Pandemic started in a lab:

[whatbogsends]

Did you read the article I linked?

Here's a few snippets.

New emails released in a congressional probe show that Fauci helped direct the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” an influential scientific paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, that claimed COVID-19 could not have leaked from a laboratory. Fauci then cited the paper—in effect quoting himself, since he coordinated the article behind the scenes and was given final approval before it published—as if it was an independent source corroborating his assertions that COVID could only have come from a bat and not from a lab.​

​

...​

​

Fauci, it appears, may have been trying to hide his connections to the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology (WIV). For years, according to a report at The Intercept, the National Institutes of Health (where Fauci served as a director) directed government grants to the Chinese facility where multiple investigations by federal agencies have now concluded the virus likely originated—specifically to fund the controversial gain of function (GoF) research that intentionally engineers deadly viruses in order to study them. Even if this was all merely a coincidence, it certainly looked bad. Fauci seemed so alarmed by the optics that in January 2020, he sent an email to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, with the single-word, all-caps subject line “IMPORTANT”—something he does not do in the hundreds of pages of other emails released to the public via FOIA requests. The email Fauci sent contained a link to a scientific study that was then spreading across the internet, which had originally been published in 2015 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the WIV’s Shi Zhengli and pioneering American GoF researcher Ralph Baric. In the body of the email, Fauci wrote to Auchincloss, “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on …You will have tasks today that must be done.”​

​

...​

​

As a product of its own hype, the science media has been granted a kind of epistemological special status on science-related issues. On matters related to science, the thinking among consumer journalists goes, surely the science writers will have more, and better, things to say. That might be true, but on issues where science, money, power and crisis collide, it almost certainly is not. And no issue brought together those four horsemen of enlightened corruption more dramatically than the COVID-19 pandemic.​

Here's another bit of investigative reporting that shows that the US absolutely was funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

1) Francis Collins claimed that the NIH/NIAID never approved any grant that would have supported “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. ​

​

2) The NIH halted research on 18 separate projects, at least five of which were on coronaviruses, for potentially creating versions that were more deadly in or transmissible among humans. ​

​

3) Five projects on coronaviruses were exempted from the pause—solely because a funding-agency official declared they were urgently necessary.​

​

Denials by Fauci and Collins of Supporting Gain-of-Function Research Are "Brazenly Untruthful"

As concerns mount regarding the US's funding of gain-of-function research on dangerous pathogens, documents from a 2014 public records request cast doubt on the honesty of health officials

davidzweig.substack.com

​

Both of these articles are worth your time if you're interested in understanding how far Fauci went to conceal his connection to WiV.

I'm curious, how much smoke do we have to be suffocating in before we acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there's a fire?

​

No amount of email documentation obtained via FOIA showing the obvious obfuscation done by Fauci, Andersen, etc. will change these people's minds.

The paper trail, despite being heavily redacted, makes it clear that their private exchanges completely contradicted their public statements.

Those who continue to support this narrative could be engulfed in flame, and still claim "basically, we don't know if there's a fire".

 

[stevil]

Did you read the article I linked?

Here's a few snippets.

New emails released in a congressional probe show that Fauci helped direct the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” an influential scientific paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, that claimed COVID-19 could not have leaked from a laboratory.​

But the report doesn't say that at all.
There is a big difference between "could not have" and "It is improbable". So the person writing this commentary, this opinion piece, is intentionally trying to mislead and deceive their audience. Luckily it doesn't take much effort for an interested reader to refer to the source document and find that the commentary article is being misleading. I would say that if you want to know the truth, this article isn't the place to go looking.

Fauci then cited the paper—in effect quoting himself, since he coordinated the article behind the scenes and was given final approval before it published—as if it was an independent source corroborating his assertions that COVID could only have come from a bat and not from a lab.​

​

Fauci didn't write the article. The authors were

• Kristian G. Andersen,
• Andrew Rambaut,
• W. Ian Lipkin,
• Edward C. Holmes &
• Robert F. Garry

 

[whatbogsends]

But the report doesn't say that at all.
There is a big difference between "could not have" and "It is improbable". So the person writing this commentary, this opinion piece, is intentionally trying to mislead and deceive their audience. Luckily it doesn't take much effort for an interested reader to refer to the source document and find that the commentary article is being misleading. I would say that if you want to know the truth, this article isn't the place to go looking.



