Proximal Origin of SARS CoV-2

Of the two papers that fooled the world, the most important one was:

Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Aka the Pangolin Paper. We originally analyzed this paper in detail on Formosa Hut in May 2020 (which appears to be the first in-depth critique on the planet), but here's a Fast Facts recap:

• It supplied the science basis for engineering the world-view of Covid’s origin - described by the the BBC as the definitive paper ruling out the possibility of a lab leak.
• Pub: Mar 17, 2020 by Nature
• Draft completed Feb 1 (according to one of its authors, Bob Garry), which is the date of The Teleconference, & only one day after the authors reported that Covid looks engineered - which, considering the paper asserts the exact opposite, amounts to evidence of academic fraud.
• Presented by Farrar/Andersen/Holmes at the Feb 1 Teleconference, where it supplied the backbone for discussions re formulating a plan to cover-up Covid's real origin.
• Funded/supported by Wellcome & NIH (see acknowledgements)
• Purpose written to quell speculation of a lab leak. Andersen: If one of the main purposes of this document is to counter those fringe theories, I think it’s very important that we do so strongly and in plain language.

Which they did. Let's take a look at that language ...

The premise: 

Horseshoe bats, possibly carrying RaTG13 collected from the Mojiang caves*, Yunnan, & held at WIV, managed to infect a population of at least  21 caged Malayan pangolin such as those smuggled into Guangdong (1000 km away).

Lipkin, Feb 10, 2020: The latest data suggest that an endangered mammal, the pangolin, may be the source of the new coronavirus. My colleagues and I have been working to shut down wildlife markets for decades. Perhaps the silver lining in this outbreak is that we finally get the traction needed to achieve this goal.

The said pangolin were then transported to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan (1000 km another away), where they were slaughtered for sale.

Before their deaths, the bat virus, now in the caged-pangolin on their way to market, is theorized by the authors to have pulled off an average of 50 years (according to Holmes - 20 years if you’re in a rush) of profound evolutionary change - within a few days!!! Smashing the authors' own time-frames, it somehow aced the ACE-2 spike protein barrier to human infectivity, which then resulted in patient zero at the market - as many early cases of COVID-19 were linked to the Huanan (Seafood) market in Wuhan.

The Conclusion:

As such: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. .. (P)angolins...provide a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these .. RBD mutations (making it infectious to humans).

Yeah, right.

Despite it being known at the time (!) that:

• pangolin are shy solitary creatures - not good vectors for pulling off Holmes’s 50 years of seismic mutations to go from closest (publicly) known bat genome - with no human transmission - to - the most contagious/deadly coronavirus in humans ever known to man. 
• Yes, pangolin were/are trafficked, but the window for evolution to work its magic is narrowed down to, evolutionarily speaking, the infinitesimal time frame of: captured/caged - shipped - killed - sold - with 100% mortality rate. How does 20-50 years of high-density living fit into that? Fits fine in a lab (as Garry himself concluded) - but with your pangolin smuggling/natural evolution story?
• no pangolin were sold at the Nan Hua Seafood Market. 
• no market animal tested positive (80 000+ tests later, no pangolin or bat has tested positive, anywhere in the world - finally mink caught it from humans)
• the first cases weren’t from the market

There’s your pangolin premise - collapsed in a heap - before it gets out of the starting gates.

Pile on all the fancy science you like after that - it’s a moot point when the premise is:

- wrong    -

It's quite likely that pangolin was an ingredient in an engineered Covid virus, but as Garry himself said: I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.

Remember, this is not benefit-of-hindsight. The authors, of course, knew it was a whopper as they wrote it (see Andersen's infamous Looks Engineered FOI email) - that's why they wrote it - but how did it go from there to:

• peer reviewed
• published by Nature
• endorsed by the one-science community including all major journals, all top public health experts
• blanket-reported in the media as officially debunking the lab-leak possibility 
• used as a basis for banning users from saying it looks engineered by Facebook.

All of the above chose to ignore glaring errors in the fundamental details of the paper. Why?

To perpetrate the greatest scientific fraud of all time.

That makes them hands-on complicit in the Covid Atrocity.

(* RaTG13 has been theorized to be the bat virus involved in the Mojiang Cave incident, where workers collecting bat guava fell ill & died. Curiously, it was dismissed by WIV/EHA as a coronavirus incident. I tend to agree with them. To this day, there's been no evidence of a bat virus ever directly infecting a human.)