The same people who went out of their
way to convince us that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution in
the wild were privately saying they were convinced it came from a lab.
Now, were SARS-CoV-2 to be publicly acknowledged to be a genetically
engineered lab-escape, the obvious conclusion would be that we need to
shut down much of the gain-of-function research that led to its
creation. Needless to say, that would be a significant setback for the
biosecurity agenda, which needs pandemics to justify the centralization
of power and decision-making.
Zoonotic Transmission Is Not the Threat It’s Made Out To Be
The fact of the matter is, zoonotic transmission is extremely rare,
and most if not all global pandemics with lethal outcomes can be traced
back to lab experiments. As just one example, USA Today1
recently reiterated the debunked claim that the 2013 Ebola outbreak in
West Africa was caused by infected bush meat. (Another widely circulated
hypothesis is that it emerged from infected bats.)
However, as detailed in “Turns Out, Ebola Likely Leaked From a Lab as Well,”
there’s compelling evidence linking that outbreak to a U.S.-run
research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone. And, curiously, many of the
same individuals, companies and organizations involved in the Ebola
epidemic have also been linked to the alleged creation of SARS-CoV-2.
The idea that pathogens will jump species and kill humans is a useful
scare tactic, however, and it’s now being pushed like never before
under One Health
— a global agenda that will allow unelected bureaucrats at the World
Health Organization to centralize power and make decisions relating to
diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution,
movement of populations, health care and much more, for the entire
world.
Report Predicts Next Pandemic May Come From Meat
To that end, a report2
from the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program at
Harvard Law School and the Center for Environmental & Animal
Protection at New York University now predicts that the next pandemic is
likely to emerge from the U.S. meat supply — or the fur trade, or a
petting zoo, or from pets.
It basically reviews all the different areas of life and commerce
that involve animal and human contact, however brief or rare, and the
subsequent hypothetical zoonotic transmission chains. Not surprisingly,
One Health documents are repeatedly referenced in this report.
Overall, the One Health agenda calls for minimizing or eliminating
certain animal-human contact, sterilizing areas where animals are kept
or butchered, and/or increasing the use of antibiotics and vaccines in
animals across the board. It also calls for massively increased
biosurveillance and testing.
In contrast, the report in question primarily focuses on legislative
and regulatory actions to curtail zoonotic disease, including the
potential banning of certain animal practices that “present great risk
but relatively little value, economic or otherwise.”
Will the warnings in this report be used to justify the transition to fake meat?
It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. The fake meat industry wants you to
believe that their cell-based lab-concoctions are the answer to today's
environmental woes, and that includes the threat of zoonotic disease
transmission, as lab-grown meat is grown in highly hygienic and sterile
(supposedly) conditions.3
Basically, the One Health narrative is that the natural environment
poses countless risks to human health and must therefore be controlled.
Meanwhile, it’s mankind’s efforts to control and replace nature in the
first place that is causing most of the problems.
The ‘Proximal Origin’ Scandal
While the One Health narrative is that pandemics are caused by
animals, there’s little doubt that the next pandemic will come from a
lab, just like most previous pandemics, including COVID-19. Over the
past several months, more and more evidence has emerged showing that the
scientists who wrote “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”4 intentionally misled the public.
“Proximal Origin,” which became the most-cited paper (a Letter to the
Editor mischaracterized everywhere as a serious scientific review),
claimed SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution and spread via a
wet market in Wuhan, China, and that there was no evidence to suggest
genetic engineering or a lab origin.
Private communications, however, reveal they suspected the virus had
leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and had been
genetically engineered to infect humans.
Mounting evidence also suggests this act of misdirection (to put it diplomatically) was done at the behest of Dr. Anthony Fauci
(then-director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, NIAID), Dr. Francis Collins (then-director of the National
Institutes of Health, NIH) and Sir. Jeremy Farrar (then-head of the
Wellcome Trust).
As noted in a July 20, 2023, Public Substack article by independent
journalists Alex Gutentag, Leighton Woodhouse and Michael Shellenberger:5
“The documents ... show [Kristian] Andersen and his
co-authors, Andrew Rambaut, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry,
conspiring — by which we mean they made secret plans to engage in
deceptive and unethical behavior and — to spread disinformation.
Their conspiracy included coordinating with their
‘higher-ups’ in the U.S. and UK governments to deceive journalists ...
We ... today ... release the full cache of Slack messages and emails
covering the discussions between Andersen et al. as they wrote their
influential ‘Proximal Origin’ paper, which Anthony Fauci and others in
the U.S. government used to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis.”
While Fauci’s role in the creation of this paper has garnered the
most attention, a more central culprit in this coverup may actually be
Farrar — and he’s now the chief scientist for the WHO, a fact that
hardly inspires confidence in the WHO’s future adherence to scientific
truth and fact. The email exchange below between Andersen and Farrar
(with other authors cc’d) suggests Farrar was a key decision-maker.
>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
Proof of a Conspiracy
A 140-page PDF containing the “Proximal Origin” author’s Slack
messages and a 163-page PDF of emails can be downloaded from the Public
article,6 in which Gutentag, Woodhouse and Shellenberger go on to highlight some of the takeaways from this correspondence.
For starters, in “Proximal Origin,” the authors insisted natural
evolution was the most likely scenario, but in private, they thought a
lab leak was the most likely origin.
In “Proximal Origin” they claimed “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2
is not a purposefully manipulated virus” and that “we do not believe
that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Behind the
scenes, however, Andersen wrote:
“I think the main thing still in my mind is that the
lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened
because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data
is fully consistent with that scenario.”
