Why no one should believe COVID-19 is naturally-occurring

Why no one should believe COVID-19 is naturally-occurring

By: Lawrence Sellin
July 4, 2020

After six months of exhaustive investigation, the global scientific community has been unable to identify the natural source of COVID-19, that is, the when, where and how it "jumped" from animals to humans.

Some now imply that we may never know the natural origin of COVID-19.

In a news article recently published by the international science journal Nature, the progress, or lack thereof, identifying the natural source of COVID-19 was reviewed.

According to the article, COVID-19 probably originated in bats, specifically horseshoe bats, which host two closely related coronaviruses, named RaTG13 and RmYN02, whose genomes are 96% and 93% identical to COVID-19, respectively.

Both coronavirus samples were isolated from bats in Yunnan Province, RaTG13 in 2013 and RmYN02 in 2019, and were studied in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Wuhan is where the outbreak of COVID-19 originated and about 1,000 miles from Yunnan.

The Nature article does not mention that RaTG13 is actually a duplicate of another bat coronavirus, BtCoV/4991, about which there is nearly no published experimental data since it was isolated in 2013, despite clearly being a Potential Pandemic Pathogen.

That is, except for the structure, analyzed only by Chinese scientists, practically nothing is known about RaTG13.

The Nature article also does not mention that the receptor-binding domain of RmYN02 showed only a 61.3% sequence identity with COVID-19, meaning it is highly unlikely that RmYN02 could even bind to human cells.

The Nature article suggests that pangolins (scaly anteaters), might be an intermediate host because some pangolin coronaviruses “share up to 92% of their genomes” with COVID-19, presumably bridging the gap between bats and humans.

When asked about that possibility, Dr Ralph Baric, a coronavirus expert from the University of North Carolina, in a March 15, 2020 interview, stated unequivocally that pangolins were not the source of COVID-19:

“Pangolins have over 3,000 nucleotide changes - no way they are the reservoir species [for COVID-19], absolutely no chance.”

Nevertheless, the receptor-binding domain of COVID-19 is structurally closer to pangolins than bats indicating a recombinant event, in this case, likely artificial.

In fact, Ralph Baric and Zheng-Li Shi, the “bat woman” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, conducted just such an artificial receptor-binding domain insertion from a newly isolated bat coronavirus (SHC014) onto the “backbone” from SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the 2003 pandemic.

In a December 9, 2019 interview, Dr Peter Daszak, President of the EcoHealth Alliance and a long-time collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, presumably referring to the Ralph Baric- Zheng-Li Shi experiments, stated “you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily” inserting a spike protein “into a backbone of another virus.”

Thus, an artificial recombinant event carried out in the laboratory would be a far better explanation of pangolin-like structures appearing on a bat coronavirus backbone than one occurring in nature, at least given the current state of knowledge.

The most conspicuous sign of COVID-19 genetic manipulation is the presence of a furin polybasic cleavage site, a structure that is not present in any of the coronaviruses so far identified as possible direct ancestors.

The authors of the RmYN02 article stretch credulity even further by claiming that RmYN02 has a precursor cleavage site.
In reality, it is a weak attempt to offer a naturally-occurring explanation for the presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site in COVID-19.

Unfortunately, the amino acid sequence PAA, the insertion cited by the authors, is chemically neutral, totally unlike COVID-19's polybasic PRRAR sequence and PAA has no ability to cleave anything.

Based on the actual evidence, it is unlikely that RmYN02 is a natural close relative of COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 appears to have been “pre-adapted” for human infection, the artificial insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site may explain a potentially significant point mutation in COVID-19 that may have increased its infectivity.

According to the article “The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity,”, over the course of the human pandemic, one amino acid position has changed from aspartic acid to glycine, increasing the stability of the spike protein and, thereby, making COVID-19 more infectious.

As suggested by the authors, that mutation may have been what is known as a “positive selection” to compensate for the structural instability created after the artificial insertion of the furin polybasic cleavage site.

The burden of proof is now on China to demonstrate that COVID-19 is naturally-occurring because most of the available evidence indicates otherwise.

[ Source ]

[Ed. (Evans) The "burden of proof" is also on the Anglo-Americans who worked on the "gain-of-function" research on developing the Chinese bat-cave viruses, funded by a 3.7 million dollar grant from Dr. Anthony Fausti of the NIH.

Q. And who was one of the recipients of this 3.7 million dollar grant to do the 'gain-of-function' research at the BSL-4 Lab in Wuhan, China?

A. None other than talking head, Dr. Peter Daszak, the arch-villain who has the ear of the well-meaning fairy god mother of the American "new left", Amy Goodman.]

