed to note that the RaTG13 virus, the bat-derived coronavirus in its collection with greatest similarity to SARS-CoV-2, was actually isolated from an abandoned mine where three men died in 2012 with an illness remarkably similar to Covid-19.”

• To “explain the apparent disappearance” of Huang Yanling, a scientist who worked in the Wuhan lab and who is suspected to be patient zero, the first to be diagnosed with the disease.

• To explain evidence indicating that WIV may have been shut down temporarily last fall, including “diminished cell-phone traffic in October 2019, and the evidence that there may have been roadblocks surrounding the facility from October 14-19, 2019.”


The letter with these demands didn’t go to Shi or WIV, it went to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based non-profit funded by the U.S. government, including the U.S. military, to support scientists working in 30 countries. EcoHealth Alliance is listed as a funding source on some of Shi’s most controversial papers. And Ecoo provide a response to the safety concerns described in a 2018 State Department cable. Between January and March 2018, U.S. science diplomats repeatedly met with Shi at WIV. The cable on the visits "warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab" and "also warns that the lab's work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."
Health Alliance scientists, including its president Peter Daszak, often co-author, with Shi, published papers.

Shi’s most infamous EcoHealth Alliance-funded paper is, “A SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence.” In this controversial gain-of-function research collaboration with U.S. scientist Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Shi and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to weaponize a bat coronavirus, maximizing its potential human infectivity.

Shi’s funding for this study came through a USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats-PREDICT grant to EcoHealth Alliance—but the record for this grant appears to have been scrubbed from the U.S. government’s database.

EcoHealth Alliance was a PREDICT partner during the 2009-2014 funding cycle, but there is no record of a USAID grant to EcoHealth Alliance for this time period among the $100.9 million in grants it has received from the U.S. government since 2003.

Shi’s contribution to the work she did with Baric was the “RsSHC014-CoV Sequence That Was Isolated from Chinese Horseshoe Bats.”

Where did RsSHC014 come from?

Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak announced their discovery of RsSHC014 in their 2013 paper, “Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-Like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor,” and stated that it was found during “a 12-month longitudinal survey (April 2011–September 2012) of SL-CoVs in a colony of Rhinolophus sinicus at a single location in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China.”

What they don’t mention in their paper is that, in Kunming during this same period (April and May of 2012), six men were hospitalized after removing bat feces from a cave, and that the WIV was involved in their treatment, testing the patients for Serum IgM, the first antibody the body makes when it fights a new infection.

These details come from the abstract of a master’s thesis that was arranged to be translated this year by scientists Jonathan Latham and Alison Wilson, “The Analysis of 6 Patients With Severe Pneumonia Caused by Unknown Viruses”:

There were 6 patients with unknown pneumonia caused by unknown viruses sent to Dep. Emergency, the first affiliated hospital of Kunming medical university in April, May, 2012. They were all workers at the same mine where had a lot of bats and bats feces. After the treatment, 3 patients died and three patients survived.

According to the appraisal of the Kunming institute of zoology, Chinese academy of sciences, the type of the bat in mine where 6 patients worked is Rhinolophus sinicus, from which was extracted SARS-like-CoV when Scientists in China were in the process of looking for SARS pathogen.

Latham and Wilson have been investigating the origin of COVID-19 and have come to the conclusion that “a lab origin has at least as much circumstantial evidence to support it as does any natural zoonotic origin theory.”

Summarizing the facts laid out in the master’s thesis, Latham and Wilson conclude that:

• Samples were taken from patients and sent to WIV.

• The thymus, an immune organ that could have contained large quantities of virus, was removed from one patient.

• Any viruses recoverable from the miners would likely have been viewed by WIV researchers as a unique natural experiment in human passaging offering unprecedented and otherwise-impossible-to-obtain insights into how bat coronaviruses can adapt to humans.

• The logical course of such research would be to sequence viral RNA extracted directly from unfrozen tissue or blood samples and/or to generate live infectious clones for which it would be useful (if not imperative) to amplify the virus by placing it in human cell culture. Either technique could have led to accidental infection of a lab researcher.

Latham and Wilson don’t connect the master’s thesis on the men who were hospitalized in Kunming with the paper Shi and Daszak published about the bat coronaviruses they collected in Kunming at the same time, but it seems obvious to do so.