Fauci didn't write the article. The authors were

• Kristian G. Andersen,
• Andrew Rambaut,
• W. Ian Lipkin,
• Edward C. Holmes &
• Robert F. Garry

FOIA emails show that Andersen submitted that paper to Fauci for review prior to publishing. Fauci didn't write the article, he coordinated the writing of it.

 

[probinson]

But the report doesn't say that at all.
There is a big difference between "could not have" and "It is improbable". So the person writing this commentary, this opinion piece, is intentionally trying to mislead and deceive their audience. Luckily it doesn't take much effort for an interested reader to refer to the source document and find that the commentary article is being misleading. I would say that if you want to know the truth, this article isn't the place to go looking.

Right. Ask Fauci. That guy is totes honest! Pinky swear!

Fauci didn't write the article. The authors were

• Kristian G. Andersen,
• Andrew Rambaut,
• W. Ian Lipkin,
• Edward C. Holmes &
• Robert F. Garry

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article (emphasis added).

As emails obtained from Freedom of Information requests revealed, Fauci arranged the call just days after receiving an email from Andersen expressing concerns he shared with several other prominent virologists that parts of the virus looked engineered. Andersen wrote that he and a few fellow researchers “all find the [SARS-CoV-2] genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”​

So Kristian Andersen emails Fauci and tells him that he and his fellow researchers all find the SARS-CoV-2 genome inconsistent with evolutionary theory and that it looks engineered.

Then, Fauci calls them and sets them straight. And right after this call from Fauci, they changed their tune (emphasis added).

Andersen would later explain to The New York Times that his initial conclusions were made “in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock” and the subsequent revised position was the result of “more extensive analyses, significant additional data, and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly.” Despite this claim, however, “Proximal Origin” was written “in a matter of days,” with a draft complete by Feb. 4 and the paper accepted by Nature Medicine by March 6.​

​

“Thank you for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper,” Andersen wrote to Fauci and Collins. “We’re happy to say that the paper was just accepted by Nature Medicine and should be published shortly (not quite sure when).”​

So Fauci was intimately aware of the fact that this paper existed, as he provided "advice and leadership" to the authors who wrote the paper. Yet Fauci's name appears nowhere on this paper, and he pretended like he'd just heard about it when he cited it in a presidential briefing just shortly after it was published.

“There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve,” Fauci said at a presidential briefing on April 17, 2020, exactly one month after “Proximal Origin” was published. “And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”​

Except that wasn't the authors' conclusion at all, until Fauci coordinated a call with them to change their position before they authored that paper. It would have been far more accurate for Fauci to say, "I recently gave advice and leadership on a study to some highly qualified evolutionary virologists, who originally thought that parts of the virus looked engineered, but I talked with them and convinced them that it was just a big conspiracy theory, and now they agree with me that it is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human."

Put that together with the pause on funding gain of function research, which Francis Collins lied about when he said they had never funded that type of research (why do you have to "pause" funding for something you never funded?), and the five studies on coronaviruses which were granted exemption from the pause, and you've got a whole lot of smoke.

I'll quote the article you didn't read again.

But why would Fauci go to so much trouble to control the information surrounding the origins of the virus while sending the message to Americans that the idea that COVID had come from a lab was a conspiracy theory? And why would science journalists and peer-reviewed science publications go along with the effort?​

Those are some great questions that quite a few people are surprisingly incurious about.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If Fauci wrote the article himself using a ouija board, it would have no implication on whether or not the pandemic started in a lab or not.

 

[rjs330]

And we are still at the point of loyal Trump supporters claiming to know, despite any supporting evidence.
Claiming that it WAS a lab leak, because that's what Trump claimed despite any supporting evidence.

What on earth has Trump to do with where the virus came from?

You are so insulting. You know we all have our own thoughts on these matters. I don't even remember Trump saying it came from the lab.

I'm saying based upon where it originated and how it acted is very suspicious. It's also very suspicious that Fauci was so set on trying to claim there was no gain of function research going on there when in fact there was.

I don't really give a hoot what Trump said. He's totally irrelevant imo.

What matters are the other things that have been pointed out to you. And those things make it highly concerning that maybe, just maybe this came from the lab. In fact when you put it all together the chances are decent that it did.