Series of Articles by Lawrence Sellin, Retired US Army Colonel
[most likely still an Army Intelligence operative, Ed.]
about Covid-19

A naturally-occurring COVID-19
is the real conspiracy theory


By Lawrence Sellin
Aug 20, 2020

There are new indications that China manufactured the novel coronavirus.


The unique structural features of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, produce an extremely high infection rate and multi-organ secondary infections making this virus more dangerous and challenging for therapeutic interventions.


Although sharing the same human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor, SARS-CoV-2 is more selective for the human receptor and is, overall, far more infectious than SARS-CoV-1, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic, which also originated in China.


One of those unique features of SARS-CoV-2 is a furin polybasic cleavage site that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and is widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility, but is not present in any closely related bat coronaviruses.


The enhanced ability for membrane fusion may be a cause for the multi-organ infection observed in SARS-CoV-2 patients.


A new scientific study published on August 19, 2020 suggests that other structures in SARS-CoV-2, similar to those found in Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), may also contribute to that alternate infection process.


The MERS-CoV 2012 pandemic produced a total of 2519 cases and 866 deaths, an extraordinary 34% mortality rate.


Like SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV is believed to have originated in bats of the beta-coronavirus lineage, but may have passed through camels as an intermediate host before infecting humans.


Unlike SARS-CoV-2, which uses the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor for human infection, MERS-CoV uses a different receptor, Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), and its overall structure is only 40% similar SARS-CoV-2, meaning one could not have evolved from the other.


Yet, SARS-CoV-2 appears to possess a dual receptor strategy for the infection of human cells, similar to MERS-CoV.


In a comparative sequence analysis of the N-terminal domain of the spike protein that drives the binding and fusion process, the authors identified three extended “loop” regions in SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, but not in SARS-CoV-1, which may give SARS-CoV-2 additional capability to bind to and enter a variety of human cells.


Taken together the unique structural features of SARS-CoV-2 suggest a coronavirus that was highly adapted for human infection.


Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous unsuccessful attempts have been made to provide conclusive evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally occurring.


A recent non-peer reviewed article “A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” written by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson and published on their own website has garnered some interest in the non-scientific media as a possible explanation for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.


This elegantly-written and well-documented review, which provides a unique and valuable translation of a Chinese clinical study, is nevertheless marred by offering an untenable theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 based on the serendipitous linking of a series of undocumented assumptions.


Although not concisely stated, the Latham-Wilson theory seems to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 originated as respiratory infections in miners working in a cave in Mojiang, Yunnan Province China in 2012, who were infected by a coronavirus while working among bat feces, presumably by RaTG13, SARS-CoV-2's alleged closest relative.


Over time, RaTG13 rapidly evolved inside at least one of the miners to create SARS-CoV-2. Biological samples from that miner eventually found their way to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where unfrozen samples of the fully human-adapted SARS-CoV-2 infected a laboratory worker and began the COVID-19 pandemic.


First of all, the extent of viral evolution in a single patient that would be required to go from RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2, about 1,200 nucleotides, is unprecedented in the annals of scientific inquiry.


Latham and Wilson attribute the adaptation to the viral load within a large lung surface area and, in particular, a lengthy infection lasting over four months.


Yet, despite the presence of an active infection of a coronavirus highly adapted for human infection, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission, even though the Chinese clinical study provides no indication of special quarantine efforts and a therapeutic regime resembling that for ordinary respiratory infections, including fungal infections.


Although it seems likely that the miners experienced an initial viral respiratory infection and secondary, probably bacterial infections, tests for viral infections, including SARS-CoV-1, were negative during the course of hospitalisation.


It was only afterwards, that the Chinese clinical study mentions a positive test for an unidentified virus, one possibility being henipa-like virus, which was also discovered in the same cave along with numerous types of bat coronaviruses.


Strangely, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was experimenting with RaTG13 during 2017 and 2018, while SARS-CoV-2 was supposedly tucked away in a freezer, the Chinese scientists never making the connection between RaTG13 and the miners' infection.


Finally, although not conclusive in itself, it seems that such a unique, direct bat-to-human natural coronavirus infection would have been big news in the virology community in 2012, yet it went practically unnoticed.


If the Latham and Wilson theory proves anything, it demonstrates the lengths one must go in evidence-stretching to show that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally-occurring, when one begins by precluding the possibility that it was manufactured in a laboratory.



