Symposium speakers to address multiple sides of the issue in live-streamed event this coming Sunday, May 31.
By Dr. Kevin Barrett
Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolve naturally in animals before a freak mutation allowed it to infect humans as Covid-19? Or is it a bioweapon built from a bat coronavirus with an add-on spike protein designed to infect humans? If the latter hypothesis is true, then who built it, and was it released accidentally or deliberately?
These are the key questions to be explored in an online symposium sponsored by the No Lies Foundation, a San Francisco Bay area-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The interactive event is set to take place on Sunday, May 31, and will offer presentations by several researchers who will take questions from the online audience. (Ed: Click the banner here for symposium details.)
For your information, I will be one of the presenters, alongside Ron Unz, publisher of the “Unz Review.” Also presenting are Barry Kissin, a leading researcher on the 2001 anthrax false-flag attack, Meryl Nass, M.D., a leading biological warfare expert, and Thomas Willcutts, an attorney with a strong science background.
Francis Boyle, the international law professor who drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, will appear via video. Boyle is well known for opining that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered biological weapon not a naturally occurring mutation. He argues that the novel coronavirus appears to be engineered for “gain of function,” meaning that its ability to infect humans due to its perfectly structured spike protein is the telltale sign of a bioweapon.
Boyle’s view was recently supported by a new study led by vaccine researcher Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University in Australia, which compared the coronavirus spike protein’s ability to bind to human versus animal cells. The study found that SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein is perfectly tailored to powerfully bind with human cells but cannot bind efficiently with cells from a large number of sampled animal species. Therefore, the authors conclude, the virus cannot have jumped to humans from any animal intermediary. Instead, it must have become specialized for human penetration by “living” in human cells. There is only one plausible mechanism by which the virus could have existed in human cells long enough to become so perfectly specialized: It must have been introduced into human cell cultures in a laboratory. Germ warfare scientists would have taken a bat coronavirus, put it into cultured human cells, and run it through many generations, selectively breeding the virus to get better and better at binding with human cell receptors.
This method—the traditional old-fashioned way of manufacturing biological weapons, perfected during the days before the existence of modern genetic engineering—would have the advantage of not leaving telltale signs of genetic manipulation: A virus pushed to “evolve” artificially in cultured human cells does not have the giveaway markers of a virus that includes artificial “inserts.” So, by using the old-fashioned method, the germ warfare engineers would have achieved “plausible deniability”—which has always been the case for previous biological agents that have actually been used in anger, according to Dr. Nass.
Kissin rebuts the above argument by pointing out that the majority of scientists who have offered an opinion disagree with Boyle. These experts say the virus was probably endemic in bats before it “fortuitously” jumped to humans, possibly passing through another animal intermediary.
Nass argues that the scientific community has been misled by Nature Medicine’s specious, bad-faith argument against the bioweapon hypothesis. Nass argues that the authors of that article could not possibly have believed what they were saying, since their argument rests on the assumption that a SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon maker (a “weaponeer”) would have chosen one particular easily detectible method rather than any of the many plausibly deniable ones. Actual bioweaponeers, she says, always choose plausible deniability. There are many ways this could have been achieved in manufacturing SARS-CoV-2. The Nature Medicine authors, she says, know this. Their argument is a grotesque big lie by omission.
Thomas Willcutts reinforces Nass’s case by analyzing another absurdity in the Nature Medicine argument: the claim that no bioweaponeer would have built SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein because an obscure error in an obscure paper would have dissuaded them from even trying. Together, Willcutts and Nass show the Nature Medicine authors appear to be guilty of scientific fraud.
So, if SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, how did it emerge? It could have been an accident. But there are also reasons to suspect a deliberate biological attack. Unz, one of the most accomplished figures in alternative media, will list some of those reasons and outline a plausible scenario involving a biological attack on China by American neoconservatives, followed by unintended “blowback.” I will supplement Unz’s presentation by arguing for another scenario many support in which an international banking elite may be attacking not just China but the entire world.
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.