There are reasons to question the claim that the spike protein was a natural evolution via the pangolin.
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19383Once again the gain of function tests into coronaviruses/sars we were paying for at the WIV via Fauci's institute is, logically,
when one looks at the past/pattern of their mistakes/publications in context, the source of this virus. It can't easily be reduced to a Texags post/excerpt, but it's highly improbable, to say the least, that this just happened right there where the gain of function research into this particular type of virus was being sloppily conducted (right by the CCP CDC and the infamous wet market), and they just happened to forget to publish specifics on this (the twins) for 6 years prior.
We could all nitpick any given source as pro or anti CCP,
but many have looked at this and I just don't see how logical, unbiased folks at this point could conclude it definitely was a natural mutation (
and I think the CCP has a lot of say in what appears in both their, and our own journals/media publications).
I don't
know if this particular version, or one of the three scenarios from my second from top link above is more likely, but I think one of the 4 is almost certainly true;
Quote:
In summary, Yan and her team suggest that the novel coronavirus was developed "as a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone."
The report states that "ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered between July 2015 and February 2017 and isolated and characterized by the aforementioned military research laboratories." It also says that when a non-military lab, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, published a Nature article reporting "a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC2 rather than with RaTG13, was quickly shut down for 'rectification.'"
The report also accuses several publications of bowing to political pressure or of experiencing "conflicts of interest" so as not to publish findings that differ from the natural origin theory. "The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2," the report states.