Dr. Anthony Fauci colluded with scientists from the World Health Organization and elsewhere to allay worries about an unintentional SARS-CoV-2 leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to newly released emails that have been redacted, which has fueled conspiracy theories about America’s “top Covid doc.”
As recently discovered emails suggest potential reasons to hide his involvement in funding research carried out in the Wuhan lab connected to the escape of SARS-CoV2, now known as COVID-19, Dr. Fauci has been at the heart of a contentious storm. Congress’s further investigation and Pentagon contract awards amply demonstrate that NIH funding was channeled through EcoHealth Alliance for work carried out there, but how far did it go?
TRENDING: NEW Trump Diamond Bills Will Drive Liberals Crazy!
According to previously published emails, scientists at the NIH were concerned that talk of a SARS-CoV-2 lab escape could give rise to conspiracies.
Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIAID, Sir Jeremy Farrar at WHO, Scripps Research’s Kristian Andersen, Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney, former NIH Director Francis Collins, Chris Elias from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, George Fu Gao from China CDC, and Viktor J. Dzau from Duke University are just a few of the leaders in global health and science who recently came together to exchange knowledge and opinions.
On March 17 of this year, a controversial academic study appeared to put an end to the lab leak idea and establish for good that SARS-CoV-2 originated from natural sources. Emails obtained by NIH, however, told a quite different tale: the study had initially included three competing theories for the origin of coronavirus; only as it developed did it become more certain in stating one source while maintaining silent on another. Questions remain unanswered despite efforts to stop the public from asking them about a different theory – that SARS-CoV-2 may have escaped from a lab.
In spite of being initially dismissed as “conspiracy theorist” claims by mainstream media outlets, the investigation into whether or not SARS-CoV-2 had originated from a laboratory leak eventually proved to be justifiably deemed worthy of exploration by its authors. This was due in large part to the voices of renowned authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, and Sir Jeremy Farrar.
Unredacted emails from The Intercept’s breakthrough presentation set off a vital national conversation about the topics covered in their investigation.
Drawing on “comparative analysis of genomic data,” the paper’s authors wrote that “our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated construct.” Toward the end of the paper, they added, “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible” in explaining the origin of the virus. Instead, the scientists strongly favored a natural origin, arguing that the virus likely spilled from bats into humans, possibly by way of an intermediate animal host.
The peer-reviewed paper proved to be hugely influential. Dr. Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, announced its findings in a post on the agency’s website in late March 2020. When asked during an April 17 press briefing at the White House about concerns that SARS-CoV-2 had come out of a lab in China, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who recently stepped down as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, referenced the paper, describing its conclusions and calling its authors “a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists.” The paper has been accessed online more than 5.7 million times and has been cited by more than 2,000 media outlets. ABC News, for instance, ran an article on March 27 titled “Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes Covid-19 ‘Is Not a Laboratory Construct.’” In that article, one of the paper’s authors, Robert Garry, is quoted saying, “There’s a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories that went to a pretty high level, so we felt it was important to get a team together to examine evidence of this new coronavirus to determine what we could about the origin.”
Author Jimmy Tobias describes opposition to a research report before it was even released in a story for The Intercept. This opposition, which was led by Fauci, Collins, and Farrar, made waves in advance of the planned release.
Garry and the other authors of the study were concerned that SARS-CoV-2 might have come from a lab. Drs. Fauci and Collins had a lengthy, private discussion about this after it happened in early 2020, considering all options.
Even though Dr. Francis Collins and Farrar provided evidence that didn’t precisely match reality, they were finally able to persuade two of the paper’s authors to seek an alternative natural origins theory for Covid-19.
After reviewing the summary document from Holmes and his team, Collins responded: “Very thoughtful analysis. I note that Eddie is now arguing against the idea that this is the product of intentional human engineering. But repeated tissue culture passage is still an option—though it doesn’t explain the O-linked glycans.”
The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was a man-made virus was rejected by Dr. Collins and Farrar, who saw it as a fantastical theory rather than a viable possibility.
Farrar replied to the thread: “Being very careful in the morning wording. ‘Engineered’ probably not. Remains very real possibility of accidental lab passage in animals to give glycans.”
“Eddie would be 60:40 lab side,” Farrar added. “I remain 50:50.”
“Yes, I’d be interested in the proposal of accidental lab passage in animals (which ones?),” Collins wrote.
“?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice,” Fauci responded.
“Exactly!” Farrar replied.
“Surely that wouldn’t be done in a BSL-2 lab?” Collins asked, referring to biosafety level 2 labs.
“Wild West…” was Farrar’s response.
Dr. Fauci’s financial support of the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology’s study could be interpreted as an unintentional endorsement of a project that could have ramifications for the development of bioweapons, proving that no one is immune from the CCP’s targeting.
