Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan presents proof Coronavirus made in Wuhan Lab, not Wet Market(1) Shanghai lab sent paper to Nature Jan 7, identifying link between SARSCoV-2 and ZC45; on Jan 11 it published the
         genome of Sars-Covid-19; on Jan 12 it was shut down(2) Lab That First Shared Novel Coronavirus Genome Still Shut Down by Chinese Government(3) Chinese lab that published coronavirus genome (Jan 11) ordered to close on Jan 12 - SCMP (Feb 28)(4) Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan was told to "maintain silence or else she would be made to disappear"(5) Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome suggesting sophisticated Laboratory Modification - Li-Meng Yan et al(1) Shanghai lab sent paper to Nature Jan 7, identifying link between SARSCoV-2 and ZC45; on Jan 11 it published the genome of 
        Sars-Covid-19;on Jan 12 it was shut downhttps://www.nature.com/art icles/s41586-020-2008-3https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3.pdfA new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in ChinaFan Wu1,7, Su Zhao2 7, Bin Yu37, Yan-Mei Chen17, Wen Wang47, Zhi-Gang Song17, Yi Hu2 7, Zhao-Wu Tao2, Jun-Hua Tian3, Yuan-Yuan Pei1, Ming-Li Yuan2, Yu-Ling Zhang1, Fa-Hui Dai1, Yi Liu1, Qi-Min Wang1, Jiao-Jiao Zheng1, Lin Xu1, Edward C. Holmes1,5 & Yong-Zhen Zhang1,4,6eProfessor Zhang, the lead author, is listed at1 Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, ChinaNature | Vol579 I 12 March 2020https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3Received: 7 January 2020Accepted: 28 January 2020Published online: 3 February 2020The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 pi of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair- end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4 6"8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate-bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)-that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1,2).(2) Lab That First Shared Novel Coronavirus Genome Still Shut Down by Chinese Governmenthttps://globalbiodefense.com/headlines/chinese-lab-that-first-shared-novel-coronavirus-genome-shut-down/by Global Biodefense Staff February 28, 2020, 1:22 pmThe laboratory at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre from which researchers conducted the first genome sequence of the deadly coronavirus that causes COVID-19 was immediately ordered to close for "rectification" after Professor Zhang Yongzhen’s team published the genome sequence on open platforms in January.One source at the laboratory said the closure has hampered scientists’ research when they should be ‘racing against the clock’ to help respond to the COVID-19 outbreak."The centre was not given any specific reasons why the laboratory was closed for rectification. [We have submitted] four reports [asking for permission] to reopen but we have not received any replies," a source with the centre said, requesting anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.The release of the data helped researchers develop test kits for the virus.Read the full story by Zhuang Pinghui in the South China Morning Post(3) Chinese lab that published coronavirus genome (Jan 11) ordered to close on Jan 12 - SCMP (Feb 28)https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-orderedChinese laboratory that first shared coronavirus genome with world ordered to close for ‘rectification’, hindering its Covid-19 research No reason was given for the closure of Shanghai facility, which released information about the virus ahead of authoritiesOne source at the laboratory said the closure has hampered scientists’ research when they should be ‘racing against the clock’Zhuang Pinghui  in BeijingPublished: 11:00pm, 28 Feb, 2020The Shanghai laboratory where researchers published the world’s first genome sequence of the deadly coronavirus that causes Covid-19 has been shut down.The laboratory at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre was ordered to close for "rectification" on January 12, a day after Professor Zhang Yongzhen’s team published the genome sequence on open platforms. It closed temporarily the following day.The release of the data helped researchers develop test kits for the virus. "The centre was not given any specific reasons why the laboratory was closed for rectification. [We have submitted] four reports [asking for permission] to reopen but we have not received any replies," a source with the centre said, requesting anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity."The closure has greatly affected the scientists and their research when they should be racing against the clock to find the means to help put the novel coronavirus outbreak under control," the source said.The laboratory is a Level 3 biosafety facility, the second-highest level, and passed an annual inspection by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment on January 5. It also obtained the required credentials to conduct research on the coronavirus on January 24.It was not clear whether the closure was related to the publishing of the sequencing data before the authorities.The closure order was issued by the Shanghai Health Commission. Five