Connecting the Dots on SARS-CoV-2: The HIV Inserts
Yes they are real, and they are not "window dressing"
UPDATE-1: For readers that are pressed for time I have prepared a 2-minute summary/abstract.
UPDATE-2: For visual learners I generated a concept map with links.
On January 31, 2020, researchers from India posted their analysis of four novel sequences they found on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Three days later the pre-print was withdrawn. Details behind this sudden removal remain a mystery, but DRASTIC sources claim this was orchestrated by two virologists strongly opposed to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was made a lab.
The novel sequences detected by Pradhan et al. are similar to structural portions of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The first three correspond to the HIV outer structure (envelope) and the fourth forms part of core a structural protein known as the group specific antigen (gag). To understand their significance, you need to understand how SARS-CoV-2 enters human cells.
ACE-2 receptors are found on a wide range of tissues and normally convey messages from angiotensin, a hormone that regulates blood pressure. ACE-2 also serves as a “doorway” for the entry of SARS-CoV-2.
Infection begins when the spike proteins covering the viral surface attach to ACE-2 receptors (Still 1). Following recognition, an enzyme on the cell surface cuts away the outer portion of the spike and the viral membrane fuses with the cell (Stills 2 and 3). Once the genetic contents are safely inside, the host cell is transformed into a virus factory.
To evaluate the findings of Pradhan et al. I entered the four HIV sequences into the NIH “BLAST” database and compared them against SARS-CoV-2 and variants entered into the database prior to 2020. I excluded newer versions of SARS due to concerns that recently “discovered” strains like RaTG13 were also made in a lab. I also subdivided the fourth sequence into two parts because in HIV they are separated by 11 amino acids that do not occur in SARS. The following is a visual summary of my results:
Not only are the similarities significant; all sequences on SARS-CoV-2 occur on outer portions of the spike that play key roles in viral pathogenicity. This is what we know about their roles so far:
1. Sequences 1-3 contain short segments found in HIV envelope glycoprotein Gp120. This protein facilitates HIV crossing of the blood-brain barrier and SARS-CoV-2 was also shown to penetrate blood-brain barrier. This might explain the brain fog that is associated with long COVID.
3. Computer modeling shows that QTNSPRRA forms a major portion of a larger motif homologous with staph enterotoxin B, a documented bioweapon. This portion may also play leading role in the cytokine storm that occurs during terminal stages of COVID.
4. The PRRA motif forms a major portion of the furin cleavage site (where the spike is cut), and the FCS plays a key role in assisting viral fusion with human cells. Insertion of the FCS is a standard technique in gain-of-function research.
How might this have happened?
Last October NIH grudgingly admitted to having funded gain-of-function research in China after a controversial proposal from Ecohealth Alliance was leaked to the public (thanks to the DRASTIC team). Anthony Fauci approved of the project even though DARPA had deemed it “too dangerous” for funding.
Page 11 of the 43-pp document discusses the insertion of “furin cleavage sites” to analyze their ability to activate “fusion-mediated entry” into transgenic mice with human ACE-2 receptors (sequence PRRA on the chart is the FCS). Later in the paragraph the author proposes the insertion of amino acid sequences to binding portions of the spike protein and then testing their ability to bind “DC-SIGN” (Hat tip: Jikky Kjj)
Page 11 from “Project Defuse: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronavirus”
In plain English; DC-SIGN is a receptor on cell surfaces that permits HIV to evade immune surveillance, and just like HIV, SARS-CoV-2 also binds to DC-SIGN, probably with the help of the Gp120 inserts.
What were they thinking?
Early during the pandemic, NIH director Francis Collins sent an email to Anthony Fauci expressing concern over what he referred to as a “very destructive (lab leak) conspiracy.” A few days after the Ecohealth proposal was published in the Intercept, Collins announced his retirement from NIH.
Collins’ role is still unclear, but even if NIH is not criminally involved, Collins and Fauci are not behaving like people who are interested in the truth.
If you are an NIH insider who sees something but has yet to do something, you should ask yourself:
What will you tell your children when they ask you what you did while your institution covered up the worst man-made disaster in human history?