German researcher: Sars-CoV-2 comes 99.9 percent from the laboratory
PIC_ya_dont_say.png
"Combined with other molecular clues, our results show that this virus is 99.9 percent an artificial, probably manipulated, copy of a natural virus," Bruttel told ntv.de. The methods presumably used for this would also be used in a very similar form by individual virological laboratories to produce synthetic viruses. He also uses these techniques in his daily work, but to develop "completely harmless" protein-based drugs for autoimmune diseases, says Bruttel.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1.full.pdf
Important line in the article: "It is also possible to genetically manipulate viruses without leaving behind the traces Bruttel and his colleagues mentioned - and it even saves time, money and work."
So the article tl;dr is that life, and the weird unlife that viruses have, is messy. Biology is inherently, truly chaotic in a way even the most random of human minds could never compete with (this is why there is a gender binary [sociology] but not a sex binary [biology]). There are sequences in the "code" of natural viruses that are completely random, but COVID-19 contains a repeating "phrase" that is consistent with man-made viruses.
The chance that the repeating pattern is a result of a natural roll of the die is between 1 in 100 and 1 in a thousand - and that's actually a very high rate of likeliness, all things considered. It can only be this likely of a scenario because viruses have such a relatively small "file size", so the possible permutations aren't actually that many, compared to higher lifeforms.
Here's the thing, though - those markers in man-made viruses are feature, not a bug. When you are working with such potentially dangerous specimens, you need a way to differentiate the real stuff from the experiments you are creating from that data. It is entirely possible, and actually easier to just have the Virus-Make-o-Matic 2000 set to random, instead of having to involve such minute manual manipulation. That alliteration was not intentional but I'm just gonna roll with it.
So, this leaves us with the question - why? If the technology to mask a virus as wild not only exists, but that's actually the factory settings, why would TPTB intentionally design in a red flag? As the researchers themselves say, their research establishes a fingerprint, not whose, or why/how it was placed upon the figurative gun.
I would argue that this research supports the Lab Accident theory, and not the Intentional Leak theory.
...compelling observation, nicely stated and framed....