Thread by @NachbarLumpis

We know:
1. In 2018, there was a plan for insertion of human specific furin cleavage sites into SARS like coronaviruses
2. In 2018, there was a plan to develop vaccines against (spillover of) such coronaviruses

#CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG
newyorker.com/science/elemen…

Thanks to @JikkyKjj we also know that the furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2 contains a sequence that Moderna has patented in 2017 for cancer therapy purposes.
arkmedic.substack.com/p/how-to-blast…

That recent discovery of a moderna patent in SARS-CoV-2 comes simultaneously with a Drosten and Corman preprint in which they suggest a natural origin of this human-specific furin cleavage site. The 2 gentlemen are known for very fast responses.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

Why isn't "THE SCIENCE" sitting on table since 2 years and clarifying the origin of the virus, especially when the whole story looks like the greatest conspiracy in human history? Billions of people have this vaccine & nobody knows what it does and how it is related to the virus.

There were plans from Ecohealth, a partner of the Wuhan lab, in 2018 to create SARS like coronaviruses with human specific furin cleavage sites. One year later exactly such a virus is detected in China. Even at this point a natural origin of this new virus is very implausible.

In Dec. 2021 it was found that a patented genome sequence strangely made its way into the furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2. Interesting, that
1) the patent is dated 2017
2) the patent owner is a producer of a vaccine against exactly the virus with the patented sequence

If that is true then
1) it is certain that the virus is lab designed
2) at least one vaccine producer was intentionally or by other circumstances involved in the design of the virus

Then many, many questions arise. A few of them:
What purpose is the virus designed for? How many variants are coming out of a lab? Was the virus release a lab leak or was it released by intention? What was the overall plan? And what role are the vaccines playing in each scenario?

Peter Daszak, der Koordinator, oder besser Produzent für zweifelhafte Gain of function Forschung in Wuhan, hatte bereits 2016 erkannt, dass das mit Impfstoffen nur etwas wird, wenn Panik herrscht.

In dem weiter oben verlinkten preprint führt Drosten (und viele andere Verfechter der Zoonose Theorie tun das auch) als Argument gegen die Labortheorie an, dass in der publiz. wissenschaftl. Literatur nichts zu finden sei, wie eine fremde Gensequenz im Virus zu implantieren wäre.

Jemand, der illegal oder halb legal gain of function Forschung betreibt, wird wohl nicht unbedingt seine Erkenntnisse in NATURE veröffentlichen. Selbst wenn alles legal ist, ist es bei vielen Biotechs seit Jahren üblich, nichts mehr zu veröffentlichen.
nature.com/articles/nbt.3…

Wie der NATURE Artikel von 2016 beweist, ist der publizierte Wissensstand kein Argument gegen die Labortheorie. Im Gegenteil: Dass solche Sequenzen im Virus existieren, beweist, dass wohl einige Wissenschaftler mit ihrer Forschung weiter sind als der Rest der Welt.