Original title: Revealed evidence that the corona is artificial, MI6 was involved, and all traces lead to a city
On June 12, articles were published stating that scientists had found evidence that the coronavirus was artificially made. The very short texts say that two scientists, one from Britain and one from Norway, recently published a study that concluded that the SarsCov2 virus was artificially made in a laboratory.
According to their research, the new virus allegedly contains some sequences that appear to be artificially inserted, which would increase the success of the virus.
Birger Sorensen and Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified inserted parts that are key to the virus communicating with humans and entering them. Without citing a source or evidence, this news was transmitted by certain portals as a claim that the virus was artificially created.
The portal Repoter.mk, the very next day published an article titled “Revealed evidence that the corona is artificial, MI6 was involved, and all traces lead to one city”. In fact, the article is about the same scientists but with broader content, citing the Serbian portal Kurir.rs as a source. Namely, according to the research of two scientists (Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish), the coronavirus is manmade because it has elements that cannot be created naturally. The British-Norwegian duo was joined by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s MI6 secret service from 1999 to 2004.
He went a step further in his claims, saying to the Daily Telegraph that research by Sorensen and Dalgleish showed that the pandemic may have begun at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He added that the virus was unlikely to have been intentionally released, but noted that China had apparently tried to cover the flaw.
You can read the original article here.
Although the portal only transmits the article from the Serbian Kurir.rs, the allegations made in the title itself and in parts of the text mislead the readers that the coronavirus was allegedly created in a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is still no evidence that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory.
The theses that the coronavirus was allegedly created in a laboratory are refuted by the prestigious media BussinesInsider with the help of scientists who explain that the form of the virus cannot be created in a laboratory in any way.
Although the author of the text we are analyzing mentions the statement by a former British foreign intelligence officer as supportive of the “claim” that the coronavirus was artificially created in China, Britain’s MI6 dismissed the allegations as coronavirus anti-vaccination propaganda. These claims have also been refuted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has classified such claims as fabricated.
The article writes about how Chinese and American politicians have been exchanging accusations on the subject of COVID-19 for months, but regarding the thesis of the British-Norwegian study, it notes that Sorensen may have a personal interest in media attractive theses on the artificial origin of the new coronavirus.
Namely, the paper presents the arguments for the development of Bivacc-19, the vaccine candidate for COVID-19, which is currently in advanced preclinical development.
Also, Sorensen has a financial interest in the story, because he works for Immunor, a Norwegian company that stands behind the vaccines, and concludes that the thesis about the artificial origin of the virus besides from the scientists, has been rejected by US intelligence services in the past. In the new case, British intelligence sources also rejected it.
It is therefore unclear what the purpose of such an article is, informing or misinforming the public. With the title and most of the content, readers are led to the wrong conclusion. They are presented with a claim that the virus was allegedly artificially created in Wuhan and MI6 was allegedly involved.
This misleads readers and makes it almost impossible to make a clear distinction between false claims and truth.
