The final cause of my present investigation is to remove confusion and bring peace about the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus. According to Huff, “Anthony Fauci and others coordinated to cover-up the funding of the Gain-of-Function work that resulted in SARS-COV-2” (2022: 1). To learn how the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was constructed will remove the confusion about its source and bring peace to American citizens who are tired of the deceptive arguments from the principal agents listed below.
The material causes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are three: gain of function research, spike proteins and furin cleavage sites. According to Huff, “Gain of function research involves manipulating viruses in a laboratory setting to investigate their potential to infect humans” (2022: 8). Gain of function research alters the natural purpose of a virus. Further, according to Renz, “Spike proteins are structures that allow coronaviruses to bind to the receptor sites on human cells” (2022: 12). Spike proteins are used to attach a virus onto a human cell. Further, according to Huff, “The furin cleavage site… allows the virus to bind more efficiently and release genetic material into human cells. It is one of the reasons that SARS-CoV-2 transmits so easily from human to human and can be so harmful” (2022: 20). The furin cleavage site (FCS) attached a virus to a human cell and passes along new genetic material into the cell. As a result, some biologists are learning how to change the natural purpose of a virus, how to attach a virus to a human cell, and how use a virus to introduce new genetic information into a human cell.
The formal cause of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is one: artificial. According to Huff, “Gain of Function research (via selection of rare traits or genetic manipulation or engineering of the agent) undergoes thousands of years of unnatural evolution (decided by humans not by nature) in a laboratory in a matter of days weeks or months” (2022: 53). Gain of function research removes the natural purpose of a virus and gives the virus an artificial purpose. Spike proteins artificially change human cells. And furin cleavage sites passes genetic material chosen by a human person. According to Huff, “Researchers… knew they had created a virus that could infect humans” (2022: 8). Thus, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus gives the virus an artificial purpos” and uses spike proteins to artificially change human cells, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
Further, Huff writes, “A distinguishing feature of SARS-CoV-2 is the furin cleavage site and the 12- nucleotide insertion in the spike protein, particularly its two consecutive CGG codons. Researchers conducted a BLAST search and found a 100% reverse match in a proprietary U.S. patent filed on February 4, 2016 (US patent 9,587,003)” (2022: 30). According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, “U.S. patent number 9,587,003 was granted by the patent office… for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides. This patent grant is currently assigned to ModernaTX, Inc.” (<uspto.report/patent/grant/9587003>). Thus, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus has a US patent, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The principal agents primarily responsible for the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus are five: Moderna, Shi Zhengli, Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric. Huff writes, “The owner of the patent [9,587,003] is Moderna” (2022: 30). Thus, because everything with a patent and a permit is artificial, and because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus has a patent and a permit with Moderna, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
Further, according to Huff, “Shi was also a member of the Chinese research team that was involved in the controversial gain- of-function research financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (headed by Anthony Fauci) The National Institute of Aging of the US National Institutes of Health, and EcoHealth Alliance (headed by Peter Daszak), and conducted in partnership with a research team (led by Ralph Baric) at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill” (2022: 13). Thus, because Zhengli, Fauci, Daszak and Baric worked on the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus, the the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial. According to Huff, the four researchers listed above learned that “this virus could infect humans and quickly replicate” (2022: 13).