Lawrence Sellin, PhD is a retired US Army Reserve colonel. He has previously worked at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. His email address is [email protected]

[ Source ]

Check out this article – well ahead of the wave ->

Bill Gates & the Coronavirus Conspiracy

- Shawn Paul Melville
January 27, 2020

Bill Gates Foundation, Rothschild Vanguard & Blackrock / China manufacture Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak by funding both the creation of the virus and the vaccine. Bill Gates is the New World Order’s equivalent of a chief science officer. As such, his top priority is depopulation. His stated method is vaccines.

Bill is walking in his fathers' footsteps {fathers, Plural, Ed. ] who was also tasked with depopulation while head of Planned Parenthood (47). A proud legacy of eugenicists. [ Re: "Eugenics" Must Seehttps://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png; text here. Ed. ]

On January 9, 2020, the UN announced that the Wuhan Coronavirus had a lot of similarities to SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome).

Continues Here…

The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin

June 2, 2020

By Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD

If the public has learned a lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic it is that science does not generate certainty. Do homemade face masks work? What is the death rate of COVID-19? How accurate are the tests? How many people have no symptoms? And so on. Practically the lone undisputed assertion made so far is that all the nearest known genetic relatives of its cause, the Sars-CoV-2 virus, are found in horseshoe bats (Zhou et al., 2020). Therefore, the likely viral reservoir was a bat.

However, most of these ancestor-like bat coronaviruses cannot infect humans (Ge et al., 2013). In consequence, from its beginning, a key question hanging over the pandemic has been: How did a bat RNA virus evolve into a human pathogen that is both virulent and deadly?

The answer almost universally seized upon is that there was an intermediate species. Some animal, perhaps a snake, perhaps a palm civet, perhaps a pangolin, served as a temporary host. This bridging animal would probably have had an ACE2 cellular receptor (the molecule which allows cellular entry of the virus) intermediate in protein sequence (or at least structure) between the bat and the human one (Wan et al., 2020).

In the press and in the scientific literature, scenarios by which this natural zoonotic transfer might have occurred have been endlessly mulled. Most were fuelled by early findings that many of the earliest COVID-19 cases seem to have occurred in and around Wuhan’s Huanan live animal market. [The latest data are that 14 of the 41 earliest cases, including the first, had no connection to the animal market (Huang et al. 2020)].

Since the two previous coronavirus near-pandemics of SARS (2002-3) and MERS (2012) both probably came from bats and both are thought (but not proven) to have transitioned to humans via intermediate animals (civets and dromedaries respectively), a natural zoonotic pathway is a reasonable first assumption (Andersen et al., 2020).

The idea, as it applied to the original (2002) SARS outbreak, is that the original bat virus infected a civet. The virus then evolved briefly in this animal species, but not enough to cause a civet pandemic, and then was picked up by a human before it died out in civets. In this first human (patient zero) the virus survived, perhaps only barely, but was passed on, marking the first case of human to human transmission. As it was successively passed on in its first few human hosts the virus rapidly evolved, adapting to better infect its new hosts. After a few such tentative transmissions the pandemic proper began.Perhaps this scenario is approximately how the current COVID-19 pandemic began.

But one other troubling possibility must be dispensed with. It follows from the fact that the epicentre city, Wuhan (pop. 11 million), happens to be the global epicentre of bat coronavirus research (e.g. Hu et al., 2017).

Prompted by this proximity, various researchers and news media, prominently the Washington Post, and with much more data Newsweek, have drawn up a prima facie case that a laboratory origin is a strong possibility (Zhan et al., 2020; Piplani et al., 2020). That is, one of the two labs in Wuhan that has worked on coronaviruses accidentally let a natural virus escape; or, the lab was genetically engineering (or otherwise manipulating) a Sars-CoV-2-like virus which then escaped.

Unfortunately, in the US at least, the question of the pandemic’s origin has become a political football; either an opportunity for Sinophobia or a partisan “blame game".

But the potential of a catastrophic lab release is not a game and systemic problems of competence and opacity are certainly not limited to China (Lipsitch, 2018). The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently constructing a new and expanded national Bio and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS has estimated that the 50-year risk (defined as having an economic impact of $9-50 billion) of a release from its lab at 70%.

When a National Research Council committee inspected these DHS estimates they concluded “The committee finds that the risks and costs could well be significantly higher than that“.

