An international group of experts from France and Laos came to the conclusion that Coronavirus is the result of the work of Chinese virologists who worked in the laboratory of the city of Wuhan. This is reported by one of the oldest British magazines The Spectator.
“The central place in the riddle of the origin of Coronavirus is the question of how the virus detected from the horseshoe bats in the caves in the south of China found himself in the city located in a thousand miles to the north,” the publication writes. – New data show that You can search in Laos. “
The fact is that recently French and Lao scientists have found Coronavirus in the volatile mice population in the Western Lao Province of Vientiane. This virus was the closest option to SARS-COV-2, discovered from the beginning of the pandemic. Laos virus does not have only one important element in the key gene, which makes SARS-COV-2 contagious: This is the so-called Furina cleavage site, a special 12-letter segment of the genetic text.
In addition, experts found correspondence with investors from the US government and the American Foundation for the Ecohealth Alliance viruses. In it, scientists discussed the issue of collecting viruses in the populations of volatile mice in eight countries, including in East Asia in 2016-2019. As a result, it was decided to send the collected samples to the laboratory in the Uhana, which the same organizations financed.
In the letters it was about the transfer of data and the sending of samples – volatile mice. Also in the correspondence it was reported that the specialists of the laboratory in Uhana worked along with scientists from the USA.
If this is true, then the wrong position of American intelligence becomes clear, which at the end of August released his own “secret” report on the origin of the coronavirus, in which no “no” nor “yes” said. That is, I did not confirm and did not refute any of the theories of the appearance of SARS-COV-2. Despite the analysis of the set of available intelligence data and the search for new, intelligence officers could not come to consensus on this issue, and the document did not contain convincing evidence of a particular version.