JEA: VT has published numerous articles pointing out that there is strong evidence that suggests that Covid 19 could have originated in US biolabs. Now we have enough evidence which confirms this theory.

By Sharon Lerner

IN AN ARTICLE published Thursday, economist Jeffrey Sachs called for an independent investigation of information held by U.S.-based institutions that could shed light on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sachs and his co-author, Neil Harrison, a Columbia University professor of molecular pharmacology and therapeutics, said that federal agencies and universities possess evidence that has not been adequately reviewed, including virus databases, biological samples, viral sequences, email communications, and laboratory notebooks.

Sachs and Harrison also highlighted a tantalizing scientific detail that may be an indication that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, originated in a laboratory: a sequence of eight amino acids on a critical part of the virus’s spike protein that is identical to an amino acid sequence found in cells that line human airways.

Sachs and Harrison are hardly the first to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 might have been created in a lab. Since its genetic sequence was first published in February 2020, scientists have puzzled over the furin cleavage site, an area on the virus’s spike that allows it to be cleaved by a protein on the membrane of human cells and makes the coronavirus particularly dangerous to people.

Once split, the virus releases its genetic material into the cell and reproduces. While attaching to cells and spike cleavage is part of how all coronaviruses work, SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of its class, sarbecoviruses, that can use furin for the cleavage.

As with past discussion of a possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, this latest theory has already been met with considerable pushback. Even some scientists who are open to the idea that a lab accident could have sparked the pandemic remain unconvinced by the particular trail of evidence laid out by Sachs and Harrison.

The journal article offers a scientific road map for how this unusual sequence of amino acids could have made its way into the furin cleavage site, or FCS, of the virus. Sachs and Harrison acknowledge that the sequence could have arisen naturally. But they also lay out another possibility: that scientists might have purposefully inserted this particular string of amino acids into a bat coronavirus in the course of their work. They focus particularly on scientists who submitted an unfunded grant proposal to a division of the Defense Department called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, laying out plans to insert a furin cleavage site into a bat coronavirus.

“We do not know whether the insertion of the FCS was the result of natural evolution — perhaps via a recombination event in an intermediate mammal or a human — or was the result of a deliberate introduction of the FCS into a SARS-like virus as part of a laboratory experiment,” Sachs and Harrison write. “We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects (DARPA).”

EHA is a reference to EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group based in New York City that has received more than $118 million in grants and contracts from federal agencies. WIV, or the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is a Chinese research organization that collaborated with EcoHealth Alliance in the past and was listed as a subcontractor on the DARPA grant. UNC is mentioned because Ralph Baric, a molecular biologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, was to have conducted part of the work pitched to DARPA. The grant proposal touted Baric’s “two-decade track record of reverse engineering [coronavirus] and other virus spike proteins.”

The intent of the DARPA proposal was to prevent emerging pathogenic threats, but the work, if conducted, could have created a novel virus capable of infecting humans. “We will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in [a type of mammalian cell commonly used in microbiology] and [human airway epithelial cell] cultures,” the proposal stated.

Several scientists interviewed about the DARPA proposal in September told The Intercept that scientists often begin research before seeking funding and thus that some of the experiments described in the proposal could have already been completed. But when asked about that possibility in an interview, Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, rejected it: “The DARPA proposal was not funded. Therefore, the work was not done. Simple.”

A Rational Choice

s Sachs and Harrison note, the part of a protein on the cell membrane that shares its amino acid sequence with the bat coronavirus is critical for lung function. Known as an epithelial sodium channel-alpha, or ENaC-alpha, it is found in human airway cells, as well as in human kidneys and colons. Intriguingly, like SARS-CoV-2, ENaC-alpha, which facilitates the absorption of fluid in cells, is also activated by the unusual furin cleavage site. Harrison, a physiologist affiliated with Columbia’s Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, studies ion channels, the larger category to which ENaC-alpha belongs.