The preparing agents of the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus are three: Daszak, Baric and Zhengli. Huff writes, in an email on June 13, 2018 to NIAID, “Daszak lists several ‘Senior/Key Personnel’ involved in his projects including Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and Shi Zhengli along with several other scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” In the email Daszak writes, “Arrange for shipments of bats and other high-risk host species to Wuhan Institute of Virology Laboratory in China.” Further, Huff writes, “Viruses isolated from the bats from Laos were genetically very close to SARS-CoV-2; the only thing missing was the furin cleavage site” (2022: 19). Thus, because Daszak, Baric and Zhengli prepared to make the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus by adding a furin cleavage site to the SARS-CoV-2 virus from bats in Laos, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The assisting agents who helped the construction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are two: Francis Collins and the National Institutes of Health. Huff writes, “National Institutes of Health… gave grants related to ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence’” (2022: 18). Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, provided money to study the “Bat Coronavirus” every year from 2009 to 2012. Thus, because the director of the National Institutes of Health helped the principal agents to understand how to alter the SARS-CoV-2 virus from bats, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The instrumental agent of the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus is one: money. Huff writes, “Millions of dollars were allocated for researching bat viruses” (2022: 18). The National Institutes of Health provided two million, forty six thousand and five hundred and sixty-four dollars ($2,046,544) for the study of the “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats” from 2009 to 2012 (2022: 18). Thus, because the NIH funded a study on how to artificially insert furin cleavage sites to SARS-like coronaviruses for the four years of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The counseling agents who are experts at the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus are three: French officials, Indian researchers and an American researcher. Huff writes, “French officials expressed discomfort because it was suspected that … the BSL-4 lab might be used for the purpose of developing biological weapons" (2022: 11). French researchers became suspicious and mistrustful of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, because BSL-4 labs were constructed, unusual “biohazard suits” were used, and “dangerous agents” were mismanaged. Further, Huff writes, “Indian researchers… studied the virus and found four insertions in the spike protein that are unique to SARS-CoV-2 and not present in other coronaviruses… They also noted that it was highly unlikely that this could have occurred naturally” (2022: 13). Indian researchers found unique “insertions in the spike protein” in the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus and concluded that the insertions were artificial and not natural. Further, Huff writes, “Dr. Huff has personal knowledge and documents related to the origin of COVID-19” (2022: 7). Huff writes that he “reviewed the proposal that was submitted to NIH which detailed the gain of function virology work that was being conducted to create the agent known as SARS-COV2, which causes the disease known as COVID-19” (2022: 5). Thus, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus involved the dangerous agents that concerned French researchers, “unique insertions in the spike protein” that Indian researchers concluded are not natural, and construction of gain of function virology work that an American researcher witnessed, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The history of the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus involves five years: 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. Huff writes, “Shi and her colleagues… looked at ACE2 molecules from seven bat species and tested the interaction of the ACE2 receptor with the human SARS-CoV spike protein” (2022: 13). Thus, the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was studied the Wuhan Institute of Virology and funded by the National Institutes of Health in 2010. Further, Huff writes, “In late 2014, I was asked to review (provide edits, comments, and feedback) on a research proposal that was in preparation to be submitted to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute for Allergens and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to conduct Gain of Function research and development” (2022: 50). Thus, the activity of altering the natural purpose of SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus began in 2014. Further, Daszak writes, “These two chimeric bat-like CoVs were constructed on Sept. 24, 2015” (2022: 38). Thus, previous stages of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was “constructed” in 2015. Further, Huff writes, researchers “used, designed, and constructed full-length and chimeric viruses to determine if they would replicate in human airway cultures" which contained "a critical and necessary step to design and engineer the SARS-COV-2 virus” (2022: 54). Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was “designed” for the human respiratory system in 2016. Further, EcoHealth reported “that the strains of viruses it was using could represent a significant threat to public health because they could escape existing vaccine and therapeutic treatments” (2022: 41). Thus, the danger of the SARS-COV-2 virus and the failure of the SARS-COV-2 vaccines were reported in 2018. Consequently, because the SARS-COV-2 virus was “looked at” in 2010, researched in 2014, “constructed” in 2015, “designed” in 2016, and became a “threat” in 2018, the SARS-COV-2 is artificial.
