Nearly 1,000 Days Late, US Senate Agrees with Me and Concludes Laboratory Spread Most Likely. Plus: Contrary to What Chinese Scientists Said, pShuttle-SN is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than to SARS-CoV-1

As the first (or at least one of the first rare) scientist to report that it likely came from the lab, the US Senate is now in agreement using a consilience of the evidence. About pShuttle...

On January 30, 2020, I published this article:

That makes me if not among the first, then by far, among the first, to propose a lab origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It created quite a storm.

This month, October, 2022, US Senate:

The reasons why the US Senate finally agree:

1. The internet searches on flu-like symptoms shows the epicenter was nearthe Wuhan Institute for Virology, not the Hunan Market.

From John Campbell’s excellent review of this report:

2. The virus was too well-adapted to human-to-human transmission.

3. No convincing intermediate host has been found.

4. Past outbreaks of respiratory viruses involving “spillovers” took longer, and involved more transmission events.

5. Low genetic variation among the among variants of SARS-CoV-2 (only 2 nucleotide differences) indicate single source of a ready-made virus.

6. Multiple laboratory leaks of SARS-CoV-1. Ironically, these had led to the ban on Gain-of-Function Research violated by NIAID’s act of funding WIV to continue to conduct such research.

Before we get to the pShuttle-N business, here’s John’s summary.

Back in early 2020, I had considered the specific link between the “missing fragment” that somehow matched a sequence in a pShuttle-SN.

By March, 2020, the CCP had put these scientists to the task of rebutting my hypotheses:

Is SARS-CoV-2 originated from laboratory? A rebuttal to the claim of formation via laboratory recombination

Pei Hao, Wu Zhong Shiyang Song Shiyong Fan and Xuan Li

There’s my name, the first line of a peer-reviewed article even, received Feb 19, 2020.

These scientists wrote the “Plasmid generated from Adeno-X(TM) to study SARS-CoV”, not pShuttle-SN, and that somehow I was confused by saying the pShuttle-SN was a vector.

They also wrote:

“On an added note, our results indicated its sequence similarity to the pShuttle-SN fragment (Supplementary Figure 2) was lower than to the natural coronaviral sequences (Figure 1).”

The CCP censors did not catch the tell.

Can you see it? (Drop a comment if you see it in their text).

Go to NCBI, and you find that pShuttle-SN is called

"Expression vector pShuttle-SN, complete sequence" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AY862402

Why would Chinese scientists try to convince the world that an expression vector was not be called a vector?

Notably, they referenced my second, not my first article.

Out of curiosity, yesterday, I decided to Blast the Amino Acid Sequenced predicted by NCBI’s ORF finder from the “inserted portion” I had reported as found.

Guess what?

This came at 100% sequence similarity at the protein level:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/P0DTC2.1?report=genbank&log$=protalign&blast_rank=1&RID=P0FT0MNH013

Range 1: 153 to 504GenPeptGraphicsNext MatchPrevious Match

Alignment statistics for match #1ScoreExpectMethodIdentitiesPositivesGaps735 bits(1897)0.0Compositional matrix adjust.352/352(100%)352/352(100%)0/352(0%)

Query  1    MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL  60
            MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL
Sbjct  153  MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL  212

Query  61   VRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP  120
            VRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP
Sbjct  213  VRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP  272

Query  121  RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNI  180
            RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNI
Sbjct  273  RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNI  332

Query  181  TNLCPFGEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF  240
            TNLCPFGEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF
Sbjct  333  TNLCPFGEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF  392

Query  241  TNVYADSFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYL  300
            TNVYADSFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYL
Sbjct  393  TNVYADSFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYL  452

Query  301  YRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVG  352
            YRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVG
Sbjct  453  YRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVG  504

Look how nice a clean that alignment is!

Now look at the next best match, SARS-CoV-1 (63%)

RecName: Full=Spike glycoprotein; Short=S glycoprotein; AltName: Full=E2; AltName: Full=Peplomer protein; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S1; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S2; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S2'; Flags: Precursor [Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus]

Sequence ID: P59594.1Length: 1255Number of Matches: 1

Range 1: 147 to 490GenPeptGraphicsNext MatchPrevious Match

Alignment statistics for match #1ScoreExpectMethodIdentitiesPositivesGaps471 bits(1212)7e-157Compositional matrix adjust.221/351(63%)270/351(76%)7/351(1%)

Query  2    ESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINLV  61
            ++   ++ +A NCTFEY+S  F +D+  K GNFK+LREFVFKN DG+  +Y  + PI++V
Sbjct  147  QTHTMIFDNAFNCTFEYISDAFSLDVSEKSGNFKHLREFVFKNKDGFLYVYKGYQPIDVV  206

Query  62   RDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQPR  121
            RDLP GF+ L+P+  LP+GINIT F+ +L    +  +P      W   AAAY+VGYL+P 
Sbjct  207  RDLPSGFNTLKPIFKLPLGINITNFRAIL----TAFSPAQDI--WGTSAAAYFVGYLKPT  260

Query  122  TFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNIT  181
            TF+LKY+ENGTITDAVDC+ +PL+E KC++KSF ++KGIYQTSNFRV P+  +VRFPNIT
Sbjct  261  TFMLKYDENGTITDAVDCSQNPLAELKCSVKSFEIDKGIYQTSNFRVVPSGDVVRFPNIT  320

Query  182  NLCPFGEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCFT  241
            NLCPFGEVFNAT+F SVYAW RK+ISNCVADYSVLYNS  FSTFKCYGVS TKLNDLCF+
Sbjct  321  NLCPFGEVFNATKFPSVYAWERKKISNCVADYSVLYNSTFFSTFKCYGVSATKLNDLCFS  380

Query  242  NVYADSFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYLY  301
            NVYADSFV++GD+VRQIAPGQTG IADYNYKLPDDF GCV+AWN+ N+D+   GNYNY Y
Sbjct  381  NVYADSFVVKGDDVRQIAPGQTGVIADYNYKLPDDFMGCVLAWNTRNIDATSTGNYNYKY  440

Query  302  RLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVG  352
            R  R   L+PFERDIS   +     PC      NCY+PL  YGF  T G+G
Sbjct  441  RYLRHGKLRPFERDISNVPFSPDGKPCTP-PALNCYWPLNDYGFYTTTGIG  490

Not so clean, eh?