Who sent the miners into the cave to collect guano? Could it have been Shi and Daszak? They were in Kunming collecting bat viruses at the time.

Shi Zhengli told her version of the story about the miners to Scientific American:

“[In 2012] Shi’s team had been called in to investigate the virus profile of a mine shaft in Yunnan’s mountainous Mojiang County—famous for its fermented Pu’er tea—where six miners suffered from pneumonia like diseases and two died. After sampling the cave for a year, the researchers discovered a diverse group of coronaviruses in six bat species. “In many cases, multiple viral strains had infected a single animal, turning it into a flying factory for new viruses.

“‘The mine shaft stunk like hell,’ says Shi, who, like her colleagues, went in wearing a protective mask and clothing. ‘Bat guano, covered in fungus, littered the cave.’ Although the fungus turned out to be the pathogen that had sickened the miners, she says it would have been only a matter of time before they caught the coronaviruses if the mine had not been promptly shut.”

This inconsistency between Shi’s story and the master’s thesis is hard to reconcile. Considering WIV’s involvement in the treatment of the miners, how could Shi have not known that the miners died of a SARS-like virus, and not a fungal infection, as she told Scientific American?

The virus Shi says she found in Mojiang was RaTG13. In a paper published on February 3, 2020, Shi announced that RaTG13 was 96 percent identical to the genomic sequence of the novel coronavirus, eventually named SARS-CoV-2.

Here’s another troubling inconsistency: According to the Genome Sequence Archive, RaTG13 was “was extracted from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid,” which suggests that the virus was taken from a sick person, but RaTG13 is supposedly an RNA sequence taken from a bat fecal swab.

Daszak has his own version of the story of the discovery of RaTG13. Daszak claims they took the virus back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and left it in a freezer for seven years untouched. But, as Boston Magazine reported, this claim was discovered to be untrue by “scientist turned detective” Alina Chan, who fact-checked him on Twitter:

Even though that virus had killed three miners, Daszak said it wasn’t considered a priority to study at the time. “We were looking for SARS-related viruses, and this one was 20 percent different. We thought it was interesting, but not high risk. So we didn’t do anything about it and put it in the freezer,” he told a reporter from Wired. It was only in 2020, he maintained, that they started looking into it once they realized its similarity to COVID-19. But Chan pointed to an online database showing that the WIV had been genetically sequencing the mine virus in 2017 and 2018, analyzing it in a way they had done in the past with other viruses in preparation for running experiments with them. Diplomatic yet deadpan, she wrote, “I think Daszak was misinformed.”

Why the lies? Why won’t Shi and Daszak admit that WIV took samples from the hospitalized miners for diagnosis and study, knowing that the patients died from a SARS-like bat coronavirus? Why do they deny that the bat coronavirus most like SARS-CoV-2 was collected in the mine where the workers were exposed? Why don’t they acknowledge that this is a virus that was actively sequenced, analyzed and experimented on, not one that had been forgotten in a freezer for seven years?

Are they afraid to admit that the first SARS-like coronaviruses that use the ACE2 receptor was discovered in humans in a hospital, not bats in a cave?

Do they fear the public’s reaction to the idea of gain-of-function researchers taking advantage of the miners’ gruesome deaths to harvest a pathogen uniquely primed to infect human cells?

Shi and Daszak wouldn’t be the first bioweapons experts to do this. As the Washington Post reported:

“The Soviets had a keen interest in the Marburg virus in the 1980s and managed to develop an especially lethal strain after an accident at the Vector Institute, their germ warfare center in Siberia. The chief scientist there, Nikolai Ustinov, accidentally injected his thumb with the virus, which was intended for a guinea pig he was holding.

“Ustinov suffered a devastating death, but the Soviets managed to profit from the mistake by harvesting Ustinov’s organs for fresh samples of the virus. These proved to be even more powerful than the original strain.”

