The New York State Bar Association on Saturday passed a resolution urging the state to consider making it mandatory for all New Yorkers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination when a vaccine becomes available, even if people object to it for “religious, philosophical or personal reasons.

State Bar Passes Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendation
Mary Beth Morrissey, chair of the bar association’s Health Law Section’s Task Force on COVID-19, said in a statement after the vote on Saturday, “The authority of the state to respond to a public health crisis is well-established in constitutional law.”
By Jason Grant | November 07, 2020 at 05:28 PM

The New York State Bar Association on Saturday passed a resolution urging the state to consider making it mandatory for all New Yorkers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination when a vaccine becomes available, even if people object to it for “religious, philosophical or personal reasons.”

The resolution, which was passed by a majority of the bar association’s 277-member House of Delegates, includes conditions limiting its scope. Those include that the state government should only consider making vaccinations mandatory if voluntary COVID-19 vaccinations fall short of producing needed levels of population immunity; that an assessment of the health threat to various communities be made so that perhaps the mandate can be targeted; and that a mandate only be considered after there is expert consensus about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.

In a statement Saturday afternoon, Mary Beth Morrissey, chair of the bar association’s Health Law Section’s Task Force on COVID-19, which in May released a controversial report that had first proposed the idea of a vaccine mandate, said, “The authority of the state to respond to a public health crisis is well-established in constitutional law,”

“In balancing the protection of the public’s health and civil liberties, the Public Health Law recognizes that a person’s health can and does affect others,” said Morrisey, a lawyer who also holds a doctorate degree in gerontological social work research.

The Health Law Section’s May report generated an uproar online, over the spring and summer, among anti-vaccine groups and lawyers who represent people injured by vaccines. But the relevant part of the 83-page report proposing a vaccine mandate was broader in scope, and more direct, than the resolution passed by the bar association Saturday. And most of the conditions contained in the resolution had not been contained in the report.

The report had recommended that it should be mandatory for all Americans to undergo COVID-19 vaccination, despite people’s objections, with the one exception being doctor-ordered medical reasons. There had been no language about a mandate being limited to New York state residents, and no language saying a public recommendation made to the state government should only be for it to “consider” a mandate.

Also various conditions in Saturday’s passed resolution were not present in the May report. Those conditions include that before considering a mandate the government should determine if voluntary vaccinations fall short of producing needed levels immunity and the condition that, depending on the health threat in communities, a mandate could be community- or population-targeted.

“Some Americans may push back on the COVID-19 vaccination,” the May report had said in part. “Nonetheless, for the sake of public health, mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 should be required in the United States as soon as it is available.” It also had said that “the history of unsuccessful attempts to challenge mandatory vaccinations may reduce the extent of opposition” to a mandatory vaccine order.

Still, the vote Saturday by the bar association, which with its 70,000 members is one of the nation’s largest state bar groups, is significant. The association is considered to be influential both with lawmakers in Albany and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office.

In addition, the bar association’s vaccine-mandate recommendation, which it made public Saturday in a news release, appears to be unique. Both representatives at the bar association and certain lawyers focused on vaccine law, considered to be a small, specialized field of law, say they aren’t aware of other organizations, in or outside of the legal world, taking a stance — at this early juncture — on the notion of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine.

The prospect of the resolution being passed on Saturday, during an association online video meeting, brought out an opposition rally in Albany before the vote even took place.

At 8:30 a.m., a group of parents, families and individuals who vigorously oppose mandatory COVID-19 vaccination marched from a central square in Albany to Cuomo’s mansion.

The rally was organized in large part by Patricia Finn, a longtime vaccination-specialized lawyer who, for the last two decades, she has said, has represented thousands of families who have resisted vaccinations for medical and religious reasons. Finn said Friday in a phone interview that the marchers would waive signs and chant on their half hour trek to Cuomo’s mansion.

She added Friday that in her view, and in the view of many of her past clients, Cuomo and New York state have been especially “aggressive” among states in compelling children to take vaccines, and New York’s rules governing that and exemptions are much stricter than New Jersey’s and Pennsylvania’s, for example.