telephone calls to officials at the commission seeking comment on the closure were not picked up. A fax sent to the commission requesting comment was not answered.China’s National Health Commission announced hours after the release by Zhang’s team that it would share the genome sequence with the World Health Organisation. It later emerged that the information had been sent through the officially designated Wuhan Institute of Virology. Zhang’s team isolated and finished the genome sequence of the then-unknown virus on January 5, two days before China’s official announcement that mysterious pneumonia cases in Wuhan were caused by a hitherto unknown coronavirus.The Shanghai centre reported its discovery to the National Health Commission on the same day and recommended "relevant prevention and control measures" be taken in public places, because the patient from whom the sample was collected had suffered very severe symptoms and the virus resembled a group previously found in bats.The team made the finding public on January 11 after it saw that the authorities had taken no obvious action to warn the public about the coronavirus.At the time, the public was told that no new cases had been reported in Wuhan since January 3 and there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission."It was not about any individual’s achievements. It’s about having biological test kits ready in face of a previously unknown respiratory disease, especially when a large part of the population [was] moving [across the country] during the Lunar New Year holidays," said a source close to Zhang’s team, who spoke on condition of anonymity.The Shanghai laboratory where researchers published the world’s first genome sequence of the deadly coronavirus that causes Covid-19 has been shut down.The laboratory at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre was ordered to close for "rectification" on January 12, a day after Professor Zhang Yongzhen’s team published the genome sequence on open platforms. It closed temporarily the following day.The release of the data helped researchers develop test kits for the virus. "The centre was not given any specific reasons why the laboratory was closed for rectification. [We have submitted] four reports [asking for permission] to reopen but we have not received any replies," a source with the centre said, requesting anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity."The closure has greatly affected the scientists and their research when they should be racing against the clock to find the means to help put the novel coronavirus outbreak under control," the source said.The laboratory is a Level 3 biosafety facility, the second-highest level, and passed an annual inspection by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment on January 5. It also obtained the required credentials to conduct research on the coronavirus on January 24.It was not clear whether the closure was related to the publishing of the sequencing data before the authorities.The closure order was issued by the Shanghai Health Commission. Five telephone calls to officials at the commission seeking comment on the closure were not picked up. A fax sent to the commission requesting comment was not answered.China’s National Health Commission announced hours after the release by Zhang’s team that it would share the genome sequence with the World Health Organisation. It later emerged that the information had been sent through the officially designated Wuhan Institute of Virology. Zhang’s team isolated and finished the genome sequence of the then-unknown virus on January 5, two days before China’s official announcement that mysterious pneumonia cases in Wuhan were caused by a hitherto unknown coronavirus.The Shanghai centre reported its discovery to the National Health Commission on the same day and recommended "relevant prevention and control measures" be taken in public places, because the patient from whom the sample was collected had suffered very severe symptoms and the virus resembled a group previously found in bats.The team made the finding public on January 11 after it saw that the authorities had taken no obvious action to warn the public about the coronavirus.At the time, the public was told that no new cases had been reported in Wuhan since January 3 and there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission."It was not about any individual’s achievements. It’s about having biological test kits ready in face of a previously unknown respiratory disease, especially when a large part of the population [was] moving [across the country] during the Lunar New Year holidays," said a source close to Zhang’s team, who spoke on condition of anonymity.It shared the data on virological.org, an open platform for discussions, and GenBank, an open-access data repository, and said researchers were welcome to download, share, use and analyse the data. Within a week of its publication, several companies in China announced that they had developed diagnosis kits for the virus.The findings by Zhang’s team were published in the scientific journal Nature on February 3. The research said the virus sample was collected from a patient who showed symptoms