virus genome – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com Chronological Sequence of Events Sun, 08 Oct 2023 01:32:45 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 https://pandemictimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Covid-150x150.ico virus genome – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com 32 32 Pfizer files patent US6372224: Canine coronavirus S gene and uses therefor https://pandemictimeline.com/2000/01/pfizer-files-patent-6372224-canine-coronavirus-s-gene-and-uses-therefor/ Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:58 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1417 From the patent: The present invention provides the amino acid and nucleotide sequences of a CCV spike gene, and compositions containing one or more fragments of the spike gene and encoded polypeptide for prophylaxis, diagnostic purposes and treatment of CCV infections. — Patent US6372224B1 This is the patent for the spike protein virus, a vaccine…

Read more →

]]>

From the patent:

The present invention provides the amino acid and nucleotide sequences of a CCV spike gene, and compositions containing one or more fragments of the spike gene and encoded polypeptide for prophylaxis, diagnostic purposes and treatment of CCV infections.

— Patent US6372224B1

This is the patent for the spike protein virus, a vaccine for the canine Coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of Coronavirus.

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

But as you know, up until 1999, the topic of Coronavirus vs V [VSV?] the patenting activity around Coronavirus was uniquely applied to veterinary sciences. The first vaccine ever patented for Coronavirus was actually sought by Pfizer. The application for the first vaccine for Coronavirus, which was specifically this s spike protein. So the exact same thing that allegedly we have rushed into invention. The first application was filed January 28 2000, 21 years ago. So the idea that we we mysteriously stumbled on the the way to intervene on vaccines is not only ludicrous, it is incredulous because Timothy Millor, Sharon Klepfer, Albert Paul Reed, and Elaine Jones on January 28 2000, filed what ultimately was issued as US Patent 6372224 which was the spike protein virus, a vaccine for the canine Coronavirus, which is actually one of the multiple forms of Coronavirus. But as I said, the early work up until 1999 was largely focused in the area of vaccines for animals, the two animals receiving the most attention were probably Ralph Barics work on rabbits and the rabbit cardiomyopathy that was associated with significant problems among rabbit breeders, and then canine Coronavirus in Pfizer’s work to identify how to develop s and spike protein vaccine target candidates giving rise to the obvious evidence that says that neither the Coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the Coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with respect to the spike proteins behaviour is anything novel at all. As a matter of fact, it’s 22 years old, based on patent filings. What’s more problematic, and what is actually the most egregious problem is that Anthony Fauci and NIAID found the malleability of Coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. And so SARS is actually not a natural progression of a zoonetic modification of Coronavirus.

— Dr. David Martin at 02:53

Sources:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]> UNC Chapel Hill files patent US7279327: Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus https://pandemictimeline.com/2002/04/unc-chapel-hill-files-patent-7279327-methods-for-producing-recombinant-coronavirus/ Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:25 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1910 A helper cell for producing an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus (or more generally nidovirus) particle cell comprises (a) a nidovirus permissive cell; (b) a nidovirus replicon RNA comprising the nidovirus packaging signal and a heterologous RNA sequence, wherein the replicon RNA further lacks a sequence encoding at least one nidovirus structural protein; and (c) at…

Read more →

]]>

A helper cell for producing an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus (or more generally nidovirus) particle cell comprises (a) a nidovirus permissive cell; (b) a nidovirus replicon RNA comprising the nidovirus packaging signal and a heterologous RNA sequence, wherein the replicon RNA further lacks a sequence encoding at least one nidovirus structural protein; and (c) at least one separate helper RNA encoding the at least one structural protein absent from the replicon RNA, the helper RNA(s) lacking the nidovirus packaging signal. The combined expression of the replicon RNA and the helper RNA in the nidovirus permissive cell produces an assembled nidovirus particle which comprises the heterologous RNA sequence, is able to infect a cell, and is unable to complete viral replication in the absence of the helper RNA due to the absence of the structural protein coding sequence in the packaged replicon. Compositions for use in making such helper cells, along with viral particles produced from such cells, compositions of such viral particles, and methods of making and using such viral particles, are also disclosed.