Other scientists have already pointed out the match between the amino acid series in the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 and the ENaC-alpha found in human airways. In 2020, a team from the biomedical company Nference suggested that the overlap between the virus and the sequence found in human lungs is part of the reason that Covid-19 is so damaging to the respiratory system. Those scientists described the sequence as having evolved naturally.

Sachs and Harrison, in contrast, suggest that researchers may have inserted the string of amino acids into a bat coronavirus precisely because of its known importance to lung function. “For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC — an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human) — might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus in order to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously,” they write.

Such a choice, they point out, would have been in keeping with another viral research project on which EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and UNC’s Baric collaborated: a 2014 grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that involved increasing the transmissibility and pathogenicity of bat coronaviruses.

Growing List of Coincidences

The intriguing theory of viral engineering hinges on two observations: that the amino acid sequences match and that experts in both the ENaC-alpha furin cleavage site and the insertion of genetic sequences into bat coronaviruses happen to work at the same academic institution: the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Baric, whose work aims to prevent and create treatments for viral outbreaks, has previously inserted segments of DNA and RNA into viruses and created an infectious clone of SARS using his own patented “No See’m” method of inserting genetic materials without a trace. He has also collaborated on coronavirus research with scientists from a center for lung studies at UNC-Chapel Hill who are knowledgeable about ENaC-alpha. In one 2016 study, the scientists created a new virus using the spike of a bat coronavirus that had been isolated and characterized by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The experiment found that the new virus “replicated efficiently” in human airway cells that were cultured in a lab.

In another paper, published a year earlier, Baric, along with the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Shi Zhengli and a lung expert at UNC-Chapel Hill’s lung institute, described creating a hybrid virus using a SARS-like virus from a bat and a “mouse-adapted” coronavirus. The new virus caused mice to get sicker than those exposed to the original virus. The goal of these experiments was to prepare for the possibility that a virus might jump naturally from animals to humans, as SARS had in 2003. But even before the pandemic, the experiment drew criticism from other scientists, who were concerned because the researchers had created a virus that was able to spread in humans.

Sachs and Harrison note that the scientists who co-authored the DARPA grant proposal would have been aware of research on coronavirus furin cleavage sites, including one 2006 experiment in which a furin cleavage site was inserted into a coronavirus. “The research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC, which was extensively characterized at UNC,” they write.

Still, both the overlap in the amino acid sequence and the fact that experts in the furin cleavage site of the ENaC-alpha and insertion of genetic material into bat coronaviruses work at the same university could be coincidental, as Harrison and Sachs acknowledge. Some virologists, though, say that the coincidence strains credulity.

“Could be,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, wrote in an email to The Intercept when asked about the possibility that these things are both chance occurrences. “But the list of coincidences is getting verrrrrrrrrrry long.”

Ebright, a proponent of investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of investigating both natural-spillover and research-related-spillover, whom Harrison and Sachs thank “for helpful commentary on the manuscript,” spelled out some of the other Covid coincidences that he considers questionable, including its initial outbreak in a city that, well before 2019, had already been pegged as a biosafety risk. Ebright also noted Wuhan’s 1,000-mile distance from the nearest wild bats that carry the type of SARS-related coronaviruses that caused the pandemic. And he pointed to the particular coding of the amino acids in the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV2.

“The sequence encoding the FCS of the pandemic virus contained two consecutive CGG arginine codons,” Ebright explained in his email. (A codon, or a combination of three nucleotides, supplies the genetic code for a single amino acid, though most amino acids can be represented by multiple different codons. Each nucleotide is represented by a letter — for RNA, either A, C, U, or G.) “This codon usage is unusual for a natural bat SARS-related coronaviruses (for which fewer than 1 in 30 arginine codons are CGG) but is optimal for humans (for which most arginine codons are CGG codons).”