of fever, dizziness and coughing and was admitted to a Wuhan hospital on December 26.The Shanghai centre has a long-term cooperation relationship with Wuhan Central Hospital. The patient was identified as a 41-year-old male vendor who worked at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market in Wuhan, which was believed to be a key link of infections at the early stage of the outbreak.The lab’s closure not only affected Zhang’s research but also studies by other scientists since it is an open facility, according to another researcher with knowledge of the matter."There have been applications from research institutes and universities to try drugs and compare the effects of different treatment and the development of vaccines, but [all these will have] to be turned down," the researcher said. "Closing down the laboratory also affects the studying of the virus."(4) Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan was told to "maintain silence or else she would be made to disappear"https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/covid-19-made-in-wuhan-lab-controlled-by-china-govt-claims-virologist-offers-evidence/story-JJTyD7Ts61FLOzPvEQHHQL.html‘Covid-19 made in Wuhan lab controlled by China govt’, claims virologist, offers evidenceDr Li-Meng Yan fled to the United States over safety concerns. Appearing on a show from a secret location, the virologist claimed she will soon publish her findings.WORLD Updated: Sep 14, 2020 15:14 ISTHindustan Times, New DelhiChinese virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan has claimed that the novel coronavirus was made in a government controlled laboratory in Wuhan and asserted that she has scientific proof to back the claim.The virologist, who became the whistleblower against the Chinese government over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic, was in December last year tasked with looking into a cluster of Sars-like cases coming out of mainland China. The top scientist working in Hong Kong claimed that she discovered a cover-up operation during her investigation and said that the Chinese government knew about the spread of the virus before publicly acknowledging it.Dr Li-Meng, who specialised in virology and immunology at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, was allegedly forced to flee to the United States over safety concerns.On September 11, she participated in an interview on British talk show "Loose Women" from a secret location and talked about her research on the coronavirus disease and the challenges she has been facing.Dr Li-Meng said that she conducted two researches on the "new pneumonia" in China between December and early January and the second one in mid-January, and shared the results with her supervisor, who is a World Health Organisation (WHO) consultant. She expected her supervisor to do the "right thing on behalf of the Chinese government and WHO" but to her surprise she was told to "maintain silence or else she would be made to disappear", which the virologist said was common sense among the Chinese."No one responded, people are scared of the government and they are waiting to collaborate with the government and WHO to get more benefits to become safe but this is [was] something urgent," Dr Li-Meng said.At the time of the Chinese New Year, big transportations take place from China to all over the world. So, she decided against keeping silent as "this is a high [highly] contentious dangerous virus. I mean, this is about human beings and global health."Dr Li-Meng said that it was scary as she was facing threats but "I knew if I didn’t tell the world the truth I would be regretful."On January 17, she said she contacted a famous Chinese YouTuber in the US. The expose, which was in Chinese, explained that: (1) the Chinese government was just covering the Covid-19 virus, (2) human to human transmission of the disease already existed, (3) Sars-CoV-2 is a "high mutant virus" that will become an outbreak soon, and (4) the Wuhan seafood market and the intermediate hosts for the virus were just a "smokescreen."And the final thing, the scientist said was that "this virus is not from nature. This is based on the China Military Institute that discovered and owned some bad coronavirus named CC45 and ZXC41. Based on that, after lab modification becomes a novel virus."Dr Li-Meng dismissed reports suggesting the virus originated in wet markets, claiming her intelligence is "from the CDCs in China, from local doctors, doctors and other people around China."The virologist said she is working on a scientific report since January i.e. before leaving Hong Kong along with a small group of top scientists and will soon publish the findings. "We are going to publish it. There are two reports, the first one will come in several days and it will tell people about the scientific evidence," she said.Throwing light on the unpublished research, she said, "The genome sequence is like our human fingerprint. So, based on this you can recognise and identify this thing. So, I used the evidence existing in the genome sequence of Sars-CoV-2 to tell people why this came from China, why they are the only one who made it."She also said that anyone, even those without any knowledge of biology, can read it. "You can check, identify and verify it by yourself. It is the critical thing for us to know the origins of the virus. If not, it will be life threatening for everyone," she added.