Andersen also stated that “The main issue is that accidental escape
is in fact highly likely — it's not some fringe theory.” Farrar and the
other authors expressed similar views:7
- February 2, 2020, Dr. Robert Garry wrote, “I really can’t think of a
plausible natural scenario ... I just can’t figure out how this gets
accomplished in nature ... Of course, in the lab it would be easy ...”
- February 2, 2020, Dr. Michael Farzan wrote he was “bothered by the
furin site” and had “a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside
the lab ... I am 70:30 or 60:40 [lab].”
- February 2, 2020, Dr. Andrew Rambaut wrote, “From a (natural)
evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as
unusual is the furin cleavage site.”
- February 4, 2020, Dr. Edward Holmes indicated that he was “60-40 lab,” and Farrar wrote, “I am 50-50 [lab].”
Holmes also commented: “No way selection could occur in the market.
Too low a density of mammals: just small groups of 3-4 in cases,” and
Garry wrote:8
“Transmitting a bat virus-like RatG13 in HeLa cells
and then asking your graduate student to insert a furin site ... would
get you there. It's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened
given the Gain of Function research we know is happening ...
I'm thinking mostly about the PRRA to generate the
furin site. Relatively easy to drop 12 bases in. The proline is the
hang-up — why add that? Makes me think the cell culture passage scenario
is possible/probably assuming this has in fact been observed before by
Farzan and Fouchier.”
The following graphic, created by @RAEMKA1 and reposted by
KanekoaTheGreat on Twitter summarizes the scientific consensus among the
“Proximal Origin” authors:
>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
Truth Took Backseat to Self-Preservation
Indeed, Andersen called Fauci February 1, 2020, specifically because
he was concerned that the virus showed signs of being engineered.
Immediately after that phone call, Fauci contacted Farrar and raised the
possibility of taking the concern to the FBI in the U.S. and MI5 in the
UK.
Instead, Farrar organized a conference call that led to the creation of “Proximal Origin.”9
From the emails, we know that the genetic engineering aspect of
SARS-CoV-2 was discussed. However, concerns about harm to science
apparently weighed heavier. After the call, Ron Fouchier wrote:10
“An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been
engineered and released into the environment by humans (accidental or
intentional) would need to be supported by strong data, beyond
reasonable doubt.
It is good that this possibility was discussed in
detail with a team of experts. However, further debate about such
accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their
active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science
in China in particular.”
In a February 9, 2020, email, Christian Drosten also confirmed that
the group had been “convened to challenge a certain theory,” and if
possible, “drop” or eliminate that theory (i.e., the lab leak theory)
from the public and scientific conversation. As recently as the day
before, February 8, Andersen had made a case for keeping the possibility
of a lab leak open, stating:11
“Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been
focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a
crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say
that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories
considered.”
Authors Never Believed in the Pangolin Theory
In “Proximal Origin,” the authors went on to blame pangolins as an
intermediate host between bats and humans, but in private, they remained
unconvinced. The conclusion in “Proximal Origin” reads:12
“The presence in pangolins of an RBD [receptor
binding domain] very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 means that we can
infer this was also probably in the virus that jumped to humans.”
However, shortly before the “Proximal Origin” pre-print was
published, Andersen wrote: “For all I know, people could have infected
the pangolin, not the other way,” and the day after the pre-print, he
commented: “Clearly none of these pangolin sequences was the source
though.”
Authors Thought Lab Leak Was Likely Months After Publication
The authors also clearly thought a lab leak was possible months after
publishing the “Proximal Origin” paper. In mid-April 2020, a month
after the paper was officially published and two months after the
preprint was posted, Andersen wrote to his coauthors:
“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was
involved ... are we absolutely certain that no culture could have been
involved? What concerns me here are some of the comments by Shi in the
SciAm article (‘I had to check the lab’ etc) and the fact that the furin
site is being messed with in vitro ...
Finally, the paper that was shared with us showing a
very similar phenomenon (exactly 12 bp insertion) in other CoV’s has me
concerned ... We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic
research).”
In fact, the authors — like so many other independent scientists,
researchers and journalists — suspected Shi Zhengli’s work at the WIV
could have produced SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Public:13
“Andersen discussed some of her papers in early
February and noted his concerns about gain-of-function experiments on
MERS and SARS viruses. In mid-April he noted that Shi’s work was ‘the
main reason I have been so concerned about the ‘culture’ scenario.’
Cell culturing is a method through which viruses can
be passed multiple times through cells in order to render them more
infectious and is exactly the kind of ‘laboratory-based scenario’ the
authors ruled out in their paper.”
Conspiracy Driven by Obedience to Higher-Ups
Finally, the correspondence shows that the conspiracy to misdirect,
if not outright deceive, the public was driven by obedience to
higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including Farrar, Fauci
and Collins, but also, potentially, other unnamed individuals within
various government agencies and/or the intelligence community.
While Andersen has publicly denied that Fauci had any involvement in
the publication, in an email to the journal Nature, Andersen specified
that the paper had been “prompted” by Fauci, Collins and Farrar.14 If you want to take a deeper dive into how the “Proximal Origin” paper was created, check out U.S. Right to Know’s timeline.15
Scientists Call for Retraction of ‘Proximal Origin’
Based on all the evidence now in the public domain showing that the
authors of “Proximal Origin” did not believe their published
conclusions, Biosafety Now! has launched a petition16 calling on Nature Medicine to retract the paper. As noted by Biosafety Now!:
“Email messages and direct messages via the messaging
program Slack among authors of the paper obtained under FOIA or by the
U.S. Congress and publicly released in full in July 2023 ... show,
incontrovertibly, that the authors did not believe the conclusions of
the paper at the time the paper was written, at the time the paper was
submitted for publication, and at the time the paper was published.
They thus show that the paper was, and is, the
product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct. It is imperative
that this clearly fraudulent and clearly damaging paper be removed from
the scientific literature.”