The signs with the message that the SARS-COV-2 virus is artificial are two: infected people with SARS-Cov in 2004 and a concern about mismanagement. Huff writes, “In 2004, the PRC [People’s Republic of China] reported nine new cases of SARS related to an accident during research using both live and inactivated samples of SARS-CoV” (2022: 11). The dangerous lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology caused nine people to become sick with the SARS-CoV virus in 2004. Further, Huff writes, in 2020 “U.S. Embassy officials visited the Wuhan Institute several times and sent two ‘Sensitive but unclassified’ cables to Washington stating that safety in the lab was inadequate” (2022: 16). The messy lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology caused U.S. Embassy officials to become concerned about “safety” and the mismanagement of diseases. Thus, because the Wuhan Institute of Virology caused nine people to become sick with SARS-Cov in 2004 and caused U.S. Officials to become concerned about the mismanagement of diseases, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
The motives of the artificial SARS-CoV-2 virus are two: greed and fear. Huff writes, “Johnson and Johnson is the maker of one of the COVID-19 vaccines approved under the Emergency Use Authorization, and sales have totaled billions of dollars” (2022: 17). The activity of placing profits above the health and well-being of American citizens is unethical, since every American citizen is a subject of hope but money is a tool for exchange. Thus, no person should be used for money. Further, Huff writes, “Both Daszak and Drosten had significant motivation to keep the actual origin of the virus, their knowledge about it, and other details a secret; as did Fauci and other employees of the NIH and NIAID” (2022: 37). The principal agents listed above, such as Daszak and Fauci, wished to hide and conceal the cause of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus. Thus, because the cause of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was motivated by the earnings of billions of dollars and fear of accountability, the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial.
I shall now use my freedom to review the investigation above and then choose my favorite two reason. Hmm… All the reasons are good. I shall now use my freedom and make a choice. I have decided that I prefer the material cause and the preparing agent. I shall now use my freedom to make a command. The SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial, because gain of function research made the SARS-CoV-2 strain harmful to men, and because Daszak, Baric and Zhengli added a furin cleavage site to the SARS-CoV-2 virus from bats in Laos.
There are four objections to the thesis that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is artificial. Huff writes, “WHO… stated, ‘The evidence is highly suggestive that the outbreak is associated with exposures in one seafood market in Wuhan’” (2022: 24).
The first objection states that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural and not artificial, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus was located in a “seafood market in Wuhan.” Plus, according to Emily Becker, “The first cases of COVID-19 (the illness caused by novel coronavirus) can be traced back to a live animal market in Wuhan City, China, according to the CDC” (Women’s Health, “What Does The Novel Coronavirus Have To Do With Bats?,” March 20, 2020). The response to the first objection is to state that more than half of the patients with COVID-19 the earliest were not located at the live animal market in Wuhan. Huff writes, “An article published in the Lancet on January 30, 2020, reported that of 99 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 1 and Jan 20, 2020, forty-nine had been exposed to the Huanan Seafood Market and fifty had not” been exposed to the seafood and live animal market (2022: 25). Consequently, it is false to conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural, because “the first cases of COVID-19 can be traced to a live animal market.” Proof: more than half of the group of people who had COVID-19 for the first time did not visit the seafood market in Wuhan.
The second objection states that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural and not artificial, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is a natural virus hosted by bats at the seafood market in Wuhan. Huff writes, “In article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that of 425 confirmed cases, the majority (55%) with onset before January 1, 2020 were linked to the seafood market…” (2022: 26). Plus, according to Becker, “[R]esearchers do know they [bats] carry it and are the reason it's been passed on to humans.” (Women’s Health, “What Does The Novel Coronavirus Have To Do With Bats?,” March 20, 2020).
The response to the second objection is to state that bats were not located in the seafood and live animal market in Wuhan. Huff writes, “The problem is that there were no bats at the seafood market, which means that the virus could not have originated there” (2022: 25). Consequently, it is false to conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural, because bats gave it to men. Proof: no bats were located at the live animal market in Wuhan.
The third objection states that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural and not artificial, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is a virus jumped from bats to other animals at the live animal market in Wuhan. Huff writes, “The researchers noted that… SARS-like viruses have been identified widely in bats in China (2022: 26). Plus, according to Becker, “[O]ne or more animals at the market in Wuhan were infected by bats and served as an intermediate host in the transfer of the virus from bats to humans” (Women’s Health, “What Does The Novel Coronavirus Have To Do With Bats?,” March 20, 2020).
The response to the third objection is to state that bats did not infect “more animals at the market.” According to Huff, “There is almost no evidence to support the idea that this virus was transmitted directly from bats or other animals to humans” (2022: 26). Consequently, it is false to conclude that SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural, because it was transferred from bats to other animals and then transferred to men. Proof: no animal has been found with the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus. According to Antonio Regalado, China tested “tens of thousands of animals, including pigs, goats, and geese… No one has found a ‘direct progenitor’ of the virus” (Technology Review, “No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19,” March 11, 2022).