Still, Ebright said that at first he didn’t see the identical amino acid sequences as particularly suspicious. “I had known for more than a year that there was a perfect match to an eight-amino acid sequence present in human ENaC. What I had not known was that the sequence was known to be a functional furin cleavage site and that it was a sequence extensively studied at UNC,” he said. “The crucial point that the ENaC sequence was a known functional site, not just that there happens to be a match to a protein that happens to be in humans. … That suddenly turned it from what I thought to be largely irrelevant to being a logical and obvious choice to proceed.”

Ralph Baric and the University of North Carolina did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Name Calling

Other scientists dismiss the idea that the ENaC sequence might have been purposefully inserted into a coronavirus. Scientists who are already convinced that the new coronavirus emerged naturally are unlikely to be persuaded by Sachs and Harrison’s article, which appears in the opinion section of the esteemed journal. Over the past year, many scientists involved in the debate over the origins of the pandemic have settled into an increasingly acrimonious, coarse, and unyielding opposition.

Some proponents of the natural origin theory became particularly dismissive of those open to the possibility of a lab leak after the February release of two pre-print studies mapping the early spread of the virus at the Huanan market in Wuhan. Angela Rasmussen, one of a team of virologists who worked on the project, described it on Twitter as “dispositive evidence of a zoonotic origin” that will “drive those with personal interest in the lab leak hypothesis out of their goddam minds.” In another tweet, Rasmussen referred to proponents of the lab-leak theory as a “pack of ghouls, who through gullibility, stupidity, & conspiracist thinking have decided this is their thing despite zero expertise.”

Although the pre-prints had not been peer-reviewed and may have simply illustrated the spread of the virus rather than its original outbreak, the New York Times ran a front-page story about them that quoted an epidemiologist as saying that the origins debate “has been settled with a very high degree of evidence.” The story, which was announced by a push notification from the paper, also noted a lack of direct evidence for a lab leak.

Meanwhile, Kristian Andersen, another co-author of the pre-prints and a virologist at the well-regarded Scripps Research Institute, used the “poop” emoji to criticize a deeply researched article by Katherine Eban about EcoHealth Alliance. On Twitter, Andersen tarred Eban, New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci, and others reporting on biosafety issues that could have led to the release of SARS-CoV-2 as “deep in conspiracy theories” and on the other side of “a clear split” from journalists who dismiss the possibility of a lab origin, whom Andersen referred to as “science-based.”

Even some scientists who have been vocal about the possibility that the pandemic may have been sparked by research have expressed skepticism about the theory suggested by Harrison and Sachs. “The pandemic virus might have been genetically engineered. However, this could have been done in various ways not limited to the specific theory by Harrison and Sachs. I’m not convinced that their hypothesis is the most plausible one,” said Alina Chan, a scientist who laid out a number of possible routes for how the coronavirus might have emerged through research-related incidents in her recent book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.”

While she is open to the possibility that the furin cleavage site might have been purposefully inserted into the coronavirus, Chan said there was no reason to think that researchers would mine humans for such material. “These scientists literally had access to hundreds of SARS-like viruses and sequences,” said Chan, referring to the vast collection of coronaviruses from bats and other animals that researchers amassed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “There’s no need for them to go hunting inside the human protein catalogue to look for cleavage sites to put into viruses.”

Jack Nunberg, a virologist at the University of Montana, was also not immediately persuaded by the theory of engineering suggested by Sachs and Harrison. “It’s possible,” Nunberg said of the idea that the ENaC segment was inserted into a bat coronavirus as part of research designed to gauge the pandemic potential of a virus. “But I don’t find their evidence on ENaC compelling because furin cleavage sites have a lot of common amino acids, and therefore it may just have happened by chance.”

Others say that the article adds noteworthy information to the public conversation about the origins of the pandemic. “The defenders of the natural origin indicate that the virus on which this type of experiment could have been done — the backbone — has never been published and that specialists in the furin cleavage sites would have chosen a more commonly used furin cleavage site like RARR rather than PRRAR. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article contradicts this argument and indicates that specialists knew that the RRAR’SVAS site was efficiently cleaved by furin,” Etienne Decroly, director of virology research at the Aix-Marseille Université in France, wrote in an email to The Intercept.