No it's not definitive. And I honestly don't expect it ever to be because the Chinese are involved. They will NEVER admit it came from the lab. Instead they will obfuscate and deflect. "It may have come from a racoon dog in the wet market".

 

[probinson]

I found it amusing yesterday when some people were drawn in by the whole "raccoon dog" story, and I couldn't help but see this image in my head.

Check this out if you're entertaining the latest media notion that raccoon dogs are to blame for the pandemic.

We believe that this latest episode represents an unfortunate example of influential media outlets spreading a speculative narrative under the guise of a scientific finding. We also believe that the meagerness of the data being sold to the public underscores the need for an urgent, comprehensive, and forensic investigation into the origins of COVID-19, an investigation that uses not only scientific data, but all the tools of intelligence gathering and law enforcement. ​

​

The public deserves real answers, not false certainty.​

​

Press Release 3-20-2023 - Biosafety Now

Press Release 3-20-2023 - Biosafety Now

biosafetynow.org

​

 

[rjs330]

If Fauci wrote the article himself using a ouija board, it would have no implication on whether or not the pandemic started in a lab or not.

Right cause he would just claim it didn't. Case closed, cut the check, end of story.

He's just covering up.

Meanwhile the rest of us who dont find him trustworthy continue to look at the rest of the situation and think there is a good chance it did.

 

[probinson]

If Fauci wrote the article himself using a ouija board, it would have no implication on whether or not the pandemic started in a lab or not.

But there are serious implications of why Fauci involved himself in the writing of the study and failed to disclose it in the presidential briefing, and why he tried to cover up and silence any discussion of the possibility of a lab-leak.

How far are you willing to move the goalposts for Fauci? First, it was Fauci didn't write the article. Now it's, even if he wrote the article, it doesn't matter. Next you'll be saying, even if Fauci developed SARS-CoV-2 himself and released it into the wild on purpose, he's still a heckuva guy!

 

[essentialsaltes]

But it has serious implications of why Fauci involved himself in the writing of the study and failed to disclose it in the presidential briefing

Fine, the GOP already appears ready to investigate him.

How far are you willing to move the goalposts for Fauci?

I have no need to defend Fauci. If there's some crime or ethical lapse, go get him.

Now it's, even if we wrote the article, it doesn't matter.

The topic of the thread is "pandemic started in a lab". Fauci's authorship, influence, or review of this paper (if any) cannot retroactively alter the fact of the matter.

This is all the same garbage logic as used by young earth creationists. If Piltdown Man is a hoax, then YEC is true. If Fauci lied about this paper, then the virus started in a lab. It's a non sequitur.

 

[probinson]

Fine, the GOP already appears ready to investigate him.

It's telling that you named the GOP. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Answers on the origin of the pandemic should be important to all people, regardless of political persuasion.

The topic of the thread is "pandemic started in a lab". Fauci's authorship, influence, or review of this paper (if any) cannot retroactively alter the fact of the matter.

That's true. But as I said, the reason this is such a hot topic is because Fauci actively sought to censor open discourse on the possibility of a lab-leak. Aren't you even mildly curious as to why?

If Fauci lied about this paper, then the virus started in a lab.

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. If Fauci lied about the paper, the question is simply why? Why was Fauci so anxious to classify anyone who even entertained the idea that the virus was engineered at WiV as a nut and a conspiracy theorist?

The cover-up is always worse than the crime.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Answers on the origin of the pandemic should be important to all people, regardless of political persuasion.

They will not emerge from a congressional investigation.

 

[probinson]

They will not emerge from a congressional investigation.

So then how do you suggest we get those answers?

This development seems relevant as well.

Biden signs legislation to declassify info on COVID-19 origins

President Biden on Monday signed legislation to declassify information related to the origins of COVID-19 after the measure was passed unanimously in Congress. The House had passed the bill earlier…

thehill.com

 

[Say it aint so]

Did you read the article I linked?

Here's a few snippets.