(5) Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome suggesting sophisticated Laboratory Modification - Li-Meng Yan et alhttps://www.scribd.com/document/475998860/The-Yan-ReportUnusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic RouteLi-Meng Yan (MD, PhD)1, Shu Kang (PhD)1, Jie Guan (PhD)1, Shanchang Hu (PhD)11Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, New York, NY, USA.Correspondence: team.lmyan@gmail.com[...] The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence – a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-218. However, the existence of RaTG13 in nature and the truthfulness of its reported sequence are being widely questioned. It is noteworthy that scientific journals have clearly censored any dissenting opinions that suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Because of this censorship, articles questioning either the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 or the actual existence of RaTG13, although of high quality scientifically, can only exist as preprints or other non-peerreviewed articles published on various online platforms. Nonetheless, analyses of these reports have repeatedly pointed to severe problems and a probable fraud associated with the reporting of RaTG1321. Therefore, the theory that fabricated scientific data has been published to mislead the world’s efforts in tracing the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has become substantially convincing and is interlocked with the notion that SARS-CoV-2 is of a non-natural origin. Consistent with this notion, genomic, structural, and literature evidence also suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, abundant literature indicates that gain-of-function research has long advanced to the stage where viral genomes can be precisely engineered and manipulated to enable the creation of novel coronaviruses possessing unique properties.1. Has SARS-CoV-2 been subjected to in vitro manipulation?We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:i. 	The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).ii. 	The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.iii. 	SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.1.1 Genomic sequence analysis reveals that ZC45, or a closely related bat coronavirus, should be the backbone used for the creation of SARS-CoV-2The structure of the ~30,000 nucleotides-long SARS-CoV-2 genome is shown in Figure 1. Searching the NCBI sequence database reveals that, among all known coronaviruses, there were two related bat coronaviruses, ZC45 and ZXC21, that share the highest sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 (each bat coronavirus is ~89% identical to SARS-CoV-2 on the nucleotide level). Similarity between the genome of SARS-CoV-2 and those of representative b coronaviruses is depicted in Figure 1. ZXC21, which is 97% identical to and shares a very similar profile with ZC45, is not shown. Note that the RaTG13 virus is excluded from this analysis given the strong evidence suggesting that its sequence may have been fabricated and the virus does not exist in nature. (A follow-up report, which summarizes the up-to-date evidence proving the spurious nature of RaTG13, will be submitted soon)Figure 1. Genomic sequence analysis reveals that bat coronavirus ZC45 is the closest match to SARS-CoV-2.Top: genomic organization of SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV WIV04). Bottom: similarity plot based on the full-length genome of 2019-nCoV WIV04. Full-length genomes of SARS-CoV BJ01, bat SARSr-CoV WIV1, bat SARSr-CoV HKU3-1, bat coronavirus ZC45 were used as reference sequences.When SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are compared on the amino acid level, a high sequence identity is observed for most of the proteins. The Nucleocapsid protein is 94% identical. The Membrane protein is 98.6% identical. The S2 portion (2nd half) of the Spike protein is 95% identical. Importantly, the Orf8 protein is 94.2% identical and the E protein is 100% identical.Orf8 is an accessory protein, the function of which is largely unknown in most coronaviruses, although recent data suggests that Orf8 of SARS-CoV-2 mediates the evasion of host adaptive immunity by downregulating MHC-I24. Normally, Orf8 is poorly conserved in coronaviruses. Sequence blast indicates that, while the Orf8 proteins of ZC45/ZXC21 share a 94.2% identity with SARS-CoV-2 Orf8, no other coronaviruses share more than 58% identity with SARS-CoV-2 on this particular protein. The very high homology here on the normally poorly conserved Orf8 protein is highly unusual.The coronavirus E protein is a structural protein, which is embedded in and lines the interior of the membrane envelope of the virion. The E protein is tolerant of mutations as evidenced in both SARS (Figure 2A) and related bat coronaviruses (Figure 2B). This tolerance to amino acid mutations of the E protein is further evidenced in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. After