On Saturday afternoon, Finn said in an email to the New York Law Journal, “It seems like NYSBA “New York State Bar Association] retrenched and passed a resolution more in line with existing laws. It is more practical given the laws that exist  Vaccine mandates are a state issue so NYSBA obviously addressed that in the resolution.”

“More important though,” she added, “the parents opposing forced vaccines supported [state] candidates in the [Nov. 3] election that were in favor of.restoring religious exemptions in [the state].  The balance has shifted in the legislature and I believe this issue will be addressed in the legislature again soon.” She also said, “ Not sure why NYSBA saw a need to pass anything today and it is disappointing they are not addressing civil liberty issues and a Covid mandate.”

Bar Association President Scott Karson said in the group’s release Saturday statement, “The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented over the last 100 years by any measure – the number of lives lost, the survivors who remain seriously ill, the risks faced by health care workers, the disproportionate impact on communities of color, the profound trauma and the disruption to our economy.”

He added that “the United States was unprepared to deal with this pandemic” and that the resolution, and its recommendations, passed Saturday are necessary.

The controversy generated for months among anti-vaccine groups and individuals over the Health Law Section original recommendation made in its May report was loud and unmistakeable. For example, a May 28 New York Law Journal article on the health law task force’s recommendation that American should be mandated to take a COVID-19 vaccine was passed widely across Facebook. In tune, independent-from-government-minded groups, including some on the right of the political spectrum, along with anti-vaccination groups shared the article in droves and group followers commented, sometimes by the hundreds. Comments were often laced with vitriol. Many commentators said they would protest a mandatory vaccination. Others said no government will be able to make them take a coronavirus vaccine that they say isn’t necessary and could be dangerous.

On pages 60-63 of the May report, which focused the “unique” legal and ethical issues brought forward by the coronavirus pandemic, the Health Law Section cited case law to back up its vaccine-taking recommendation. It wrote that “some Americans may push back on the COVID-19 vaccination for religious, philosophical or personal reasons” but “for the sake of public health, mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 should be required in the United States.”

“Mandatory vaccinations are supported by the authority of the state police power when the vaccinations are necessary to protect the health of the community,” the group wrote in the report, while citing the landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Pointing to constitutional law-focused cases, including the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, the group said that “constitutional challenges under the religious freedom clause under the First Amendment and under the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment have failed, when the individual interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public benefit.”

In turn, some attorneys who represent clients injured by vaccines or who’ve refused to take vaccines despite orders to do so, as well as with some law professors, have challenged the bar association group’s interpretation of constitutional-based case law regarding state police powers.

In addition to making arguments during interviews with the Law Journal in June, the attorneys and law professors also distinguished between how certain pertinent case law should be applied to adults versus children, and they laid out some policy-based arguments against the idea of making it mandatory for Americans to take a COVID-19 vaccine.

In taking on the health law section’s arguments stating a range of cases support a vaccine-taking mandate when “individual interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public benefit,” the vaccine-injury lawyer, Finn, wrote, for example, that “while previous constitutional challenges under the religious freedom clause under the First Amendment and under the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment have failed, none of the cases cited by [the] NYSBA [health law section's task force] address [the] failed safety and efficacy of the mandated vaccinations, or the requisite necessity and ‘lack of a public emergency’ required by” Jacobson.

The Health Law Section then responded to Finn’s and others’ criticisms. The group’s task force chairwoman said in June that its “report rests on a body of well-established law,” and she underscored that her group’s report only “suggests the need for mandatory vaccination, when a safe and effective vaccine becomes available.”

Pooling of tests. 5 different people's swabs sent off in one vial. So one positive will contaminate the other 4, giving 5 positives.

.......................

Anyone will have a posivive result if cycled 60 times, only 35 times and anyone is negative. Every labor is free to choose how often it magnifies.

The PCR test is 100% fraudulent.

Need to keep the fear going  

A woman who’s been dead six months received a letter this week from the Shelby County Health Department saying that she had tested positive for COVID-19 and needs to isolate.