Decroly added, “It is impossible to decide on the basis of the information currently available and it is urgent that the WHO Special Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens investigate this question.”

On the suggestion of an investigation, Nunberg is in agreement. “You can’t argue with that,” he told The Intercept. “Who’s going to argue for burying one’s head in the sand?”

For their part, Sachs and Harrison emphasize that they’re not saying laboratory manipulation was involved in the emergence of the pandemic virus, only “that it could have been.” They also give a nod to other possibilities, including that an airborne virus might have infected a laboratory worker. Rather than argue that any of these conceivable scenarios happened, they present the clues of the matching amino acid sequences to argue for an independent and transparent scientific investigation of the U.S.-based evidence related to the origins of the virus.

Among the institutions that Sachs and Harrison list as possibly having “knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States” are the National Institutes of Health; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has provided grant funding to EcoHealth Alliance; the Department of Homeland Security; DARPA; the U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded the $200 million PREDICT program that catalogued potential pandemic viruses; and the University of California, Davis, which participated in that program.

The authors suggest that EcoHealth Alliance and UNC may have particularly important untapped resources. “The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the US and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis,” they write. “The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown.”

A Reversal

The publication in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences marks a reversal of sorts for Sachs, the chair of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission who, in November 2020, appointed Daszak, the EcoHealth Alliance president, to lead a task force to investigate the origins of the pandemic. Earlier that year, Daszak had signed on to a public statement published in The Lancet on behalf of scientists who said they “condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Yet that early certainty about the pandemic’s origins — and the sense of shared civic responsibility among members of the Lancet task force — soon disintegrated. In February 2021, emails revealed that Daszak coordinated the public statement in The Lancet tamping down suspicions of a lab leak. And by June 2021, Sachs was expressing his openness to the possibility of a lab origin, writing that NIH-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology “deserves scrutiny under the hypothesis of a laboratory-related release of the virus.” Three months later, he disbanded the task force that had been organized to “carefully scrutinize the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus” in the hopes of preventing future disease outbreaks, explaining that he had concerns that several members of the commission had conflicts of interest because of their ties to EcoHealth Alliance.

After leading the mainstream scientific inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, Sachs is now skewering it. “A steady trickle of disquieting information has cast a darkening cloud over the agency,” he and Harrison write of the NIH, going on to accuse the entire federal government of not doing enough to explore the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate “overlooked details” such as the matching amino acid sequences.

Noting that the NIH has insisted that “the pandemic virus could not have resulted from the work sponsored by” the agency, Sachs and Harrison write that “blanket denials from the NIH are no longer good enough.”

SOURCEThe Intercept

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

20 COMMENTS

  1. I think Jon Rappoport in his No More Fake News blog is right that there is no “virus,” only lots of different things called the “virus,” which has never even been isolated. When bacterial infections and almost everything else is treated as if it were the “virus,” and you add electronic pollution of sundry kinds on top of the rest of the poison entering every orifice and pore of our bodies, you get bad things happening.

    The made up “virus” is for imposing the draconian lockdowns, isolation, fear, division, conflict, economic destruction, and for widely distributing the falsely labeled “vaccine.” The “vaccine” was never for any “virus.”

  2. Yet fear or not what struck them was the size and color of the lungs. On microscopic analysis they found that the lung was a unique thrombus. 3000 autopsies all died from thrombi in the lungs. With colleagues they find anticoagulant medicines and become a hero. The medicines are those of Sars Cov. 2003 and cost very little. Others did the same on 7000 cases. Do you think the government has taken this into account? He wrote in a public document that those medicines are not needed.
    Now if you can read, 3000 autopsies and 3000 deaths from thrombi it is equivalent to a massacre because instead of treating you pumped oxygen knowing (this means the prohibition of autopsies) that he would never reach the lungs because of the thrombi. In Italy, but it is also understandable in what we read, in a simpler way the scholars (silenced) have said that this coronavirus is an inflamer, and the three thousand autopsies confirm it.