— Patent US7279327B2

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

… in 1999 Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, specifically to create, and you cannot help but, you know, lament what I’m about to read because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19 2002. And you heard the date correctly 2002 where the NIAID built an infectious replication defective Coronavirus that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, we made SARS and we patented it on April 19 2002, before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know, followed that by several months. That patent issued is US Patent 7279327. That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the s1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen was not only engineered, but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen. And that technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could actually harness Coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.

— Dr. David Martin at 02:53

To see how DNA is generated directly from a computer, see “How We Make DNA” – Cambrian Genomics.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

 

]]> CDC files patent US7220852: Coronavirus isolated from humans https://pandemictimeline.com/2004/04/cdc-files-patent-7220852-coronavirus-isolated-from-humans/ Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:24 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1420 Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections…

Read more →

]]>

Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.

— Patent US7220852B1

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Coronavirus as a circulating pathogen inside of the viral model that we have is actually not new to the human condition and is not new to the last two decades. It’s actually been part of the sequence of proteins that circulates for quite a long time. But the alleged outbreak that took place in China in 2002, going into 2003 gave rise to a very problematic April 2003 filing by the United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. And this topic is of critical importance to get the nuance very precise, because in addition to filing the entire gene sequence on what became SARS Coronavirus, which is actually a violation of 35 US Code Section 101. You cannot patent a naturally occurring substance. The 35 US Code Section 101 violation was patent number 7220852.

— Dr. David Martin at 15:32

According to Dr. David Martin, this is the patent that records the entire gene sequence for the SARS Coronavirus.  All other Coronavirus related patents contain a segment of this sequence.  According to Dr. Martin, the sequence found for SARS CoV 2 is a segment of the original SARS Coronavirus.  This is documented in his report.

Source:

See also, on this site:

Related:

 

 

 

]]> Sequoia Pharmaceuticals files patent US7151163: Antiviral agents for the treatment, control and prevention of infections by coronaviruses https://pandemictimeline.com/2004/04/sequoia-pharmaceuticals-files-patent-7151163-antiviral-agents-for-the-treatment-control-and-prevention-of-infections-by-coronaviruses/ Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:20 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1422 The invention provides compositions and methods that are useful for preventing and treating a coronavirus infection in a subject. More specifically, the invention provides peptides and conjugates and pharmaceutical compositions containing those peptides and conjugates that block fusion of a coronavirus, such as the SARS virus, to a target cell. This blocking mechanism prevents or…

Read more →

]]>

The invention provides compositions and methods that are useful for preventing and treating a coronavirus infection in a subject. More specifically, the invention provides peptides and conjugates and pharmaceutical compositions containing those peptides and conjugates that block fusion of a coronavirus, such as the SARS virus, to a target cell. This blocking mechanism prevents or treats a coronavirus infection, such as a SARS infection, in a subject, such as a human subject.

— Patent US7151163B2

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Dr David Martin  25:57

The patent in question, the April 28th 2003 patent 7151163, issued to Sequoia Pharmaceuticals has another problem. The problem is it was issued and published before the CDC patent on Coronavirus was actually allowed. So the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero. It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published, because CDC had paid to keep it secret. This, my friends is the definition of criminal conspiracy racketeering and collusion. This is not a theory. This is evidence. You cannot have information in the future in form [for] a treatment for a thing that did not exist.

Reiner Fuellmich  27:16

This could well blow up into a Rico case, ultimately.

Dr David Martin  27:20

This is, it is a Rico case. It’s not could blow up into it, it is a Rico case. And the Rico pattern, which was established in April of 2003 for the first Coronavirus, was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS CoV 2 show up when we have Moderna getting the spike protein sequence by phone from the vaccine research centre at NIAID prior to the definition of the novel subclade. How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?

— Reiner Fuellmich Interviews Dr David Martin

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

 

 

 

]]> The CDC files patent US7776521: Coronavirus isolated from humans https://pandemictimeline.com/2007/05/the-cdc-files-patent-7776521-coronavirus-isolated-from-humans/ Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:30 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1921 Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections…

Read more →

]]>

Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.