“I’m just having a hard time understanding how they can say someone has COVID-19 when they are not even alive,” said Troy Whittington.

“It’s impossible for someone to be tested on June 20, who passed away on February 16th,” said Whittington. “I tried to call the health department this morning, ask them why this was going
on. She said she would have to get a supervisor. She was sorry for the mistake or she couldn’t tell me any information till she got a supervisor, and I haven’t heard back from them.”

Whittington said a letter arrived from the Shelby County Health Department for his mother, Sandra Whittington. The letter says she has been diagnosed as COVID positive and needed to isolate.

That would be difficult, according to her obituary: the 66-year-old died February 16th. That was weeks before the first case of COVID-19 was detected in Shelby County.

“It’s been 6 months, almost 7, since she passed away. There was no testing that was done at that time. On her death certificate it was stated she died, what the cause of death was, and it was not COVID-19. It was COPD,” said Whittington.

The Millington resident said his mom fought a long battle with COPD and was considered in stage 4 when she died in hospice at the home of a friend.

Whittington said when he called the health department, he was told she took a COVID-19 test June 20th, which was clearly impossible. She was cremated.


Imagine your mother has been dead for 6 months but she gets a letter saying she has been
diagnosed with COVID 19 from a test that was supposedly taken in June ?

https://twitter.com/local24jeni/status/1301622191130382336

The "Great Reset" attempts to repackage a planned merger of Western Corporatism with Soviet Socialism. It has been codified in Art.29 since the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948.

Legal basis for Coronavirus lockdowns are Art.(29). with UN Pandemic Treaties obliging nations to suspend human rights for the purpose of forced quarantine, medical procedures, vax & financial measures. upon @WHO
 declaring level 4 or 5 pandemic without any method of appeal.Welcome to your Global Health Dept. issuing guidance under the International Health Regulations (2005), authorised by what Parliament? Under what democratic system? World Health Assembly Regulations apply if countries do not object, were you consulted?




s.29 gives UN unlimited power, s.30 limits nations. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.s.30 thus prohibits any nation or anybody from engaging in any activity or act aimed at the destruction of the unlimited rights handed to the United Nations in s.29 or any of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Now let that settle in for a moment.

Art.(29) is the basis for all UN treaties and Agendas, e.g. Agenda 21 and 2030 insofar as they suspend or abolish certain human rights deemed “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Nobody asked for 20,000 5G satellites.
Nobody asked for a microwave tower on every corner.
Nobody asked for gain-of-function research.
Nobody asked for a vaccine schedule with 54 shots.
Nobody asked for Roundup in their food.

Excellent! Is this yours? Can I use it elsewhere? Do I need to reference you or someone else as its creator or drafter?

You all do know that the papers presented by this doctor Li-Meng Yan, was not proven, defended, and reviewed by other researchers right?

Q:Now can you suggest as to how we limit the distance subjects may travel during lockdown restrictions within future more structured societies?

A:Yes,I believe we will be able to implement currently available technologies on any private form of transport.For example car A is subject to restriction within its registered place of keeping and has say a 5km daily travel restriction, geo fencing can be used to warn the driver of its position within the 5km radius and alert road policing authorities within the immeadiate area of any serious breach of lockdown restrictions while options such as engine shutdown if it is safe to do so can be applied through the central cloud monitoring system either by AI or direct human oversight.

Q:Is this possible now?

A:Yes but the applications are not used presently mainly due to the expectations electric modes of transport will dominate and replace modes of transport reliant on gasoline,petrol,diesel etc.In the future electric models would have sensors which will regulate driver behavior through continuous monitoring of a driver's safety performance and behavior with such data allowing penalties for breaches of specific breaches of health and safety regulations to be automated.

Q:Any suggestions put forward regarding how to limit non compliance in the event of the rationing/restriction of gasoline and the likes usage in say the event of a "shortage" or lack of production effectively.

