Thread by @AlexisBadenMaye

Eric Lander: How Biden’s Science Secretary Aided the COVID Origins Cover-Up… and Why

...soon to be posted as a new entry in the Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame organicconsumers.org/news/gain-of-f…

Eric Lander is a scientist and biotech entrepreneur who currently serves in President Biden’s Cabinet as his Science Advisor and the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Eric Lander is the founding director of the Broad Institute, a genetic engineering and synthetic biology outfit launched by the late Eli Broad, a billionaire philanthrocapitalist who seeded a modern-day eugenics movement based on genetic distinctions and determinism.

The New Eugenics: Modifying Biological Life in the Twenty-First Century by @b_quintyn google.com/books/edition/…

broadinstitute.org/medical-popula…

Marcy Darnovsky @mdarnovsky, director of the Center for Genetics and Society @C_G_S, calls this new movement “market-based eugenics.” time.com/4626571/crispr…

@mdarnovsky @C_G_S The desire of Eli Broad (funder of Eric Lander's Broad Institute) to sort people by their DNA was even more ominous because of his interest in depopulation.

https://twitter.com/AbdeeProklamasi/status/1423545996651294726?s=20

Eric Lander's Broad Institute’s genomics work has been hugely controversial, especially its efforts to discover genetic causes of same-sex attraction, mental illness and depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder and the psychological resilience of U.S. Army soldiers.

How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong by @MeganMolteni archive.is/pTAlA#selectio…

Finding genetic causes for mental illness and depression is the focus of the Stanley Center at Eric Lander's Broad Institute broadinstitute.org/stanley

The Stanley Center at Eric Lander's Broad Institute claims it's found a genetic cause of PTSD

https://twitter.com/cecilejanssens/status/1181766625877463041?s=20

I'll give you one guess... who funded this Stanley Center (Broad Institute) study, "Genome-wide analyses of psychological resilience in U.S. Army soldiers"? europepmc.org/article/MED/31…

One of Eric Lander’s business interests outside of leading the Broad Institute is advising its Chinese counterpart BGI (formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute), a company accused of aiding China’s “abusive DNA collection and analysis schemes”

https://twitter.com/pc_432/status/1415077239129972737?s=20

And, then there’s Eric Lander's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, revealed by @_whitneywebb in her must-read exposé, “Biden’s Nominee for New Cabinet-Level Science Position Is Epstein-Linked Geneticist.”

https://twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1412784057830854658?s=20

Eric Lander is a pandemic profiteer.

Eric Lander’s Broad Institute has received $2 billion from the federal government since 2009. govtribe.com/vendors/the-br…

Eric Lander is one of the richest members of Biden’s cabinet, worth at least $45.5 million.

"Biden science adviser conflicted out of COVID vaccine work" by @lachlan @axios

https://twitter.com/leafwarbler/status/1366544586873700358?s=20

@lachlan @axios Eric Lander owns stock in BioNTech worth between $500,000 and $1 million.

Fellow Gain-of-Function Hall of Shamer Bill Gates is also invested in BioNTech.

Lander & Gates are profiting off the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine that's causing heart attacks.

https://twitter.com/MonkeycatTonk/status/1334646512496881664?s=20

BioNTech is a long-time business partner of Bayer, which merged with Monsanto in 2018. In 2016, Bayer secured exclusive rights to use BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA technology and intellectual property for development of mRNA vaccines for farm animals.
biontech.de/sites/default/…

Eric Lander founded Codiak Biosciences & disclosed equity in the company worth $5-$25 million. Codiak also has a COVID vaccine. Major Codiak investor, venture capital firm Flagship Pioneering, is run by the founder and chairman of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan. sec.gov/Archives/edgar…

Conflicted out of work on the COVID-19 pandemic because of his vaccine and pharmaceutical company investments, Eric Lander took up an even more important Biden Administration priority, a project @_whitneywebb dubbed a “Digital Dictatorship.”

https://twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1389935189883752450?s=20

Lander is lobbying Congress for $6.5 billion to fund an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, variously known as HARPA, ARPA-H & #ARPAH. The House of Representatives has already appropriated $3 billion. We have to stop this in the Senate! organicconsumers.org/blog/stop-arpa…

Eric Lander helped cover up the #OriginofCovid19.

In January 2020, the Broad Institute was asked by the Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity to counter rumors that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of genetic engineering.

Who started the rumors that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of genetic engineering?

The U.S. government.

Specifically, as @_whitneywebb reported in January 2020, Radio Free Asia.

https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/1401222785700040713?s=20

@_whitneywebb Radio Free Asia’s January 9, 2020, report “Experts Cast Doubts on Chinese Official Claims Around 'New' Wuhan Coronavirus” rfa.org/english/news/c…

@_whitneywebb These “rumors” that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered proved credible.

