I have read the article twice, and there are two things that concern me.
First, there are untrue things that you would have to know a lot about virology to know are false - for example, the assertion that a furin cleavage site is unique to SARS CoV 2 when it is not.
Second, the assertion about the METHOD and the PURPOSE of the release (while it may be 100% true) does not follow from the data or other information in the article.
She’s eithre an eyewitness to the conspiracy, has it from a reliable informant, or it’s an educated guess.
RE: Second, the assertion about the METHOD and the PURPOSE of the release
There are other FReepers who have responded to the furin cleavage argument. Let me dig up the FR archives and post them to you here.
As for METHOD or PURPOSE, I don’t think we can ever know what the METHOD, much less PURPOSE is. To do that, we have to be have the Omniscient ability to READ INTO the minds of others.
That is why I said I am not at this point, looking at the motives of people. I am only interested in the SCIENCE.
RE: First, there are untrue things that you would have to know a lot about virology to know are false - for example, the assertion that a furin cleavage site is unique to SARS CoV 2 when it is not.
Here is the argument made by poster: grey-whiskers regarding the issue of furin-cleave sites:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3884605/posts?q=1&;page=51
Post #69 of the above page.
The issue isn’t that a furin cleavage site has never been seen in nature.
It’s that, if COVID-19 evolved naturally, you’d see the furin-19 cleavage site, in its nearest relatives: the most closely related coronaviruses.
BUT THEY DON’T HAVE ONE.
And then you go to the coronaviruses that DO have a furin cleavage site.
And their genetic sequence, around the spike, is only a 60% match to the COVID-19 spike.
AND (which you conveniently left out) COVID-19’s spike, has on either side of it, genetic sequences which are used to cut-and-paste sections of genes in the lab.
‘COVID-19’s furin site is unique and not found in nature’ IS NOT THE SAME THING AS: ‘there has never been a furin cleavage site anywhere else’.
He also said:
the article plants in the casual user’s mind, the idea that Dr. Yan is misinformed (’Actually, there are all kinds of furin cleavages in coronaviruses, unlike Yan who said COVID_19’s furin is unique and not found in nature.’)
But YAN never said that! YAN said that THAT PARTICULAR GENETIC SEQUENCE for a furin cleavage site, doesn’t exist in nature.
And it is proven beyond the possibility of a shadow of a doubt, because the very virus given by the “natural occurence” apologists,
a) never shared a host with the Coronavirus precursors
b) indications are that it apparently can’t even infect its own supposed natural host (that is, it was most likely engineered too)
I believe she has previously said it was unique that the first appearance of a zoonotic virus had a flawless furin cleavage site.
It is also curious that the USA medical establishment seems to have no interest in what animal is spreading this infection and no interest in seeing the contact tracing for the original victims.