Covid-19 – Why lab leak implies biological weapon.

Covid-19 took the world by storm due to its extreme contagiousness. Scientists examining the virus noted Covid-19 was the first Sarbecovirus sub-genus type of betacoronavirus that had the presence of a "furin cleavage" which increased the infectivity of the virus, which was the scientific anomaly.

The FBI, CIA, New York Times and others have indicated that the virus was likely a lab leak. The NYT noted 5 reasons why Covid-19 probably started in a lab.

Attention is directed to reason 2 – "The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature." That would be this business with the "furin cleavage". So, since our investigative agencies are indicating lab leak, and there was a proposal that completely explains the virus, let's look at the proposal, Project Defuse.
• we will introduce appropriate human specific cleavage sites
• Experimental testing of targeted immune boosting using humanized mice
• Principle Investigator and Technical Point of Contact Peter Daszak Ph.D

The proposal explains the leak.
• The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective

The Pentagon (DARPA) rejected the plan and included this reason.
• Nor does the proposal mention or assess Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) issues …
Well, what is Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)?
• Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) is a small subset of life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety

"Dual Use" implies two uses, and the definition indicates that there is an intended use, and a misapplication use, so, lets define those uses.
• Intended use – Scientific research, etc.
• Misapplication use – Use as a biological weapon of mass destruction.

Since it was the Pentagon that defined the experiment that fully and completely explains the virus as "Dual Use" and since the National Institutes of Health defines the 2nd use as a use that causes as a significant threat to public health, it is reasonable for us to conclude that the research had a "weapon" characteristic, whether the researchers want it or not.

I opine that use one occurs to the extent the virus remains confined to the interior of the lab, and use two occurs when the virus travels beyond the exterior of that lab and into the public sphere.

So, whether they intended to or not, by identifying the research as "dual use", the Pentagon is our expert that defined that pathogen as a bioweapon.

This explanation is offered up for those of use that suspected bioweapon, but lacked reasons why. We can say "bioweapon" and there are reasons why.

It is interesting that this mRNA technology came about as a response to this man-made pathogen that appears to have a bioweapon characteristic. I think the failure of the government to inform the public of the man-made origin, and the bioweapon characteristic of the pathogen being combatted resulted in a denial of informed consent, as part of a generalized obstruction of justice by the federal government in connection with 1.2 million Covid-19 wrongful deaths.