New emails released in a congressional probe show that Fauci helped direct the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” an influential scientific paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, that claimed COVID-19 could not have leaked from a laboratory. Fauci then cited the paper—in effect quoting himself, since he coordinated the article behind the scenes and was given final approval before it published—as if it was an independent source corroborating his assertions that COVID could only have come from a bat and not from a lab.​

​

...​

​

Fauci, it appears, may have been trying to hide his connections to the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology (WIV). For years, according to a report at The Intercept, the National Institutes of Health (where Fauci served as a director) directed government grants to the Chinese facility where multiple investigations by federal agencies have now concluded the virus likely originated—specifically to fund the controversial gain of function (GoF) research that intentionally engineers deadly viruses in order to study them. Even if this was all merely a coincidence, it certainly looked bad. Fauci seemed so alarmed by the optics that in January 2020, he sent an email to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, with the single-word, all-caps subject line “IMPORTANT”—something he does not do in the hundreds of pages of other emails released to the public via FOIA requests. The email Fauci sent contained a link to a scientific study that was then spreading across the internet, which had originally been published in 2015 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the WIV’s Shi Zhengli and pioneering American GoF researcher Ralph Baric. In the body of the email, Fauci wrote to Auchincloss, “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on …You will have tasks today that must be done.”​

​

...​

​

As a product of its own hype, the science media has been granted a kind of epistemological special status on science-related issues. On matters related to science, the thinking among consumer journalists goes, surely the science writers will have more, and better, things to say. That might be true, but on issues where science, money, power and crisis collide, it almost certainly is not. And no issue brought together those four horsemen of enlightened corruption more dramatically than the COVID-19 pandemic.​

Here's another bit of investigative reporting that shows that the US absolutely was funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

1) Francis Collins claimed that the NIH/NIAID never approved any grant that would have supported “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. ​

​

2) The NIH halted research on 18 separate projects, at least five of which were on coronaviruses, for potentially creating versions that were more deadly in or transmissible among humans. ​

​

3) Five projects on coronaviruses were exempted from the pause—solely because a funding-agency official declared they were urgently necessary.​

​

Denials by Fauci and Collins of Supporting Gain-of-Function Research Are "Brazenly Untruthful"

As concerns mount regarding the US's funding of gain-of-function research on dangerous pathogens, documents from a 2014 public records request cast doubt on the honesty of health officials

davidzweig.substack.com

​

Both of these articles are worth your time if you're interested in understanding how far Fauci went to conceal his connection to WiV.

I'm curious, how much smoke do we have to be suffocating in before we acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there's a fire?

​

Yes I did. They don't know either and don't make that claim.

 

[Say it aint so]

So then how do you suggest we get those answers?

This development seems relevant as well.

Biden signs legislation to declassify info on COVID-19 origins

President Biden on Monday signed legislation to declassify information related to the origins of COVID-19 after the measure was passed unanimously in Congress. The House had passed the bill earlier…

thehill.com

He or she is right. A US congressional hearing in these times, is the last place to uncover the truth.

 

[probinson]

He or she is right. A US congressional hearing in these times, is the last place to uncover the truth.

So how do we uncover the truth?

 

[Say it aint so]

So how do you uncover the truth?

Step 1: Admitting we don't know the truth instead of making inferences even though offering supportive articles that say things like this:

​

"To be clear, the evidence presented here does not specifically suggest that the Covid-19 pandemic was triggered by a lab leak in Wuhan."​

 

[essentialsaltes]

So how do we uncover the truth?

Ultimately, it's a scientific question. But it may never have an overwhelming scientific consensus, even if China is more forthcoming with what it has or knows. So far, the majority scientific view remains a natural origin.

 

[probinson]

Step 1: Admitting we don't know the truth instead of making inferences even though offering supportive articles that say things like this:

​

"To be clear, the evidence presented here does not specifically suggest that the Covid-19 pandemic was triggered by a lab leak in Wuhan."​

This is a non-answer.

Are we allowed to make any inferences? You do know that an inference is defined as "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning", right?

No one knows if SARS-CoV-2 originated at WiV, that much is true. But shouldn't we want to find out? And if there is evidence of Fauci and Collins going to great lengths to censor discussion of the potential of a lab-leak, isn't that even a teensy bit suspicious to you? And if not a congressional hearing, then how can we arrive at the truth?

 

[DaisyDay]

It's telling that you named the GOP. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Answers on the origin of the pandemic should be important to all people, regardless of political persuasion.

The GOP made it a partisan issue.