— Patent US7776521B1

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Dr David Martin  15:32

The 35 US Code Section 101 violation was patent number 7220852. Now, that patent also had a series of derivative patents associated with it, these are our patent applications that were broken apart because they were of multiple patentable subject matter. But these include US Patent 46592703p, which is actually a very interesting designation, US Patent 7776521. These patents not only covered the gene sequence of SARS Coronavirus, but also covered the means of detecting it using RT-PCR. Now, the reason why that’s a problem is if you actually both own the patent on the gene itself, and you own the patent on its detection, you have a cutting advantage to being able to control 100 percent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection, meaning you have entire scientific and message control. And this patent sought by the CDC was allegedly justified by their public relations team as being sought so that everyone would be free to be able to research Coronavirus. The only problem with that statement is it’s a lie and the reason why it’s a lie is because the patent office not once but twice rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because the gene sequence was already in the public domain. In other words, prior to CDCs filing for a patent, the patent office found 99.9 percent identity with the already existing Coronavirus recorded in the public domain, and over the rejection of the patent examiner. And after having to pay an appeal fine in 2006 and 2007, the CDC overrode the patent office’s rejection of their patent and ultimately in 2007 got the patent on SARS Coronavirus. Now, every public statement that CDC has made that said that this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own paid bribe to the patent office. This is not something that’s subtle, and to make matters worse they paid an additional fee to keep their application private. Last time I checked, if you’re trying to make information available for the public research, you would not pay a fee to keep the information private. I wish I could have made up anything I just said, but all of that is available in the public patent archive record which any member of the public can review. And the Public PAIR, as it’s called at the United States Patent Office, has not only the evidence but the actual documents which I have in my possession. Now, this is critically important. It’s critically important because fact checkers have repeatedly stated that the novel Coronavirus, designated as SARS CoV 2 is in fact distinct from the CDC patent. And here’s both the genetic and the patent problem. If you look at the gene sequence that is filed by CDC in 2003, again in 2005 and then again in 2006, what you find is identity in somewhere between 89 to 99 percent of the sequence overlaps that have been identified in what’s called the novel subclade of SARS CoV 2. What we know is that the core designation of SARS Coronavirus, which is actually the clade of the betacoronavirus family and the subclade that has been called SARS CoV 2 have to overlap from a taxonomic point of view. You cannot have SARS designation on a thing without it first being SARS. So the disingenuous fact checking that has been done saying that somehow or another CDC has nothing to do with this particular patent, or this particular pathogen, is beyond both the literal credibility of the published sequences. And it’s also beyond credulity when it comes to the ICTV taxonomy because it very clearly states that this is in fact a sub clade of the clade called SARS Coronavirus. Now, what’s important is on the 28th of April, and listen to the date very carefully because this date is problematic.

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

 

 

]]> Ablynx files patent US9193780: Amino acid sequences directed against envelope proteins of a virus and polypeptides comprising the same for the treatment of viral diseases https://pandemictimeline.com/2009/06/ablynx-files-patent-9193780-amino-acid-sequences-directed-against-envelope-proteins-of-a-virus-and-polypeptides-comprising-the-same-for-the-treatment-of-viral-diseases/ Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:00:35 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=1424 The present invention relates in part to amino acid sequences that are directed against and/or that can specifically bind to an envelope protein of a virus, as well as to compounds or constructs, and in particular proteins and polypeptides, that comprise or essentially consist of one or more such amino acid sequences. — Patent US9193780B2…

Read more →

]]>

The present invention relates in part to amino acid sequences that are directed against and/or that can specifically bind to an envelope protein of a virus, as well as to compounds or constructs, and in particular proteins and polypeptides, that comprise or essentially consist of one or more such amino acid sequences.