A subsequent committee report (NAP, 2012) continued:“the committee was instructed to judge the adequacy and validity of the uSSRA [updated Site-Specific Risk Assessment]. The committee has identified serious concerns about (1) the misapplication of methods used to assess risk, (2) the failure to make clear whether and how the evidence used to support risk assessment assumptions had been thoroughly reviewed and adequately evaluated, (3) the limited breadth of literature cited and the misinterpretation of some of the significant supporting literature, (4) the failure to explain the criteria used to select assumptions when supporting literature is conflicting, (5) the failure to consider important risk pathways, and (6) the inadequate treatment of uncertainty. Those deficiencies are not equally problematic, but they occur with sufficient frequency to raise doubts about the adequacy and validity of the risk results presented. In most instances (e.g., operational activities at the NBAF), the identified problems lead to an underestimation of risk; in other instances (e.g., catastrophic natural hazards), the risks may be overestimated. As a result, the committee concludes that the uSSRA is technically inadequate in critical respects and is an insufficient basis on which to judge the risks associated with the proposed NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas.”

China, meanwhile, having opened its first in Wuhan in 2018, is planning to roll out a national network of BSL-4 labs (Yuan, 2019). Like many other countries, it is investing significantly in disease surveillance and collection of viruses from wild animal populations and in high-risk recombinant virus research with Potential Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs).

On May 4th, nations and global philanthropies, meeting in Brussels, committed $7.4 billion to future pandemic preparedness. But the question hanging over all such investments is this: the remit of the Wuhan lab at the centre of the accidental release claims is pandemic preparedness. If the COVID-19 pandemic began there then we need to radically rethink current ideas for pandemic preparation globally. Many researchers already believe we should, for the sake of both safety and effectiveness (Lipsitch and Galvani, 2014; Weiss et al., 2015; Lipsitch, 2018). The worst possible outcome would be for those donated billions to accelerate the arrival of the next pandemic...

[ CONTINUES... ]

Luc Montagnier HIV Nobel Prize Winner Says
Virus "Bio-engineered" in Lab 黄艳玲 17/04/20https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png

The Nobel Prize: Luc Montagnier : Facts


Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the
2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag

Abstract:

We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-
nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike
glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses.
Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-
1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary
amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute
the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have
identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be
fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on
the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this virus.
Introduction

[ See Footnote ]

Coronaviruses (CoV) are single-stranded positive-sense RNA viruses that infect animals and
humans. These are classified into 4 genera based on their host specificity: Alphacoronavirus,
Betacoronavirus, Deltacoronavirus and Gammacoronavirus (Snijder et al., 2006). There are seven
known types of CoVs that includes 229E and NL63 (Genus Alphacoronavirus), OC43, HKU1,
MERS and SARS (Genus Betacoronavirus). While 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1 commonly
infect humans, the SARS and MERS outbreak in 2002 and 2012 respectively occurred when the
virus crossed-over from animals to humans causing significant mortality (J. Chan et al., n.d.; J. F.
W. Chan et al., 2015). In December 2019, another outbreak of coronavirus was reported from
Wuhan, China that also transmitted from animals to humans. This new virus has been temporarily
termed as 2019-novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by the World Health Organization (WHO) (J. F.-
W. Chan et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). While there are several hypotheses about the origin of
2019-nCoV, the source of this ongoing outbreak remains elusive.

The transmission patterns of 2019-nCoV is similar to patterns of transmission documented in the
previous outbreaks including by bodily or aerosol contact with persons infected with the virus.
.CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a perpetuity.preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in
The copyright holder for this. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jan. 31, 2020;

Cases of mild to severe illness, and death from the infection have been reported from Wuhan. This
outbreak has spread rapidly distant nations including France, Australia and USA among others.
The number of cases within and outside China are increasing steeply. Our current understanding
is limited to the virus genome sequences and modest epidemiological and clinical data.

Comprehensive analysis of the available 2019- nCoV sequences may provide important clues that
may help advance our current understanding to manage the ongoing outbreak.

The spike glycoprotein (S) of cornonavirus is cleaved into two subunits (S1 and S2). The S1
subunit helps in receptor binding and the S2 subunit facilitates membrane fusion (Bosch et al.,
2003; Li, 2016). The spike glycoproteins of coronoviruses are important determinants of tissue
tropism and host range. In addition the spike glycoproteins are critical targets for vaccine
development (Du et al., 2013). For this reason, the spike proteins represent the most extensively
studied among coronaviruses. We therefore sought to investigate the spike glycoprotein of the
2019-nCoV to understand its evolution, novel features sequence and structural features using
computational tools.

