The Nature op-ed of March 17, 2020 was an even more forceful message to scientists the world over: Investigate lab leak and you will be tarred as a crackpot.

'any type of laboratory-based scenario is NOT plausible'

The op-ed also seeded the pangolin hoax.

Who were the authors?
The main author is Kristian Andersen, the guy who just deleted all his tweets. On Jan 31, 2020 Andersen told Fauci that the virus had engineered looking features. The next day, they had their secret, emergency teleconference. After the teleconference, Anderson changed his tune.
The Nature op-ed had a huge impact in shaping the media's narrative and was used by Fauci himself to dismiss any suggestion of a lab leak. A few months later, Andersen got a huge grant from Fauci.…
Next up is Andrew Rambaut. He's a British biologist. Crucially, he was on Fauci's secret Feb 1, 2020 teleconference where they discussed "desired outcomes".
Then we have Eddie Holmes, a dual British and Australian citizen and virologist. Eddie too was on Fauci's secret teleconference.
Aside from joining the Andersen op-ed, Eddie also felt the need to issue his own statement pushing back against alleged "unfounded speculation".
Then we have Robert Garry, referred to in the Fauci emails as Bob. Bob is a professor at the Tulane University. And you guessed it, Bob too was invited to Fauci's secret teleconference.
Bob was the source for this ABC propaganda piece.
Lastly, there is Ian Lipkin. Ian is at Columbia University. He is the only one who was not on Fauci's secret teleconference. And guess what? He's also the only one who has now changed his mind.…
4 out of 5 pangolin op-ed writers were on Fauci's secret teleconference. The one who was not on the call has now recanted.

It is also noteworthy that none of the 5 op-ed writers joined Daszak's Lancet letter. This backs up other FOIA evidence that this was all coordinated.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Hans Mahncke

Hans Mahncke Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @HansMahncke

6 Jun
1/ The Jan 31-Feb 2 timeline is so significant because it reveals the origins of the lab leak cover up. As soon as Fauci saw the Science article he knew he had a big problem. This kicked off a frantic 48h in which Fauci planted the seeds for a natural origins narrative.
2/ The Science article itself wasn't all that bad for Fauci but it linked to a Nature article that was far more troublesome. We know Fauci spotted this problem because he began sending his soon to be collaborators both the Science and the Nature articles.
3/ The Nature article describes gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab and specifically mentions that Fauci (i.e. NIAID) had funded the experiments. Thus, we know for certain that by Jan 31, Fauci *knew* that US taxpayers had funded reckless bat virus experiments in China.
Read 11 tweets
2 Jun
On the very day that the country was shut down , Fauci took the time to agreeably respond to a random TDS sufferer.
On the day before the country was shut down, Fauci took the time to agreeably respond to a random TDS sufferer.
Another one.
Read 4 tweets
29 Mar
"SARS-CoV-2 was remarkably well adapted to humans from its first appearance, yet poorly adapted to bat infection, the natural reservoirs for SARS-r-CoVs, with little evidence for gaining its human adaptation through natural recombination."

Aka "evidence".…
"SARS-CoV-2′s receptor binding domain (RBD) appears to be highly optimized for binding to human ACE2"

Aka "evidence".
"The combination of binding strength, human and mouse peptide mimicry, as well as high adaptation for human infection and transmission from the earliest strains might suggest the use of humanized mice for the development of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory environment."

Daszak *2019*:
Read 4 tweets
24 Mar
1/ Some additional info related to my WIV piece in @EpochTimes.

On Feb 6, 2020, a Chinese scholar in Wuhan, Xiao Botao, published an article on the academic portal Researchgate that directly implicated the WIV in the outbreak...…
2/ Xiao said that “somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus.” The article was taken down quickly but not before it was archived:

(Xiao is the sort of guy that the U.S. gov should be protecting instead of people like Danchenko)
3/Strangely, on Dec 31, 2019, the day the Wuhan "pneumonia" was first announced, Daszak started a tweet thread pointing the finger at the human-wildlife-livestock interface while conspicuously omitting the “high risk” laboratory interface that he himself had warned about earlier. Image
Read 4 tweets
23 Mar
My latest in @EpochTimes: Investigating the investigator…
"The World Health Organization's (WHO) latest mission to Wuhan to trace the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic is back in the headlines. But not for the right reasons...It is no coincidence that Daszak was handpicked for this effort. "
"To understand why, we need to go back and look at Daszak’s close affiliation to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), dating back to at least 2013, when he co-authored a bat coronavirus study with the director of the lab, Shi Zhengli."
Read 16 tweets
11 Mar
Twitter just scored several own goals in their lawsuit against Ken Paxton.

Here's Twitter openly admitting that they make editorial decisions, that these decisions have to be made in secret and that Twitter is actually no different from a newspaper. Wow.…
And here's Twitter admitting that they are relying on First Amendment rights meant for the press.
Twitter says it can't share information on their moderation process because that would undermine the moderation process.

Here's the problem. Section 230 protection only applies to those acting in good faith. By hiding their process, we can't know if they're acting in good faith.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!