Do the HIV Inserts in SARS-CoV-2 Provide Clues to a Predetermined a Therapy?
In my previous article I discussed the pathogenic roles of HIV inserts in the SARS-CoV-2. However, according to an article by DRASTIC collaborator Charles Rixey (The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker), these sequences were also inserted in order to provide a mechanism for antiviral therapies. To frame his argument, Rixey referred to a 2-year old review article by retired virologist William Gallaher (Analysis of Wuhan Coronavirus: Déjà vu). Gallaher had already distinguished himself decades ago sequencing the HIV fusion peptides in 1987. To fully understand how Gallaher’s article sheds light on what happened in Wuhan, you need a basic understanding of the viral process.
Viruses are not living organisms because they lack mechanisms for processing the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction. Consequently, viruses reproduce by relying on living cells to synthesize the organic molecules needed to generate new viruses. To carry this out, they introduce genetic material that “hijacks” the cellular machinery for its own use. The external structure of viruses reveals how this process is initiated.
The simplest viruses are little more than genetic material surrounded by a protein capsid. More complex viruses possess an additional cell-like membrane “envelope” surrounding the capsid. The envelope allows some species to bypass immunosurveillance because envelopes are often studded with proteins commonly found on the cells they infect.
Viruses lacking membranes infect their host by injecting their genes into the host, leaving behind an empty capsid (Fig.1).
Fig.1: Image from Thomas Splettstoesser downloaded from Wikimedia Commons
In sharp contrast, viruses with membranes undergo a process of “fusion”, whereby both viral and cellular membranes join as one (Fig. 2).
Fig.2: Image from Anderson Brito downloaded from Wikimedia Commons
Antivirals target a wide range of processes associated with viral infections. Oseltamivir (active ingredient in “Tamiflu”) inhibits an enzyme that facilitates the release of newly synthesized influenza viruses from host cells. Enfuvirtide (active ingredient in “Fuzeon”) is a fusion inhibitor used for HIV. Up to now, Fuzeon is the only fusion inhibitor being used on a commercial basis (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3: Image from The Body: The HIV/AIDS Resource
Based on structural similarities between fusion-inducing proteins in both HIV and SARS-CoV-1, virologists William Gallaher and Robert Garry recommended assessing the therapeutic potential of fusion inhibitors in 2003, but even though they did a follow-up in vitro study in 2006, SARS had all but disappeared by this time, and in the decade that followed all research on fusion inhibitors targeted HIV.
Suddenly out of the blue, researchers in Shanghai in 2019 published their research on the effectiveness of EK1 as a “pan-coronavirus” fusion inhibitor, then early in 2020 EK1 was tested on SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One of the co-authors of the Wuhan study is Shi Zhengli, the very same “bat lady” who became infamous for her participation in the controversial research that may have generated SARS-CoV-2.
Why were the Chinese suddenly interested in coronaviruses when SARS-CoV-1 had long ago disappeared and MERS was confined to limited portions of the Middle East? How could they have anticipated a sudden need for innovative coronavirus therapies less than a year after their discovery of EK1?
What if SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon with a predetermined disarming mechanism? What if pre-existing similarities between HIV and SARS served as a basis for genetic manipulation to optimize the SARS virus for both human emergence and therapy with fusion inhibitors, or as Rixey puts it:
They knew, just as Gallaher had pointed out in 2003, that including enough of the HIV inserts to construct viable versions of gp120/gp41 sections would allow them to use a peptide fusion inhibitor instantly to keep themselves safe. (emphasis mine)
This is shocking accusation, but it is credible in view of the worldwide suppression of early treatment, the marginalization of all references to a lab leak hypothesis, and the frantic rush to discredit the preprint that referred to the HIV inserts.
Gallaher’s collaborator Robert Garry later co-authored an article dismissing the lab leak hypothesis (Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2) despite having said in an email, “I can’t figure out how this (insertion of the furin cleavage site) gets accomplished in nature.” Gallaher also appears to have played significant role in this whitewash, but he is not a co-author, and more shockingly, Gallaher’s “Déjà Vu” was scrubbed from the references in the final version published in Nature.
Why would they do this?
Charles Rixey thinks they did not want readers of “Proximal Origin” linking to Gallaher’s discussion of fusion inhibitors (pp. 54-56) because it would have drawn attention to the HIV inserts. In addition, Gallaher’s concern over “engineered component” vaccines* and “antibody-dependent enhancement” (p. 79) was inconvenient for technocrats Hell-bent on mass vaccination.
Fig. 4: The Tower of Babel by Abel Grimmer downloaded from Wikimedia Commons
God-centeredness is mandated in the First Commandment because godless societies often replace their clergy with high priests of “scientism” who are never held accountable for their mistakes.
Believers and non-believers alike become susceptible to this destructive ideology when our churches follow the path of least resistance.
We may never know what exactly compelled Robert Garry to change his mind on COVID origins, or what compels William Gallaher to keep quiet while young people die in record numbers from vaccine injury.
We can only say with certainty that this has been an exceptionally bad year for science and medicine, and that we must do a better job of arming our children with the thinking skills they will need to fend off future betrayals from our (formerly) trusted institutions.
* All the vaccines manufactured by Moderna, Pfizer, Jansen, and Astra Zeneca are in this category in that the “engineered component” is the spike protein.
I don't think that the four proposed HIV inserts have anything to do with fusion inhibitors first developed for HIV and then coronaviruses.
1. Some fusion inhibitors that work for SARS-CoV-2 also work for other coronaviruses that supposedly don't have these HIV inserts.
2. In the 3-D structure of Spike, the proposed HIV inserts are nowhere near the site of action for the fusion inhibitors.