Do you prefer direct links to content? Check out our brand new sister site at Uncanceled.news.
AP Photo/Ng Han Guan A soon to be published study coming from British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sorensen claims to have proved that China bioengineered COVID-19 in a lab. No only that, they say they have proof that China then tried to fake evidence that showed it came from bats and jumped naturally to humans.
This per The Sun . The authors of the 22-page British-Norwegian vaccine paper write that “SARS-Coronavirus-2″ – the technical name for the virus – has no credible “natural ancestor”. They add that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that the disease was produced through “laboratory manipulation”. And in an explosive twist, the scientists place blame squarely on the same Chinese lab researchers in Wuhan for attempting to cover their tracks. There was “deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data” in Chinese labs and “Chinese scientists who wished to share their knowledge have not been able to do so or have disappeared,” according to the paper, written by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen. The paper was originally rejected by various scientific journals (they say they’ve had this information since last year) but will now be published in Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery. That sudden shift is likely due to the mainstream media and the scientific community as a whole finally putting politics aside and blessing the acknowledgement of a probable lab leak of COVID-19.
Reading the description of what’s in the study, it appears the two men are focusing on the presence and position of amino acids in the virus’ makeup that they say could only happen if artificially manipulated. Their study will also apparently include a detailed timeline that pieces together all the information we currently have, showing that it’s improbable that the virus came from nature. They do concede there will be gaps due to the Chinese not being forthcoming with information, likely destroying much of it to cover their actions.
The study claims to prove its thesis “beyond reasonable doubt,” but obviously, we’ll have to wait and see just how dispositive it truly is. Other points noted […]