The next one? HKU3, which I told everyone needed to be focused on as the likely backbone:

RecName: Full=Spike glycoprotein; Short=S glycoprotein; AltName: Full=E2; AltName: Full=Peplomer protein; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S1; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S2; Contains: RecName: Full=Spike protein S2'; Flags: Precursor [Bat SARS coronavirus HKU3]Sequence ID: Q3LZX1.1Length: 1242Number of Matches: 1

Range 1: 156 to 472GenPeptGraphicsNext MatchPrevious Match

Alignment statistics for match #1ScoreExpectMethodIdentitiesPositivesGaps409 bits(1050)3e-133Compositional matrix adjust.200/341(59%)254/341(74%)24/341(7%)

Query  7    VYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINLVRDLPQ  66
            VY SA NCT++ V + F +D   K GNFK+LRE+VFKN DG+  +Y  +T +NL R LP 
Sbjct  156  VYQSAFNCTYDRVEKSFQLDTTPKTGNFKDLREYVFKNRDGFLSVYQTYTAVNLPRGLPT  215

Query  67   GFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQPRTFLLK  126
            GFS L+P++ LP GINIT ++ ++A+         ++S +   +AAYYVG L+  TF+L+
Sbjct  216  GFSVLKPILKLPFGINITSYRVVMAMF------SQTTSNFLPESAAYYVGNLKYSTFMLR  269

Query  127  YNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNITNLCPF  186
            +NENGTITDAVDC+ +PL+E KCT+K+F V+KGIYQTSNFRV PT+ ++RFPNITN CPF
Sbjct  270  FNENGTITDAVDCSQNPLAELKCTIKNFNVDKGIYQTSNFRVSPTQEVIRFPNITNRCPF  329

Query  187  GEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCFTNVYAD  246
             +VFNATRF +VYAW R +IS+CVADY+VLYNS SFSTFKCYGVSP+KL DLCFT+VYAD
Sbjct  330  DKVFNATRFPNVYAWERTKISDCVADYTVLYNSTSFSTFKCYGVSPSKLIDLCFTSVYAD  389

Query  247  SFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYLYRLFRK  306
            +F+IR  EVRQ+APG+TG IADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWN+   D+      NY YR  RK
Sbjct  390  TFLIRSSEVRQVAPGETGVIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNTAKHDTG-----NYYYRSHRK  444

Query  307  SNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQP  347
            + LKPFERD+S++         NGV      + L +Y F P
Sbjct  445  TKLKPFERDLSSD-------DGNGV------YTLSTYDFNP  472

What About RATg13?

Hao et al., published that similarity to RATg13 was higher… so curious me… found 94% similarity in these amino acid positions to the pShuttle-SN expression vector.

Now, RatG13 has an interesting history. The genome sequence was published 3/20/2020… after my article.

Further, Dr. Shi reported to the NY Times that RatG13 could not be the backbone used (96% similarity is not close enough)…

Related: See RedState’s Wuhan's 'Bat Woman' Straight-Up Lied to the New York Times About Her Research

Here’s the RatG13 result; only 94% across the spike protein.

lcl|ORF1:323:1378 unnamed protein product, partialSequence ID: Query_43489Length: 352Number of Matches: 2

Range 1: 1 to 352GraphicsNext MatchPrevious Match

Alignment statistics for match #1ScoreExpectMethodIdentitiesPositivesGaps694 bits(1791)0.0Compositional matrix adjust.331/352(94%)339/352(96%)0/352(0%)

Query  153  MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL  212
            MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL
Sbjct  1    MESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFKNIDGYFKIYSKHTPINL  60

Query  213  VRDLPPGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP  272
            VRDLP GFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP
Sbjct  61   VRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSSSGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQP  120

Query  273  RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTDSIVRFPNI  332
            RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT+SIVRFPNI
Sbjct  121  RTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPTESIVRFPNI  180

Query  333  TNLCPFGEVFNATTFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSTSFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF  392
            TNLCPFGEVFNAT FASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNS SFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF
Sbjct  181  TNLCPFGEVFNATRFASVYAWNRKRISNCVADYSVLYNSASFSTFKCYGVSPTKLNDLCF  240

Query  393  TNVYADSFVITGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSKHIDAKEGGNFNYL  452
            TNVYADSFVI GDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNS ++D+K GGN+NYL
Sbjct  241  TNVYADSFVIRGDEVRQIAPGQTGKIADYNYKLPDDFTGCVIAWNSNNLDSKVGGNYNYL  300

Query  453  YRLFRKANLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSKPCNGQTGLNCYYPLYRYGFYPTDGVG  504
            YRLFRK+NLKPFERDISTEIYQAGS PCNG  G NCY+PL  YGF PT+GVG
Sbjct  301  YRLFRKSNLKPFERDISTEIYQAGSTPCNGVEGFNCYFPLQSYGFQPTNGVG  352

I make mistakes, and I’m the first to admit and correct them when I can. I am honest, because science demands integrity first and have no desire or reason to mislead.

I am calling on Wikipedia and Twitter to reverse course and get back in touch with reality.

I won’t put the Chinese scientists in a bad position with the CCP by demanding retraction, but instead I wish them well and safe passage in their journey.