Coronavirus-HIV Mutants Were Discussed in NIH-funded Work that Led to COVID-19

SUMMARY: In my previous posts, I discussed HIV genes present in Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and showed how using HIV genes in recombinant viruses was the bread and butter of modern virology.

This post will introduce new evidence (published two days ago) of HIV/Sars mutant coronavirus chimeras discussed in NIH-funded research projects that led to the COVID pandemic. The research project discussed in this post was funded by NIH grant 1R01AI110964 and was titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” Grant 1R01AI110964 was given for research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance in cooperation with Dr. Ralph Baric of UNC and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In the last section, I will answer the question, “Can we trust science?”

NIH Grant 1R01AI110964

Two days ago, 554 pages of previously secret documents related to certain NIH grants to the EcoHealth Alliance were released under FOIA to Judicial Watch.

The monetary grant, dispensing $3,748,715, funded the work of EcoHealth Alliance, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Ralph Baric lab, towards the following (page 16):

• Assess CoV spillover potential
• Develop predictive models of bat CoV emergence risk and host range
• Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission

Take a look at page 127:

The above page describes “receptor mutants and pseudoviruses,” specifically a mutant of HIV backbone with SARS-like “spike proteins.” These NIH-funded researchers created these HIV-SARS mutants to see how well they would infect human lungs and experimented on “humanized mice” whose lung cells resembled human cells.

These mutant viruses are, in a way, the opposite of Sars-Cov-2. They represent an HIV backbone with SARS-like spike protein.

Sars-Cov-2, on the contrary, is a coronavirus backbone with spike-protein including HIV genes. (Such a chimera is described in the DEFUSE proposal submitted by Peter Daszak to another government agency)

And yet, despite the dissimilarity, these mutants show how prevalent the lab work is that involves combining HIV and coronavirus genomes.

Airborne HIV?

HIV is an exceptionally cunning virus: it integrates into the human DNA after infection. Such integration is called “reverse transcription,” whereby RNA from the virus becomes part of the DNA of human cells. HIV essentially edits the human genome and inserts its code into it. After that, human cells produce new HIV viral particles, as this NIH page explains.

However, HIV is not very contagious. It cannot target cellular receptors found in human lungs, for example. One cannot get HIV via the airborne route: HIV infections require blood-to-blood transmission, and HIV-carrying aerosols cannot infect human respiratory systems.

A pseudovirus that can infect human ACE2 cells, which are present in our lungs, is one step closer to airborne transmission: an aerosol carrying ACE-2-binding HIV mutant could infect someone upon being breathed in.

Is the research that creates ACE-2-infecting HIV mutants, which may be contagious via the respiratory route, safe? What if these recombinants escape the laboratory?

That does not seem safe to me!

And yet, in search of grant money, fame, and discoveries, virologists funded by the NIH conducted such experiments involving ACE2-infecting HIV chimeras with minimal oversight.

Their work gave us Sars-CoV-2 and the Covid pandemic. Again, Sars-Cov-2, a recombinant chimera carrying HIV genes on a coronavirus backbone is NOT the same as the pseudovirus described above; it is something else but related.

The above shows that work on HIV/SARS coronavirus recombinants, funded by the NIH, was conducted by the same people whose cooperation with the Wuhan Institute of Virology gave us the Covid pandemic.

Almost every human was infected with the HIV-gene-carrying COVID virus. Every COVID-vaccinated human was injected with spike-protein-producing mRNA, which encoded the same HIV genes. We are now living through the consequences, with excess mortality continuing among the vaccinated countries.

Fact-Checkers Tried to Distract Us

Numerous fact-checking articles attempted to deny the link between HIV and Sars-Cov-2.

Those assurances are false.

The document I highlighted shows evidence that the same people who gave us Sars-Cov-2 also worked on HIV/SARS chimeras. Therefore, there is a “plausible route” by which the Covid pandemic virus could carry HIV genes. This belies the fact-checkers’ hollow claims.

Can We “Trust the Science” Ever Again?

During the pandemic, we were asked to “trust the science.”

And yet, the pandemic itself was caused by “the science,” when the leading virologists who, unbeknownst to us, were involved in creating Sars-Cov-2 (or funded its development) lied to us about the origins of the pandemic.

In the past, science gave us antibiotics, electricity, air travel, computers, the Internet, and all the perks of the civilization we enjoy. For example, when we plug in a vacuum cleaner into an electrical outlet, we “trust the science” that the electricity will make the vacuum cleaner run safely. Even though electricity may be a mystery to many of us, we know it works safely and effectively in our homes.

On the one hand, we have incredible advances in science in many areas, and we benefit daily from the fruits of the scientific process.

On the other hand, we have —

• a manmade pandemic that killed millions,

• scientists who lied about its origins, and

• a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine, which many people received against their will under false assurances.

So, we can ask… Can we ever trust science again?

In my opinion, asking whether “we should trust science” is a wrong question.

Science is not a person whose trustworthiness we can gauge. Science is a collection of human beings called “scientists,” who have all sorts of motivations and incentives. Some are honest, and some are not. Some can resist groupthink and peer pressure, but many cannot. Science is complicated, fascinating, and often wrong on matters of crucial importance.

So, trusting science in all instances is not wise. At the same time, we cannot decide on every scientific matter. We cannot be the top experts on electromagnetism that gave us home electricity while at the same time outsmarting the best virologists, biologists, and so on. We have lives to live.

Most of the time, trusting science is okay. Electricity works, planes mostly do not fall from the sky, allergy pills stop sneezing, and so on.

However, there are some crucial moments when “trusting science” does not work. These periods involve nonsensical stories (natural origin of Sars-Cov-2), censorship, media manipulation, or the use of science in party politics. During these moments, blind trust is NOT warranted and is best avoided.

That’s my answer, anyway. What do you think? Do you trust science?

 

************