The scientists of Japan’s secret Unit 731 biological weapons program used this technique deliberately, performing “passaging” experiments on Chinese subjects during World War II. According to Nicholson Baker’s book, “Baseless”:

“Dr. Tabei Kanau said he injected a man with shigella dysentery. Three days later the man got diarrhea, and on the fourth day he hanged himself. Tabei also fed prisoners a solution of sugar water and paratyphoid. The disease was very contagious, he discovered when he placed one sick patient in a room with three uninfected ones. In an effort to find the most virulent strain of typhoid fever―V, VW, or W―Tabai fed thirty-six Manchurians tainted milk and sugar water. Tabei then heightened the virulence of the most lethal strain, VW, by passing it through three men in succession.”

Who funded the Kunming virus hunt?

In addition to funding from China and Australia, the Kunming virus hunt reported in “Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-Like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor,” was supported by:

• National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) award number R01AI079231, a $2.6-million grant to EcoHealth Alliance for “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,” (2008-2013).

• NIH and National Science Foundation (NSF) “Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases” $3.7-million award from the NIH Fogarty International Center (R01TW005869) to EcoHealth Alliance for “The Ecology, Emergence and Pandemic Potential of Nipah Virus in Bangladesh,” (2002-2013).

• A $300,000 award from the NIH Fogarty International Center supported by International Influenza Funds from the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (R56TW009502) to EcoHealth Alliance for “Comparative Spillover Dynamics of Avian Influenza in Endemic Countries,” (2012-2017).

• United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT, amount unknown.

Who funded Shi’s virus hunting in Mojiang?

Shi’s paper, “Coexistence of Multiple Coronaviruses in Several Bat Colonies in an Abandoned Mineshaft,” was written by a team of scientists who were all Chinese nationals working at Chinese institutions. Nevertheless, in addition to funding from the Chinese government, the authors acknowledged support from the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease (R01AI110964), a $3.7-million grant to EcoHealth Alliance for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” (2014-2025).

Shi’s Pentagon funding

Shi Zhengli and her collaborators are also funded by the U.S. military. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance currently receives more money from the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for Scientific Research Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction than any other military contractor—$15 million (25.575 percent) of the $60.2 million dispersed in the last 6 months.


A Google Scholar search produced two papers Shi has published that lists DTRA as a funder.

To see how the first paper, “Comparative Analysis of Bat Genomes Provides Insight into the Evolution of Flight and Immunity,” is relevant to biological weaponry, it helps to understand the military’s interest in bat immunity.

As Boston University microbiologist Thomas Kepler explained to the Washington Post in 2018, the bat’s unique approach to viral infection explains why viruses that transfer from bats to humans are so severe.

This was the subject of a paper, “The Egyptian Rousette Genome Reveals Unexpected Features of Bat Antiviral Immunity,” that he published with military scientists and DTRA funding.

“A virus that has co-evolved with the bat’s antiviral system is completely out of its element in the human,” Kepler said. “That’s why it is so deadly — the human immune system is overwhelmed by the inflammatory response.”

The bat immune system responds very differently from ours to viral infection. Instead of attacking and killing an infected cell, which leads to a cascade of inflammatory responses, the bat immune system can starve the virus by turning down cellular metabolism.

The bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 may explain the cytokine storms that are hastening some COVID-19 deaths. According to WebMD:

“Certain kinds of cytokines trigger cell death. When you have many cells doing this at the same time, a lot of tissue can die. In COVID-19, that tissue is mostly in the lung. As the tissue breaks down, the walls of the lungs’ tiny air sacs become leaky and fill with fluid, causing pneumonia and starving the blood of oxygen.”

Kepler says the military is using its experiments on bat immunity to “develop drugs that dampen down inflammation and arrest the virus by depriving it of what it needs to grow rather than trying to kill it outright.” But, it clearly has another objective, as well: to make viruses more deadly by “passaging” them through bats.

Without stricter enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, it is impossible to prevent so-called “defensive” programs from producing biological weapons, especially considering the stealth and plausible deniability with which biological weapons can be used, and how vulnerable labs are to accidents and “missing” agents.

The regulatory challenges associated with trying to prevent defensive biological weapons research from being used offensively were highlighted recently in India’s reaction to Shi’s other DTRA funded paper, “Filovirus-reactive antibodies in humans and bats in Northeast India imply zoonotic spillover,” published in 2019.

