Dr. Meryl Nass is a world-class bioweapons expert. She recently published a must-read article:
Why are some of the US’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?
It seems that the usual-suspect Lancet authors who were trotted out to dismiss the “bioweapon conspiracy theory” are the same kind of so-called scientists as the NIST “experts” who assured us that WTC-7 miraculously disappeared at free-fall into its own footprint due to minor office fires.
Q: Why are five dubious, germ-warfare-linked, cover-up specialist scientists telling us this could not possibly be a bioweapon, and yet obviously it could?
Meryl Nass: “Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? …The Cubans blame (the first author) who worked for a federal agency for their Dengue outbreak…I knew of several of them…and they too were sort of biological defense, biological warfare people. Well, let me just say two of them I would call spooks with Ph.Ds, who have come out and done research on a whole very odd collection of subjects, all of which the US government has tried to cover up…And so these five scientists wrote a piece in Nature Medicine which claimed to have found the scientific linchpin to be able to make the argument that the new coronavirus is a natural occurrence. And the argument they made was that had it been constructed in the lab, it would have used the particular backbone that laboratorians know about. But because it didn’t have that backbone, it couldn’t possibly be a lab construct.
“The problem with that argument is basically it was a straw man argument. They said, well, if I were going to make the novel coronavirus, I would have made it this way, but because it isn’t made that way, it’s not a lab construct. Of course, you can make the novel coronavirus a lot of different ways. And I pointed out three different ways one might have come up with a novel coronavirus that weren’t using the method they suggested…my study of biological warfare, which has extended over decades, (shows) that the biological warfare warrior never chooses an (obvious) weapon. They always require plausible deniability…
“…It’s ridiculous to claim that only if you used an easily discoverable method of producing a biological weapon would it be successful; or you wouldn’t have done it any other way. I mean, it’s such a simplistic argument. You wonder, couldn’t they have come up with a better argument? Is that all they’re left with? Because any scientist could see through it in a moment.”