— Patent US9193780B2

From the Reiner/Martin interview:

Dr David Martin  33:24

Oh it does. The 5th of June 2008, which is an important date because it is actually around the time when DARPA the Defence Advanced Research Programme in the United States actively took an interest in Coronavirus as a biological weapon. June 5 2008 Ablynx, which as you know is now part of Sanofi, filed a series of patents that specifically targeted what we’ve been told is the novel feature of the SARS CoV 2 virus. And you heard what I just said, this is the 5th of June 2008.

Reiner Fuellmich  34:09

They found what?

Dr David Martin  34:10

Specifically they targeted what was called the poly basic cleavage site for SARS Cov, the novel spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain which is allegedly novel to SARS CoV 2, and all of that was patented on the 5th of June 2008. And those patents in sequence were issued between November 24th of 2015, which was US Patent 9193780. So that one came out after the gain of function moratorium.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

 

 

]]> Peter Daszak mentions coronavirus research in video https://pandemictimeline.com/2019/12/peter-daszak-mentions-coronavirus-research-in-video/ Mon, 09 Dec 2019 00:00:43 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=737 In this interview, Peter Daszak shares his background and how he works. At 8:35, the talk turns toward funding.  At 8:55, Vincent Racaniello asks, “How do you pay for all this?”  Peter Daszak talks about his history with the wildlife conservation charity.  He found it easier to get funding when he tied his work to…

Read more →

]]>

In this interview, Peter Daszak shares his background and how he works.

At 8:35, the talk turns toward funding.  At 8:55, Vincent Racaniello asks, “How do you pay for all this?”  Peter Daszak talks about his history with the wildlife conservation charity.  He found it easier to get funding when he tied his work to health.  He finds that health is a better motivator overall.

Beginning at 11:13:

We get money from foundations. We get money from private sector. So one of the things we’ve been trying to do is we work a lot on the underlying causes of pandemics—deforestation, climate change, wildlife hunting. That’s our conservation side as well. So we go to foundations and say, “Look, you’ve been trying to stop the wildlife trade in China for 20 years. You put all this money into it. If you have a health angle to that, it really does work. The markets, the wildlife markets in China were never closed down because of, you know, ethical concerns. But the minute SARS emerged, they closed them down. So that’s the argument we use, and we’re trying to put the health in conservation.

In other words, Peter Daszak’s primary motivation is conservation.  He sees health as an effective motivator to get governments to act on conservation issues.

EcoHealth Alliance headquarters are in New York.  At that office, there are people doing economic modeling, analytics, and gene sequence crunching.  The labs are all around the world.  On the relationship with labs, beginning at 12:07:

Usually, we subcontract to labs, but we usually try and have in every country a country Program Officer who manages the work we do in that country and sometimes regional. And we often hire technicians in labs or PhD students, you know, to have a have a presence in the lab. There’s more of a buy-in when you’ve got a person.

EcoHealth Alliance is in 30 countries.  Peter Daszak is in charge of China and Malaysia.

At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview with Vincent Racaniello, Peter Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can “get into human cells in the lab,” and others can cause SARS disease in “humanized mouse models.”

Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had previously been named Wildlife Trust because it is easier to get funding for health.  80% of his funding comes from government.

Given Peter Daszak’s comments about tying health to conservation issues to get results, we could later find that key players try to tie the pandemic to climate change initiatives.

Sources:

]]> Indian researchers submit COVID-19 genome https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/01/indian-researchers-submit-covid-19-genome/ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:13 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=632 The paper was submitted and then quickly withdrawn. Behind the scenes, Anthony Fauci appears to have been conducting damage control. Sources: For this post, several of the sources have additional notes listed with them under the URLs.  The Sources section is always important in this project, but the notes in this post make this section…

Read more →

]]>

The paper was submitted and then quickly withdrawn.

Behind the scenes, Anthony Fauci appears to have been conducting damage control.

Sources:

For this post, several of the sources have additional notes listed with them under the URLs.  The Sources section is always important in this project, but the notes in this post make this section especially important to understand what happened.