The fourth objection states that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural and not artificial, because the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is a virus living in bats. Huff writes, on January 5, 2020, “Professor Yong-Zhen Zhang’s team published the genome sequence and made it available to the public. The team had reported that the virus resembled a group of viruses previously found in bats” (2022: 26). Further, Becker writes, “[S]cientists have found a 96 percent genetic match between the virus that's currently infecting humans and a coronavirus that is found in bats” (Women’s Health, "What Does The Novel Coronavirus Have To Do With Bats?," March 20, 2020).
The response to the fourth objection is to state that the virus found in bats is not 100% the same as the virus found in men. According to Huff, “Viruses isolated from the bats from Laos were genetically very close to SARS-CoV-2; the only thing missing was the furin cleavage site” (2022: 19). Consequently, it is false to conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus is natural, because it is found in bats. Proof: the SARS-CoV-2 strain of coronavirus in men have a furin cleavage site that is not found in bats.
Moreover, four refutations destroy the reputations of the principal agents listed above.
First, Huff writes, “Daszak… hid his conflicts of interest concerning his research and his ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from Jeffrey Sachs, chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission” (2022: 32). Consequently, Daszak is not ethical and does not accept responsibility for his actions.
Second, Huff writes, “Daszak…wrote, ‘Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it'” (2022: 36). Consequently, Dasza is not logical and does not want to defend his statements.
Third, Huff writes, “Fauci continued to insist that gain-of-function research was not responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 and stated under oath when testifying in front of a Senate Committee that neither his agency nor the National Institute of Health funded gain-of-function research” (2022: 37). As a result, Fauci is not ethical and does not want others to learn about his connection to the construction of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus.
Fourth, Huff writes, Fauci stated that that the NIH “has not and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology” (2022: 37). However, according to Huff, “The National Institutes of Health admitted that it funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute in China” (2022: 37). As a result, Fauci is not logical and uses deception as a regular form of reasoning.
Moreover, five paradoxes destroy the credibility of the principal agents listed above.
First, Huff writes, “Christian Drosten and his colleagues had published an article in Eurosurveillance on January 23, 2020, in which they claimed to have developed a RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2” (2022: 36). Plus, Fauci promoted the RT-PCR test from Drosten and said, “Looking at it again, there may be an option in that, that testing could be a part of that,” Fauci said (PBS, Fauci: CDC mulling COVID test requirement for asymptomatic, January 2, 2022). However, the RT-PCR test developed by Drosten was not tested on the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus. According to Huff, “There were several problems with this paper, including the fact that that this group did not have SARS-CoV- 2 viral material at the time that the article was published” (2022: 36). Consequently, the RT-PCR test developed by Drosten and promoted by Fauci is useless and cannot detect the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus.
Second, Huff writes, “Kristian Andersen… had… written to Fauci expressing his concerns that SARS- Co-V-2 included sequences that appeared to be manmade” (2022: 37). However, Andersen then “led a group that published an article in Nature on March 17, 2020, in support of the theory that the virus was transmitted from animals to humans” and “received a generous grant from the National Institutes of Health” (2022: 37). Consequently, Fauci is unethical, because rewarded the false conclusion, that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus is natural, with “a generous grant.” According to Huff, “[T]his does not pass the ‘smell test.’” Surely, the lack of credibility should not be rewarded.
Third, Huff writes, “Daszak stated that ‘Our molecular clone is WIV1… has never been demonstrated to infect humans or cause human disease.’” (2022: 39). However, Daszak also state that “the WIV1-CoV cluster has been identified as a threat for future emergence in human populations” (2022: 39). Consequently, Daszak is not logical and asserts two statements that contradict each other. It is false to assert that WIV1 does not infect and does not cause disease in men. Proof: according to Huff, “WIV1 was known to be potentially dangerous to humans” (2022: 39)
Fourth, Huff writes, “Daszak proposed that Daszak/EcoHealth and its collaborators would immediately stop their research… if the chimeras showed evidence of virus growth greater than one log (or 10 times) the growth rate of the original viruses” (2022: 39). However, Daszak, EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology “infected humanized mice with the WIV1 parental virus… containing SHC014S, WUV16S… virus” which “grew at 10,000 times greater than the parent virus” (2022: 40). Consequently, Daszak and Zhengli are unethical, because they allowed a virus to grow ten thousand times greater than its parent rather than stop their research when the virus grow ten times greater than its parent.