A:The main challenges faced are the fact Car A for example has used a daily limit for a set quota of say 10 liters of diesel fuel but the option is always there to go to another Gas station and have a secondary individual pay for another 10 liters of fuel and transfer it to Car A driver.The point of sale and even a card system registered to a specific car would not prevent this.
Sensors within a car communicating with sensors on the gas pump and sending the data for confirmation would not work in this case because a simple canister of petrol could be poured into car A by the secondary individual who purchased the gasoline is just registered to it being purchased but not it being used.

Of course Car could have it's limit enforced remotely but we feel it would be necessary to ensure both points of purchase and points of usage or disposal are required to ensure compliance and track breaches.

But how will we be able to spend it without accepting the mark of the beast first or will we moon before this

Dr. Li-Meng Yan – a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who fled the country, leaving her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university – appeared last week on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was created by Chinese scientists in a lab.

Li-Meng joined Twitter –Account was then suspended by twitter   https://twitter.com/LiMengYAN119?s=21 .. she tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese scientists titled:

    Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route

Cutting to the chase:

    “The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.

Here is the extended punchline:

    The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering.

    The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.






    Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.

    Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six ß coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21. Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”.

    Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4). The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” (I428àL, L443àF, F460àY, L472àF, Y484àQ), which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines). Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction.




As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.

The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin: its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.

She first dismisses option 1:

    “this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.”

She then dismisses option 2:

    In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.

    In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.

Which leaves just one option:

    Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2. Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31. However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 201943. A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did. This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak. This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host.

Fast-forwarding to the smoking gun:

    Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38, this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap. In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene (Figure 5C). They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2. Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 (Figure 5C)39. Strikingly, in both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites (Figure 5C). Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47, it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest. It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 201049-53. Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions. The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII  restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”

It gets better, because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to cover their tracks:

    Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. The more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding. This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38. This way, when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved. We believe that all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C) should have been “kept”. As described earlier, while some should be direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with similar properties, which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further [ZH: i.e., the virus was weaponized and enchanced]. Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM.

Yan also discusses the infamous furin-cleavage site:

… a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence (- PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7).




In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering. Adding to the suspicion, a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved. There, the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro. Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion. Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of interest.

And another critical allegation: once again, the Wuhan Researchers were doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the “enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus”:

    The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the result of genetic manipulation. The purpose of this manipulation could have been to assess any potential enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus.

Summarizing the above:

    Evidence presented in this part reveals that certain aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome are extremely difficult to reconcile to being a result of natural evolution. The alternative theory we suggest is that the virus may have been created by using ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus(es) as the backbone and/or template. The Spike protein, especially the RBM within it, should have been artificially manipulated, upon which the virus has acquired the ability to bind hACE2 and infect humans. This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus.

    These transformations have then staged the SARS CoV-2 virus to eventually become a highly-transmissible, onset-hidden, lethal, sequelae-unclear, and massively disruptive pathogen.

    Evidently, the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created through gain-of-function manipulations at the WIV is significant and should be investigated thoroughly and independently.

Finally, those curious how the virus could have been created synthetically in Wuhan, here is a diagram proposed by Dr. Yan explaining all the required steps:

About 60% of people could not get this years cold because they had one within the last few years.  50% of the remianing had 'covid19' (aka, this year's cold) and didn't even know it.

So yeah, not only does everyone 'know someone' who was infected, most people actually ARE one!

I tried to get the damn thing.  No way to know whether I succeeded or not since there are zero symptoms for most people.  A few times I had a little bit of a sore throat for a few hours and that very well could have been 'covid-19'.  Cannot use tests to discover whether I managed to get infected either since most of the tests are deeply flawed or phony because the 'pandemic' itself is so phony.

Bahahahahahaaa.  So you’re crypto Chinese?  Lol

The world has frankly fallen into a messy situation, but hopefully and with the support of God, humanity shall overcome this challenge. Its a matter of time, the world shall smile again and return to the normal life

No, covid-19 is not a scam which many community has confirmed  the virus as a deadly virus that is spreading from one place to another. Many cases of covid-19 has been reported to different countries of the world which people are be advice to wear facemask and washing of my hands to prevent the virus.
Poland president just confirmed positive in covid-19 in the country that is making some of the citizens to worry. Covid-19 is real not a scam.

You Chinese, bro? 

880!