only a short two-month spread of the virus since its outbreak in humans, the E proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have already undergone mutational changes. Sequence data obtained during the month of April reveals that mutations have occurred at four different locations in different strains (Figure 2C). Consistent with this finding, sequence blast analysis indicates that, with the exception of SARS-CoV-2, no known coronaviruses share 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45/ZXC21 (suspicious coronaviruses published after the start of the current pandemic are excluded). Although 100% identity on the E protein has been observed between SARS-CoV and certain SARS-related bat coronaviruses, none of those pairs simultaneously share over 83% identity on the Orf8 protein. Therefore, the 94.2% identity on the Orf8 protein, 100% identity on the E protein, and the overall genomic/amino acid-level resemblance between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Such evidence, when considered together, is consistent with a hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 genome has an origin based on the use of ZC45/ZXC21 as a backbone and/or template for genetic gain-of-function modifications.Importantly, ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat coronaviruses that were discovered (between July 2015 and February 2017), isolated, and characterized by military research laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China). The data and associated work were published in 2018. Clearly, this backbone/template, which is essential for the creation of SARS-CoV-2, exists in these and other related research laboratories.What strengthens our contention further is the published RaTG13 virus, the genomic sequence of which is reportedly 96% identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. While suggesting a natural origin of SARSCoV-2, the RaTG13 virus also diverted the attention of both the scientific field and the general public away from ZC45/ZXC21. In fact, a Chinese BSL-3 lab (the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre), which published a Nature article reporting a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARSCoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 rather than with RaTG13 {note 35}, was quickly shut down for "rectification" {note 36}. It is believed that the researchers of that laboratory were being punished for having disclosed the SARS-CoV2—ZC45/ZXC21 connection. On the other hand, substantial evidence has accumulated, pointing to severe problems associated with the reported sequence of RaTG13 as well as questioning the actual existence of this bat virus in nature. A very recent publication also indicated that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the RaTG13’s Spike protein could not bind ACE2 of two different types of horseshoe bats (they closely relate to the horseshoe bat R. affinis, RaTG13’s alleged natural host)2, implicating the inability of RaTG13 to infect horseshoe bats. This finding further substantiates the suspicion that the reported sequence of RaTG13 could have been fabricated as the Spike protein encoded by this sequence does not seem to carry the claimed function. The fact that a virus has been fabricated to shift the attention away from ZC45/ZXC21 speaks for an actual role of ZC45/ZXC21 in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.1.2 The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineeringThe Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.If SARS-CoV-2 does indeed come from natural evolution, its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.In the first scenario, the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus would have recombined and "swapped" its RBM with a coronavirus carrying a relatively "complete" RBM (in reference to SARS). This recombination would result in a novel ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus with all the gaps in its RBM "filled" (Figure 4). Subsequently, the virus would have to adapt extensively in its new host, where the ACE2 protein is highly homologous to hACE2. Random mutations across the genome would have to have occurred to eventually shape the RBM to its current form – resembling SARS-CoV RBM in a highly intelligent manner. However, this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak1.Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2. Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31. However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 201943. A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did3. This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host3, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak1. This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host. [...]35. Wu, F. et al. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 579, 265-269 (2020).36. Lab That First Shared Novel Coronavirus Genome Still Shut Down by Chinese Government. Global Biodefense, https://globalbiodefense.com/headlines/chinese-lab-that-first-shared-novel-coronavirusgenome- shut-down/ (2020). ==The original source for note 36 is the report in the SCMP of Feb 28 - item 3 in this newsletter.