  3. I read that there is talk about Italy without knowing what happened in Italy.
    I state that the autopsy both in medicine and in the “mystery books” makes the murderer discover. I state that at the ready start of the so-called “Covid 19” the government has advised against autopsies and the Court of Milan has even banned them. In Lombardy there were over 60% of the deaths in Italy. In Italy 80% of the dead are over 80 years and with one or more serious pathologies. The same for the dead of other age groups. That said, I do not speak of controversial things (as is evident in the article) I speak of clear facts and intelligible by anyone. Here is an article https://primabergamo.it/persone/andrea-gianatti-il-medico-disobbediente-che-ha-smascherato-il-coronavirus/ that you can read with machine translation.
    In summary the article. Gianatti is director of the department of pathological anatomy (autopsies).
    After an accelerated course on the danger of Covid the whole group was moved to the wards where they only saw people die intubated or with helmets (= for respiratory problems). After 10 days they consult each other and decide to do autopsies. If you read well you will understand that Gianatti was also terrified of “Alien”. In fact, the autopsy performs only one and the other and outside to observe and intervene in case of “Alien”. The fear is evident from the fact that these are not autopsies but coring.
    Part. 1

  4. Sachs “Suspicion” he is simply deflecting the blame to a chicom unit.. UNC has their lipstik all over the funding here.. even randy paul (like his dad strikes a re-bar then splits) splattered this group.

    lets see if the commies fork over the data from them uki labs… the chicoms may want to see this in ink’.

  5. In a short time, we will realize that vaccines are more dangerous and harmful than the virus. Because the Vius was created and planted to enable the “plandemic”, and to vaccinate the whole world with the “gene therapy” that will produce sterilization, and with it population reduction. In 5 years when the population reduction is measured in all the countries, -by deaths and decrease in births- we will see it.
    Forget about the virus, now just investigate how many couples can no longer have children…..

  6. Oh….! Jeffrey Sachs “Suspicion”….
    Ha Ha Ha…! YOU JUST HAVE TO READ GORDON DUFF’S ARTICLES HERE IN VT, AND FIND OUT THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE CREATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SARS-COV-2… Gordon reported it, and exposed detailed data on people, places and dates…. !!!
    By the way… Gordon, where are you? You are missed brother.
    If you read this, answer me with a Ha Ha Ha…! So we laugh together.
    Alfred.

    • Gordon got in a bike wreck, Kevin Barrett said in his last False Flag Weekly News program, head on collision and flew thru the windshield of the oncoming car, with no helmet but he’s recovering, I heard.

  7. Just as there is an Apocalyptic Christian community there is also an Apocalyptic AI community and funding for the technoscience behind this comes primarily from DARPA.
    The world must be destroyed in preparation for the new one to come, leading to the post-human condition, no longer in imago dei, but in imago roboticae. “Unseen intelligent power of AI will demand human societies to wonder why they exist and how they are constructed”.
    To attain the Heavenly City of Cyberspace human beings must give up their bodies.
    It is a world where the nature of an individual is “changed by the linking of human and machine mental functioning.’’
    The body is irrelevant in this salvation from earthly matter. Only the mind counts.
    Cancel. Delete. Download.

    • Looks like a combination of Gnosticism, Manichean dualism, Totalitarian Marxism-Leninism, and Satanism.

      The traditional and correct translation of Genesis 3.15 says the the woman will crush the head of the serpent, while he lies in wait for her heel. That woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary, now Queen of Heaven and earth (also in Revelation 12) and mother of all those baptized into the mystical Body of Christ. See the Message of Our Lady of Fatima and pray the Rosary, given more power in our time.

