What the BioWeapon Industry Inserted in SARS-CoV-2


After one and a half year, even Wall Street Journal cannot afford to hide it any more: SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory-designed. Dr. Steven Quay (founder of Atossa Therapeutics) and Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller clearly state that the ‘double CGG’ addition to the virus does not exist in nature. It can therefore not have evolved naturally, that is, by natural crossing of genetic material characteristic of the cell division process. Interestingly, Quay and Muller write this on June 6 2021. They claim the insert was first discovered by French virologist Bruno Coutard, who happens to be affiliated to the same IHU in Marseille as the famous expert in infectious diseases, prof. Didier Raoult. Coutard’s paper, entitled “he spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade” appeared in the April issue of Antiviral Research 176 (2020), and was submitted in its original form on February 3rd 2020. Now what exactly did Coutard discover in early 2020? The figure below is from his publication entitled The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade.


Nucleotides are the very programming digits of biology. Where in digital computers these digits are called 0 and 1, in biology they are called A,C,G and T. Three of them form a triplet. Every triplet codes for a single amino acid, which is the biological construction unit of proteins: proteins are strings of amino acids. The latter come in many variants, twenty of which are used by the biological correspondence table between code (nucleotide triplets) and construction unit (amino acids). The triplet CCG codes for the amino acid Arginine (Arg, or R). The two Arginine molecules are part of the furin-like sequence PRRA (Proline-Arginine-Arginine-Alanine), which serves a directly identifiable biological purpose (cleavage site), and is not found in any natural SARS or MERS variant. The horizontal scale gives the number of mutations of the daughter species (to the right of a bifurcation) with respect to the parent species (to the left of a bifurcation). What makes PRRA quite special, is that it did not result from the mutation of previously existing nucleotides, but from the addition of 12 of these nucleotides. Although a natural process can never be excluded, experts confirm that they are highly unlikely to produce this specific addition.

The furin-like cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV2-2 lacks in all natural variants, and happens to have enormous functional consequences in the human viral cycle: in technical terms, this is called “gain of function”. Bruno Coutard is an expert in the field: ever since the outbreak of the 2004 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), he has been investigating enzymatic activity in SARS and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). Given the date of submission, it is only fair to mention that, whether Coutard knew it or not, a well-known research group from New Delhi (India) already published the PRRA sequence in January 2020, one month before Coutard submitted his paper. Moreover, the Indian publication received extra publicity because it was “withdrawn” under pressure. Freely translated: a powerful big-pharm mafia did not want this scientific research to be published. Did Coutard know of this publication? It was publicly available on bioRxiv, and even though this publication was not peer-reviewed (for having being refused by the journal, under big-pharm pressure), it is not forbidden to scientists to refer to what is technically called a preprint. Fact is, that Coutard would lose the official discovery status which he now enjoys, had he referred to Pradhan’s preprint.

What the Indian research group revealed concerning the genetic code of SARS-CoV2-2, was much more spectacular than what Coutard revealed — and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the very valuable and courageous publication of Coutard. Pradhan and coworkers demonstrated

  • the existence of not a single, but four specific inserts in the coding region for the spike protein;
  • the gigantic gain-of function effect implied by the pI=12 negative charge of the docking protein to the positively charged human ACE2 receptor;
  • the amazing fact that all four inserts correspond to HIV sequences, from which the bioweapon researchers copied the essential protein folding properties, necessary to transform an avian virus into a human one.


As I am no specialist in the matter, I am not in a position to judge that, in his April 2020 publication, Coutard missed the HIV-aspect of the inserts — as did Muller and Quay in their letter to the Wall Street Journal, more than a year later. What I do know, is that a Nobel Prize vouched for the soundness of the Indian research. Now it is well known that Nobel Prizes are frequently abused for airing opinions on scientific fields they have not the slightest clue of. In this case, however, the Nobel Prize in question, French laureate Luc Montagnier (1932), speaks out on his own field of research. Not only that: he received the Nobel Prize 2008 in Physiology or Medicine exactly for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), along with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen. No sooner had Montagnier publicly spoken out about the HIV inserts in SARS-CoV-2 in a French television interview, and the usual big-pharm-paid choir (in this case, composed by the eunuchs Jean-Francois Delfraissy, head of the scientific council that advises the French government on the COVID-19 pandemic, and Olivier Schwartz, head of the virus and immunity department of France’s Pasteur Institute) chanted ‘conspiracy’, as if that word alone sufficiently proved their otherwise unsubstantiated allegations.

Interestingly, Montagnier knows scientific China from much closer than his detractors: he was a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. Quite interestingly too, Montagnier keeps claiming that he has no conflicting interests. This is of extreme importance. All his detractors do have competing interests. They are on the big-pharma payroll. Montagnier has never been accused of such conflicting interests. How is that possible? Why do his detractors bully him for everything that serves for discrediting his scientific stature, while they refrain from accusing him of conflicting interests? I leave it to the reader to answer that question.


In ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, Ariel Fernández provides this highly illustrative picture of the gain-of-function provided by the PPRA cleavage site. Fernández’ letter is a comment on a 2021 research paper discussing the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 by Segreto and Deigin (BioEssays 43 2000240). The latter authors do “not rule out a laboratory origin”, as the title of their article goes. ‘RBD’ stands for Receptor Binding Domain. ‘Pangolin’ is the name of a long-snouted, ant-eating mammal, often used in traditional Chinese medicine, and carrier of a naturally occurring SARS variant contracted from Chinese bats, called RaTG213 (left). This natural variant is incapable of affecting humans. In SARS-CoV-2 (right), the laboratory-inserted PPRA sequence operates like a detonator, allowing the otherwise harmless protein to be split into a deadly anchor-harpoon combination, which targets specifically ACE2 receptors expressed by human cells. Note that the PPRA sequence is not the only laboratory insert. All yellow-colored regions are. This confirms, once again, both the original work by Pradhan and coworkers, and the interpretation given thereof by 2008 HIV-Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier.

All praise to scientifically solid writers, like Nicholas Wade, who recently published a very thorough review of the big-pharm campaign. Wade shows that the two fundamental “scientific” publications, on the basis of which it was initially decided that SARS-CoV-2 was a natural virus, were written by paid mercenaries of big pharm mafias: both the Lancet letter of February 2020 (organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, infamous funder of the Wuhan Research Institute), and the Nature Medicine letter by the fraudulent and self-censoring twitterer Kristian Andersen of March 2020. It is only too bad that once prestigious scientific journals, like NEJM, The Lancet, Nature, and Science, systematically prostitute themselves as cheap propaganda outlets of the big pharm mafias (and for the latter two, of the climate mafia, too).

Wade concludes that so far, there is no direct evidence in favor of a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, although the clues all point in that direction. Well, dear colleague, I beg to differ. Direct evidence there is: abundant, and definitive. Everything depends on how solid one estimates the evidence needs to be, before considering it as such. In this sense, Wade is “more Roman than the Pope”, as a wise Dutch saying has it.

Meanwhile, Luc Montagnier said that “history books will show that it is vaccination that creates the virus variants”, rather than Darwinian variation (interview with RAIR Foundation). A large group of highly concerned European doctors and scientists addressed this issue in their “Urgent Open Letter to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns”. They demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until a number of crucial issues be properly addressed by the European Medicines Agency.