Fifth, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance group asserts on the home page of its web site that “EcoHealth Alliance develops science-based solutions to prevent pandemics and promote conservation” (ecohealthalliance dot org). However, a “Senior Scientist in charge of the Data and Technology” at EcoHealth Alliance said, “No substantial conservation work, as traditionally defined, was occurring at the organization” (2022: 50, 52). Consequently, EcoHealth Alliance is deceptive, because EcoHealth Alliance asserts that it prevents pandemics and promotes conservation but secretly promotes pandemics and prevents conservation. According to Huff, “[T]he gain of function work on SARS- COV2 was already underway in China, prior to October 2014, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with the support of… EcoHealth Alliance” (2022: 51).
Moreover, four fallacies show that the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus is artificial and cannot be natural. First, the fallacy of appeal to pity is shown by the Rockefeller Foundation which writes, “Contact tracing stops more people from getting sick, so hospitals don’t get crowded, doctors and nurses can stay safe, and every patient gets the attention they need” (2022:43). The statement that “contact tracing stops more people from getting sick” is false and appeals to pity. Rather than focusing on the artificial cause of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus, the Rockefeller Foundation directs the readers attention toward the feeling of sympathy for doctors and nurses who are trying to remain “safe” and making sure every “patient gets the attention he needs.” Further, notice the simple grammar mistake in the appeal to pity from the Rockefeller Foundation. The plural pronoun “they” refers to the singular noun “every patient” in the same sentence. Consequently, the Rockefeller Foundation promotes information with one fallacy and one grammatical mistake. Rule: ‘every’ is used with singular nouns and singular pronouns.
Second, the red herring fallacy is shown by Huff who writes, “Google dot org has been funding studies conducted by EcoHealth Alliance since 2010” (2022: 47). However, “WHO was working with Google ‘to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus see WHO information at the top of their search’” (2022: 35). Google used its search engine to highlight results from WHO and to downplay results from French, Indian and American researchers. Consequently, Google, like the Rockefeller Foundation, is deceptive and distracts readers from accurate information about the source of the SARS-CoV-2 strain of the coronavirus.
Third, the fallacy of inconsistency is shown by the Rockefeller Foundation which states, “If you identify who you were in contact with, you can stop the virus in its tracks” (2022: 44). The statement that identifying people has the power to “stop the virus” is false and is an example of the fallacy of inconsistency. It is impossible for a person to strengthen his immune system and to stop a virus by simply writing down the names of people he talks to. Further, notice again the simple grammar mistake in the fallacy of inconsistency from the Rockefeller Foundation. The sentence ends with a preposition. Rule: The two sentences ‘You identify who you were in contact with’ and ‘Who is he going out with?’ are informal and not persuasive. Consequently, the Rockefeller Foundation promotes information with fallacies and grammatical mistakes.
Fourth, the fallacy of hasty generalization is shown by the Rockefeller Foundation which writes, “Only through a unified and clear national plan can we beat this insidious virus, protect the most vulnerable in our communities, and preserve our economic and social vitality” (“National Covid-19 Testing & Tracing Action Plan,” Thursday, July 16, 2020, p. 3). The statement that “a unified and clear national plan” alone has the power to “beat the virus” is false and is an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization. There are many ways to “beat the virus” apart from a national plan, such as visiting a doctor, taking prescribed medicine, eating properly and getting enough sleep. Consequently, the Rockefeller Foundation promotes information with fallacies and grammatical mistakes.
Final remarks. I appreciate the clear synthesis of covid information by the brilliant researchers at the Renz Law Firm, such as Dr. Huff, in Ohio. A happy person is both logical and ethical, especially about medical problems.
Link to Huff's research is here: https://renzlawfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Senator-Johnson-Final-1.pdf
© By Theodore Faulders, October 15, 2022.