The study alarmed the public by finding “the presence of filovirus (e.g. ebolavirus, marburgvirus and dianlovirus) reactive antibodies in both human (e.g. bat hunters) and bat populations in Northeast India, a region with no historical record of Ebola virus disease.”

The Hindu reported that foreign entities operating the study should have been required to seek special permission to access live samples of bats and human bat hunters, but they did not do so. The Indian Council of Medical Research created a five-member committee to investigate.

In addition to military funding through DTRA, Shi’s paper was co-authored by two U.S. military scientists, Christopher C. Broder and Eric D. Laing of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Department of Microbiology and Immunology.


China’s People’s Liberation Army controls the Wuhan Institute of Virology

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is China’s only biosafety level 4 lab. While it has always been under the control of the Chinese government, since January 26, 2020, it has been under the command of the People’s Liberation Army, specifically its top biological-weapons specialist, a major general named Chen Wei.

On FoxNews on September 15, 2020, Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist who worked at the university of Hong Kong’s World Health Organization (WHO) reference lab, told Tucker Carlson that, based on the genetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2, she believed it was created―and intentionally released―by the Chinese government (you can watch the video and read a transcript of the interview here):https://richarddolanmembers.com/free...rlson-tonight/

Tucker Carlson: “You’re saying that the Chinese government manufactured this virus, if I’m hearing you correctly. That’s what you’re saying?”

Li-Meng Yan: “Yes, exactly. Based on the virus genome, it’s basically like our fingerprint. So you can see the very unusual characters in their genome which clearly, based on the other evidence they left during the modification, we can see finally this is exactly the one [that] come from their own special bat coronavirus and it then targets humans.”

Tucker Carlson: “To make such statements, do you believe the Chinese government released this intentionally, on purpose. Did they do this?”

Li-Meng Yan: “Yes, of course it’s intentionally.”

Li-Meng Yan went beyond the available evidence when she claimed that the Chinese government released this virus intentionally. This threatens her credibility, as does her association with Steve Bannon.

But even her detractors point to her “prolific and solid publication record on infectious diseases.”

Her paper on the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,” is legitimate.

However, it can only be seen as one of the many theories on the possible lab origins of SARS-CoV-2. (Mercola.com recently published a useful summary, “More Experts Point to SARS-CoV-2 Being Created in a Lab.”)

One thing every theory has in common, including Li-Meng Yan’s, is a reliance on Shi Zhengli’s work. That makes her claim that it was the Chinese government that released this virus problematic.

Shi Zhengli may work at a Chinese lab that is now controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, but throughout her career, her work has been funded by the U.S. government, including the U.S. military, with which she has actively collaborated.

China says the U.S. released the virus in October at the World Military Games in Wuhan. The U.S. is investigating whether WIV was the source of the virus.

Shi’s central role in this whodunnit makes it nearly impossible to figure out.

When you have a Chinese scientist weaponizing coronaviruses with Pentagon funding at a lab controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and a virus escapes, which country is to blame?"

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA)

[onawah]

Controversy: Did the US fund research in China?
more here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...nt-back-china/
and here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ab/3061490001/

[onawah]

Going LIVE: Dr Li-Meng Yan - Coronavirus Whistleblower: How The Chinese Government Covered Up The Emergence Of The SARS-CoV-2 VirusDr. Li-Meng Yan
9/28/20

"Dr. Li-Meng Yan is a Chinese Virologist and a whistleblower who claimed in January this year that Coronavirus was created in a laboratory in Wuhan.

Dr. Yan became an MD after graduating from the Xiangya Medical College and earned a PhD from the Southern Medical University.

In December 2019, Dr. Yan was requested to investigate a series of pneumonia cases that had risen in the Wuhan district.

Through her research, Dr. Yan believed that a highly mutated virus was in circulation, ultimately the coronavirus, but was told to stay silent.

She went on to make this information public, but was forced to flee her homeland of China and take up residency in the United States.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan has been widely criticised and discredited by both the Chinese government and the World Health Organisation, as well as having her social media accounts suspended.

Join us as we will be talking with Dr. Li-Meng Yan about her background, the Wuhan laboratory, coronavirus, a possible vaccine and censorship":
https://freedomplatform.tv/dr-li-men...bfck%2BA%3D%3D