...note the Question I asked....sources can be found if you Google the same question...
--------------------
Question: "Would the Wuhan Lab need a SARS-CoV-2 'Backbone' in order to create that virus"?
The Genetic Backbone Question
Public records and databases show the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not possess a known genetic backbone or direct ancestor that matched SARS-CoV-2.
The closest known sample in their collection was RaTG13, a bat coronavirus sharing about 96% overall genetic similarity.
DNI.gov
Why Scientists Say It Wasn't Used
Too many mutations: RaTG13 differs from SARS-CoV-2 by more than 1,100 nucleotide changes, meaning it is too evolutionary distant to serve as a practical construction backbone.
The BMJ
No engineering signs: Genetic analyses published in Nature Medicine concluded that SARS-CoV-2 does not contain the structural markers or backbones of known laboratory reverse-genetics systems.
Nature
The Open Debate
Natural spillover: The majority of virologists conclude the virus emerged through zoonotic transfer, pointing to early case clusters and data from the Huanan market.
NPR
Undisclosed data concerns: Critics and intelligence assessments note that some laboratory databases were taken offline in late 2019, leaving questions about whether an unlisted precursor could have been housed there
---------------
Note that since so many Coronaviruses have been proven to have emerged zoonotically in China, it would be medical malpractice to NOT fund the Wuhan Lab. And Dr. Fauci, as well as the majority of Virologists, agreed that the contract with EcoHealth and Wuhan, met accepted conditions for GOF.