Famous medical professionals Dr. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins received a concerning message from Farrar on February 7: coronaviruses had allegedly been found in pangolins. Further investigation revealed that the data was not totally correct, though.
“Reports coming out overnight that Chinese group have pangolin viruses that are 99% similar,” Farrar wrote. “This would be a crucially important finding and if true could be the ‘missing link’ and explain a natural evolutionary link.”
“That will be VERY interesting,” Collins responded. “Does it have the furin cleavage site?”
Tobias was able to make an important insight despite the pangolin data’s failure to explain why researchers were concerned about furin cleavage sites.
“The viruses isolated from some pangolins were not 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2, but the data did show that coronaviruses circulating in pangolins shared other key features with the pandemic virus,” Tobias explains. “This seems to have played an important role in shifting the scientists’ thinking away from the lab hypothesis.”
Holmes, who had been “60:40 lab side,” shifted his position: “Personally, with the pangolin virus possessing 6/6 key sites in the receptor binding domain, I am in favour of the natural evolution theory.”
German physicist Christian Drosten then made the following comment regarding the email correspondence: “Can someone help me with one question: didn’t we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it?”
“Who came up with this story in the beginning?” he added. “Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?”
Holmes replied: “Ever since this outbreak started there have been suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, if only because of the coincidence of where the outbreak occurred and the location of the lab. I do a lot of work in China and I can you [sic] that a lot of people there believe this and believe they are being lied to.”
Kristian Andersen, one of the authors of “Proximal Origin,” chimed in on February 8.
“The fact that Wuhan became the epicenter of the ongoing epidemic caused by nCoV [novel coronavirus] is likely an unfortunate coincidence, but it raises questions that would be wrong to dismiss out of hand,” he wrote. “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.”
“As to publishing this document in a journal,” he added, “I am currently not in favor of doing so. I believe that publishing something that is open-ended could backfire at this stage.” Andersen suggested that the scientists wait and collect more evidence so they could publish some “strong conclusive statements that are based on the best data we have access to. I don’t think we are there yet.”
The writers came to a resounding conclusion in favor of the natural origins theory after conducting months of in-depth investigation and analyzing contradictory facts. Andersen informed Farrar, Fauci, Collins, and others on March 6th that their article, “Proximal Origin,” had been accepted for publication.
“Thank you for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper,” he wrote. “We’re happy to say that the paper was just accepted by Nature Medicine and should be published shortly (not quite sure when).”
“Thanks for your note,” Fauci replied. “Nice job on the paper,” he added, approvingly.
An influential researcher in microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, David Relman, disagreed with a recent publication that suggested that Covid-19 originated naturally. He stated that it was founded on “flawed assumptions” that failed to account for possible lab origins, which Dr. Relman considers to be at least as likely as the source’s natural origin.
“When I first saw it in March 2020, the paper read to me as a conclusion in search of an argument,” he said. “Among its many problems, it failed to consider in a serious fashion the possibility of an unwitting and unrecognized accidental leak during aggressive efforts to grow coronaviruses from bat and other field samples. It also assumed that researchers in Wuhan have told the world about every virus and every sequence that was in their laboratories in 2019. But these [unredacted emails] actually provide evidence that the authors considered a few additional lab-associated scenarios, early in their discussions. But then they rushed to judgment, and the lab scenarios fell out of favor.”
“It appears as if a combination of a scant amount of data and an unspoken bias against the [lab origin] scenario diminished the idea in their minds,” he added.
The Intercept added that “several academic scientists who were asked to comment for this article expressed their gratitude that these documents are now public but declined to speak on the record given the rancor surrounding this subject.”
Significant research into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 by Dr. Francis Balloux has strengthened the consensus that the virus was probably created in a laboratory. For years to come, this ground-breaking research may help us better understand and prevent infectious diseases!
In October 2022, Princeton researcher Alex Washburne startled the globe with a ground-breaking pre-print article that, after two years of rigorous investigation, convinced even some critics to ultimately accept its ground-breaking results.
“We examined whether SARS-CoV-2 was synthesized in a lab,” Washburne wrote. “We studied a common method for synthesizing CoVs in the lab. This method was thought to not leave a fingerprint. We found the fingerprint. That fingerprint is in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.”
Professor Francois Balloux, a renowned expert on Covid-19 research and analysis, gave the latest study his seal of approval by stating that he could repeat its key findings.
“This is an important piece of work,” Balloux said. “To me, it looks solid both conceptually and methodologically. I was given advance warning and was able to replicate the key findings. To the best of my knowledge, I confirm the reported patterns are genuine.”
Due to allegations that they deceived the public about Covid-19, leading scientists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, will be called before the House of Representatives, which is dominated by Republicans. Newly revealed NIH communications are expected to increase criticism of U.S. government actions during this pandemic catastrophe around the world.