Methodology

Retrieval and alignment of nucleic acid and protein sequences

We retrieved all the available coronavirus sequences (n=55) from NCBI viral genome database
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and we used the GISAID (Elbe & Buckland-Merrett,
2017)[https://www.gisaid.org/] to retrieve all available full-length sequences (n=28) of 2019-
nCoV as on 27 Jan 2020. Multiple sequence alignment of all coronavirus genomes was performed
by using MUSCLE software (Edgar, 2004) based on neighbour joining method. Out of 55
coronavirus genome 32 representative genomes of all category were used for phylogenetic tree
development using MEGAX software (Kumar et al., 2018). The closest relative was found to be
SARS CoV. The glycoprotein region of SARS CoV and 2019-nCoV were aligned and visualized
using Multalin software (Corpet, 1988). The identified amino acid and nucleotide sequence were
aligned with whole viral genome database using BLASTp and BLASTn. The conservation of the
nucleotide and amino acid motifs in 28 clinical variants of 2019-nCoV genome were presented by
performing multiple sequence alignment using MEGAX software. The three dimensional structure
of 2019-nCoV glycoprotein was generated by using SWISS-MODEL online server (Biasini et al.,
2014) and the structure was marked and visualized by using PyMol (DeLano, 2002).

Results

Uncanny similarity of novel inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag
Our phylogentic tree of full-length coronaviruses suggests that 2019-nCoV is closely related to
SARS CoV [Fig1]. In addition, other recent studies have linked the 2019-nCoV to SARS CoV.
We therefore compared the spike glycoprotein sequences of the 2019-nCoV to that of the SARS
CoV (NCBI Accession number: AY390556.1). On careful examination of the sequence
alignment we found that the 2019- nCoV spike glycoprotein contains 4 insertions [Fig.2]. To
further investigate if these inserts are present in any other corona virus, we performed a multiple
.CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in
The copyright holder for this. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jan. 31, 2020; sequence alignment of the spike glycoprotein amino acid sequences of all available coronaviruses (n=55) [refer Table S.File1] in NCBI refseq (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) this includes one sequence of 2019-nCoV[Fig.S1]. We found that these 4 insertions [inserts 1, 2, 3 and 4] are unique to 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses analyzed. Another group from China had documented three insertions comparing fewer spike glycoprotein sequences of coronaviruses . Another group from China had documented three insertions comparing fewer spike glycoprotein sequences of coronaviruses (Zhou et al., 2020).

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1591521553 https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1591521553 https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1591521553 https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1591521553

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...1&d=1591521553

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image.../paperclip.png Attached Thumbnails (click thumbnail for larger view)

Wuhan nCoV-2019 SARS Coronaviruses Genomics
Fractal Metastructures Evolution and Origins

February, 2020


DOI: 10.20944/preprints202002.0025.v2

Jean-Claude Perez

Wuhan nCoV-2019 SARS Coronaviruses Genomics Fractal Metastructures Evolution and Origins “Where there is matter, there is geometry.” Johannes Kepler Jean-claude PEREZ, PhD Maths § Computer Science Bordeaux University, RETIRED interdisciplinary researcher (IBM Emeritus, IBM European Research Center on Artificial Intelligence), 7 avenue de terre-rouge F33127 Martignas Bordeaux metropole France, phone 33 0781181112 [email protected]

ABSTRACT : The main result of this updated release is the formal proof that 2019-nCoV coronavirus is partially a SYNTHETIC genome. We proof the CONCENTRATION in a small région of wuhan New genome of 3 different régions from HIV1 ENVELOPE GENE. In this article, we demonstrate that there is a kind of global human hosts adaptation strategy of SARS viruses as well as a strategy of global evolution of the genomes of the different strains of SARS which have emerged, mainly in China, between years 2003 first SARS genomes and the last 2020 nCoV-2019 Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome. This global strategy, this temporal link, is materialized in our demonstration by highlighting stationary numerical waves controlling the entire sequence of their genomes. Curiously, these digital waves characterizing the 9 SARS genomes studied here are characteristic whole numbers: the "Fibonacci numbers", omnipresent in the forms of Nature, and which our research for several decades has shown strong links with the proportions of nucleotides in DNA. Here we demonstrate that the complexity and fractal multiplicity of these Fibonacci numerical waves increases over the years of the emergence of new sArs strains. We suggest that this increase in the overall organization of the SARS genomes over the years reflects a better adaptation of SARS genomes to the human host. The question of a link with pathogenicity remains open. However, we believe that this overall strategy for the evolution of the SARS genomes ensures greater unity, consistency and integrity of the genome. Finally, we ask ourselves the question of a possible artificial origin of this genome, in particular because of the presence of fragments of HIV1 retrovirus.

KEYWORDS : SARS, Wuhan nCoV-2019, Fibonacci numbers, Fractal genome, Numerical stationary periodic waves, HIV1, synthetic genomes.

Here is the link to the pdf