  • Research Journal PDF
    January 31, 2020. Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen, Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, and Bishwajit Kundu. “Uncanny Similarity of Unique Inserts in the 2019-NCoV Spike Protein to HIV-1 Gp120 and Gag.” BioRxiv.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200131195339/https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf.
    Research Journal, PDF.
    This is a link to the report as it was prior to withdrawal.
  • Research Journal
    February 2, 2020. Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, and Bishwajit Kundu. “Uncanny Similarity of Unique Inserts in the 2019-NCoV Spike Protein to HIV-1 Gp120 and Gag.” BioRxiv, February, 2020.01.30.927871. [Withdrawn.]
    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871.
    Research Journal.
    If you go to the original site now, you will see the withdrawal notice.
  • Blog Video Audio
    June 5, 2021. Whitney. “Fauci Lied, People Died (Part 1 Public).” Peak Prosperity. Runtime of embedded video: 39:22. Runtime of embedded audio: 39:33.
    https://www.peakprosperity.com/fauci-lied-people-died-part-1/.
    Blog, Video, Audio.
    If the YouTube video in the article disappears, go here: MIRROR: FAUCI LIED, PEOPLE DIED (PART 1 PUBLIC).  This video traces the Fauci email chain beginning January 31, 2020 and into February, resulting in a “research article” published by participants in the teleconference with Fauci mentioned in the emails.  The cover-up timeline is summed up at about 30:45.  Note: It appears that the maker of the video mistook the 9 next to the pencil icon as the day of the date.  The true publication date of the “research article” appears to be February 16, 2020.
  • Research Journal
    February 16, 2020. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 – SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus / NCoV-2019 Evolutionary History.” Virological.
    https://virological.org/t/the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/398.
    Research Journal.
  • Research Journal
    March 17, 2020. Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine 26 (4): 450–52, April 2020.
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9.
    Research Journal.
  • Research Journal Magazine
    February 3, 2020. Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. “Quick Retraction of Coronavirus Paper Was Good Moment for Science.” STAT.
    https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty-coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/.
    Research Journal, Magazine.
    This article notes how unusual it is for a preprint to be retracted so quickly.
  • News
    June 6, 2021. “Dr Anthony Fauci Threatened Indian Scientists To Withdraw Study Linking COVID-19 To AIDS Virus.” GreatGameIndia.
    https://greatgameindia.com/fauci-threatened-indian-scientists-aids/.
    News.
    This article was published following the dumps of Anthony Fauci’s emails.
  • News
    June 7, 2021. “How Top British Scientists Covered Up COVID-19 Bioweapons Research To Peddle Natural Origin Theory.” GreatGameIndia.
    https://greatgameindia.com/british-scientists-coverup-bioweapons-research/.
    News.

Related:

  • Research Journal
    February 1, 2020. Bruno Coutard, Coralie Valle, Xavier Lamballerie, Bruno Canard, N.G. Seidah, and Etienne Decroly. “The Spike Glycoprotein of the New Coronavirus 2019-NCoV Contains a Furin-like Cleavage Site Absent in CoV of the Same Clade.” Antiviral Research 176 (February): 104742.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104742.
    Research Journal.
  • Reference
    “Clade – Definition, Function and Examples.” Biology Dictionary.
    https://biologydictionary.net/clade/.
    Reference.

See also, on this site:

]]> Information about the COVID-19 gene sequence is published. https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/01/information-about-the-covid-19-gene-sequence-is-published/ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:16 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=457 Source:

Read more →

]]>

Source:

]]> Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier reports that COVID-19 is lab-made https://pandemictimeline.com/2020/04/nobel-prize-winner-luc-montagnier-reports-that-covid-19-is-lab-made/ Thu, 16 Apr 2020 00:00:28 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=630 Dr Montagnier said that in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory. Dr Montagnier also said, Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering; it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately…

Read more →

]]> Dr Montagnier said that in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.

Dr Montagnier also said,

Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering; it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.

Sources:

Related:

  • Research Journal
    November 17, 2020. Rossana Segreto, and Yuri Deigin. “The Genetic Structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 Does Not Rule out a Laboratory Origin.” Bioessays, November, 2000240.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
    Research Journal.

See also, on this site:

]]>