I don't think this was a bioweapon project, because the mortality rate doesn't match, I mean, why go for a corona when you can go full ebolapox to begin with, and then even if it's a soft bioweapon to cripple your adversary's economy, why would you start by throwing it in your own backyard... Pretend to be a victim too? Hm... That's far fetched, and reckless, with lots of rooms for unintended consequences
...
Now maybe they were looking for the perfect infectious "platform", to crossbreed with more potent stuffs later on... Either to use it or dev counter measures against such a mix, idk. Not very likely, sounds a bit like shooting in the dark
...
Now some study material for HIV cure, why not? Maybe, idk. After all AIDS is also rather a big deal in china too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_China#2003-Present:_Evidence-based_approaches_post-SARS
>World Health Organization, and UNAIDS estimate that there were 1.25 million people living with HIV/AIDS in China at the end of 2018, with 135,000 new infections from 2017. The reported incidence of HIV/AIDS in China is relatively low,[3] but the Chinese government anticipates that the number of individuals infected annually will continue to increase.[4] ... While HIV is a type of sexually transmitted infection,[5] the first years of the epidemic in China were dominated by non-sexual transmission routes, particularly among users of intravenous drugs through practices such as needle sharing.[6] By 2005, 50% of new HIV cases were due to sexual transmission,[7] with heterosexual sex gradually becoming the most common means of new infections in the 2000s.[8] New infections among men who have sex with men (MSMs) grew rapidly thereafter, representing 26% of all new cases in 2014, up from 2.5% in 2006.[9] Another major, non-sexual channel of infection was the Plasma Economy of the 1990s, wherein large numbers of blood donors, primarily in poor, rural areas, were infected with HIV as a result of systematically dangerous practices by state and private blood collection clinics.[10]
...
Now, maybe, it was just a pet project, as in scientists got a free pass for anything research, from the PLA, enjoy the new toys find something interesting, and a team started to try to make the best corona ever, like you take the most harmless stuffs out there and you make it go arnold on steroids, end game being a general methodology/protocol for "gain of function" programs
>Earlier this week, Newsweek and the Washington Post reported that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab near the site of the first coronavirus cases in the world, had been studying bat coronaviruses. The Newsweek report revealed an alarming tidbit: The Wuhan lab at the center of the controversy had for years been engaged in gain-of-function research. What exactly is it? It’s a line of research where scientists take viruses and study how they might be modified to become deadlier or more transmissible. Why would they do this? Scientists who engage in such research say it helps them figure out which viruses threaten people so they can design countermeasures.
I believe it's "just that", but that's just me
That makes a lot of sense. Especially with regard to that Vox article, there was a lot of concern when they tried to do that with the bird flu back in 2014 (?) in the U.S. Similar conditions - BSL-4 lab, highly infectious virus, mutating it (although not adding HIV DNA) to be more deadly/airborne, etc. China probably just doesn't sensationalize that research as much (I don't keep track of it, for sure).
On top of that they bought their way through science journos....
>Nature magazine has censored over 1,000 articles at the request of the Chinese government over the past several years. And it seems pretty clear that their recent article, “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is just one more example of their influence.
>The editors of the book series Transcultural Research have discontinued publishing the series with Springer Nature to protest its decision to accede to the Chinese government’s censorship demands. The Financial Times first reported last year that Springer Nature had blocked access in China to more than 1,000 articles in two political science journals dealing with sensitive subjects in China such as Taiwan, Tibet and the Cultural Revolution. The publisher issued a statement at the time acknowledging that “a small percentage of our content (less than 1 percent)” was limited in mainland China in order to “comply with specific local regulations.” Springer Nature -- which publishes the flagship science journal Nature -- defended the decision to limit access to certain content in China on the grounds that otherwise it would “run the very real risk of customers [in China] not being able to access any of our content.” The editors of the Transcultural Research book series, which is connected with the Heidelberg University research cluster on Asia and Europe in a global context, were unpersuaded by Springer Nature’s reasoning.
...
So yeah, given that there were instances of narrative control and censorship efforts coming from the CCP when it comes to the whole covid affair... Chances are, there are skeletons in the closet
(post is archived)