  8. Lab accident my foot! Gordon informed us in June of 2020 that, “VT traced the creation of the current versions of COVID 19/SARS COV 2 to a USAID-CIA funded and peer reviewed study done by the University of North Carolina by scientists closely aligned with America’s defense community.” And, the bioweapon “was deployed first against China, then Italy, then France, then Iran and Spain and then the US as a ‘fund raiser.'” Also in that article, “John Hankey reports that Trump and his inner circle were vaccinated in November 2019, only days after the virus was deployed against China.”

    • There will be no independent investigation of the COVID-19 bioweapon just like there will never be an evidence-based investigation of 9/11.

  9. AND there are lots more suspicouos add-ons that could not of come from “random mutations and chance”
    In fact,
    ALL the CRISPR spliced genetic add-ons make the SARS covid19 more lethal to humans, and/or more contagious.
    ALL of them.
    I have heard the SARS Covid 19 virus seen under super microscope, to “resemble” a dog with giant spider legs. (not visually but genetically)
    And THAT is not from nature, its from a US military bioweapon program.
    Next question to be addressed which never will be I am sure, is why was the first SARS virus attack distributed into the no1 industrial city in China, which we all know the answer to.
    Next question that absolutely will never be addressed ever. is why was a much more deadly and contagious virus distributed into a city inside IRAN, where the gigantic underground nuclear research site is happens to be at?
    and is it THIS bioweaponed virus that spread world wide?
    or is it the one that was used to attack Chinese industry?
    Finally, is there any discussion of what exactly WAS the retaliation to IRAN for the ICBM missle attacks on the two US airbases in IRAN?
    Never heard of anything!..was Trump just going to “let it go unpunished”?
    I dont think he did, and why it was absolutely necessary to remove Trump from power.

    • Lol! Konehead! “was Trump just going to “let it go unpunished”?” You can’t punish a judge for punishing a murderer, you can’t retaliate in response to retaliation! Trump said “The USA would target 52 important sites in Iran if Iran retaliates” and Iran did retaliate and the USA didn’t “dare” to do a damn thing in response… yes the USA created the virus for its enemies but it backfired and killed in the US more than any other country!

    • However I do know that the American logic doesn’t understand these things, they can “retaliate” even because of nothing!
      But Iran is not Iraq or Syria and the USA can get away with its crimes against it.

    • Hi Irani I was meaning to notice that Trump never did retaliate “officially” for the ICBM Iranian missle strikes on the two US airbases in Iraq. But he actually DID, and used the Wuhan virus outbreak as the “cover” for the Iranian attack, saying that the Wuhan virus suddenly flew overseas and infected Iran (and then 81 other countries that got their first cases from Iranian travelers, not Chinese)
      This is absurd, same as saying bat soup in China started the pandemic….what happened is as you mention the attack on Iran “backfired” and killed more in USA than anywhere else.
      What hit Iran was very deadly and very contagious.
      The fact that the USA under Trump did attack Iran with a bioweapon, under a clever disquise it came from China, is something top secret never discussed or brought up as even a possiblility anywhere in USA and that in itself means that must of been what happened. Much evidence does point to it, Ron Unz writes about it, it seems obvious this is what happened.

    • Hi, yes I do agree with you, but I just want to draw your attention to the fact that such a virus would not be spread all over a big country within just a few days… it must have started long before that… I do remember when the first case was found in Iran, they said a foreign traveler brought it with himself, but it is actually impossible, cause the city that they have said that has had the first covid case, is near the capital and therefore doesn’t have an independent airport, let alone an international airport!

      I mean that, yes the USA created the virus for its enemies, but it necessarily doesn’t mean that they hadn’t been planning for it, years ago… the time spam between Iran’s attack and the virus’s outbreak (in Iran) is less than 1.5 months, it’s impossible to develop a such a virus in just one month…. however it started in China one month before the assassination of General Soleimani and Iran’s attack….
      ….after all the USA pawned off its poisonous vaccines to the people of the world but the covid didn’t disappear!
      Thanks.