Study: 32% of COVID-19 Spike Protein Similar to Human Endogenous Retroviral Elements
- Simian Practicalist
- 6 minutes ago
- 2 min read
A study by J. Fleetwood titled “A 32% Human-Derived Mosaic in the In Silico-Assembled SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein: Accidental Contaminant Misincorporation or Intentional Functional Chimeric Design?” published on 11 November 2025 has found… well, pretty much what the title states.
The paper is 136 pages long but most of it is raw data. The main text is about 7 pages.
The introduction is a reminder of how the virus was extracted.
The SARS-CoV-2 genome was first reported as a computationally assembled consensus sequence derived from fragmented RNA extracted from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of a single patient with pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 (Wu et al., 2020). No purified viral particles were isolated, and fulfillment of Koch’s postulates was not attempted. The resulting 29,903-nucleotide sequence (Wuhan-Hu-1, NC_045512.2) was rapidly adopted as the reference for diagnostic assays, phylogenetic studies, and vaccine development. Notably, the spike glycoprotein encoded by this sequence (YP_009724390.1) was incorporated—after minor stabilization mutations (K986P/V987P)—into the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccines, which were designed, manufactured, and distributed within one year of sequence publication.
The above is already incriminating.
As for the actual research, the author ran 6 BLASTp searches and found
…32% (416 amino acids) of this spike exhibits significant local similarity to human endogenous retroviral (HERV) elements and cellular proteins across six functional domains: membrane fusion, receptor binding, immune modulation, intracellular trafficking, structural rigidity, and metabolic interference.
In other words, these HERV elements can contribute to inflammation, respiratory and pulmonary conditions, and even neuro conditions.
The author also notes that some of these motifs are not found in bat or pangolin coronaviruses.
These findings beg the question whether this is accidental or intentional, and by the latter is meant “intentional design using human sequences to enhance pathogenicity or persistence”.
This is hardly the first paper to doubt that COVID-19 is natural. For example:
“Unnatural evolutionary processes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and possibility of deliberate natural selection” by A. Tanaka and T. Miyazawa, published on 15 August 2023.
“Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route” by L.-M. Yan, published on 14 September 2020.
“Wuhan COVID-19 Synthetic Origins and Evolution” by J.-C. Perez, published on 23 March 2020.
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