"there is ample proof that the virus could have been genetically manipulated, & that it is vitally important we fully investigate this hypothesis"

https://twitter.com/HouseForeignGOP/status/1422187258036342785?s=20

@_whitneywebb Genetically engineered... but whodunnit?

While Americans have always pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese have stuck with their accusations against Ft. Detrick.

Their shared disinterest in identifying Patient Zero suggests collusion.

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1427057630074265608?s=20

What about back in January 2020, did anyone else think SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered besides Radio Free Asia?

As soon as the first COVID case hit the U.S. on January 21, 2020, suspicions that the novel coronavirus was man-made began to circulate on social media...

...along with a 2018 patent for a coronavirus vaccine. patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/31/23/d0/e63e0…

For more on this subject, read Dr. Joseph Mercola’s report, “Patents Prove SARS-CoV-2 Is a Manufactured Virus” takecontrol.substack.com/p/patents-prov…

...and Dr. David E. Martin’s “Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier,” first published in January 2021 f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/8079569/…

...and watch “A manufactured illusion. Dr David Martin with Reiner Fuellmich 9/7/21 odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/A-ma…

The first U.S. news article to cover the possibility of a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, “Virus-hit Wuhan has two laboratories linked to Chinese bio-warfare program,” was published January 24, 2020 in the Washington Times by Bill Gertz archive.is/2AQ0a#selectio…

...and then amplified by Steve Bannon the next day in a special episode of his War Room podcast. warroom.org/2020/01/27/spe…

As @_whitneywebb reported, Gertz’s source was former Israeli military intelligence biowarfare specialist Dany Shoham who played a key role in "promoting false claims that the 2001 Anthrax attacks was the work of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein." thelastamericanvagabond.com/bats-gene-edit…

Dany Shoham may be an unreliable source, but one thing Bill Gertz wrote rang true:

"After researchers sequence the genome of the new coronavirus it might be possible to determine or suggest its origin or source."
archive.is/2AQ0a#selectio…

Indeed, most scientists who looked at SARS-CoV-2 genome in January 2020 thought it engineered, especially its furin cleavage site.

“When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was...

...the smoking gun for the origin of the virus.”

That’s what David Baltimore, virologist & former CalTech president, told Nicholas Wade who later reported these first-impressions in “The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?" thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-or…

Similarly, Kristian G. Andersen told Anthony Fauci SARS-CoV-2 looked engineered in a January 31, 2020, email...

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1400177814473777154?s=20

Neither Baltimore nor Andersen said these things publicly in January 2020. While Baltimore maintained his skepticism and later shared his thoughts publicly, Fauci managed to convince Andersen to change his mind (more on that below).

.@USRightToKnow has released a trove of emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests where scientists who were publicly dispelling “rumors” that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered, privately said what they really thought. usrtk.org/biohazards-blo…

.@USRightToKnow's Shannon Murray reported that Susan Weiss & Shan-Lu Liu, authors of “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2,” (February 26, 2020), shared the following exchange via email beginning February 16... usrtk.org/biohazards/sci…

Weiss wrote to Liu: “I find it hard to imagine how that sequence got into the spike of a lineage b betacoronavirus- not seen in SARS or any of the bat viruses.” usrtk.org/wp-content/upl…

Liu wrote back: “I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered…”

Weiss replied: “...frightening to think it may have been engineered.”

In January 2020, when the novel coronavirus’s genome was published on preprint servers, scientists discussed these concerns publicly over social media. This Twitter conversation on a thread begun January 27, 2020, by Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding is one example.

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1221990534643929089?s=20

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1222649476978028544?s=20

https://twitter.com/Damian8310/status/1222754618268098561?s=20

https://twitter.com/Damian8310/status/1223845833961082880?s=20

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1222001163291234304?s=20

January 30, 2020, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler published “On the Origins of the 2019-nCoV virus, Wuhan, China,” where he cited vaccine patents and gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to conclude that the new virus was a vaccine-derived contagious disease. jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/01/30/on-…

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler saw a similarity between a sequence from pShuttle-SN, a vector used to create a SARS vaccine, and the mystery sequence in 2019-nCoV, but it turned out that was 'cause pSuttle-SN had been constructed with a SARS-CoV-1 spike protein... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

As mentioned above, January 30, 2020, was also the day Whitney Webb published her must-read hot-take, “Bats, Gene Editing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Experiments Raise Concerns Amid Coronavirus Outbreak.”

On January 31, 2020, "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag" was posted on a preprint server... biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

The authors withdrew their paper just two days later, but their finding, that fragments of HIV were in SARS-CoV-2, was later confirmed by one of the scientists who discovered HIV, Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier: …0-461b-83c2-cfe4628dfadc.filesusr.com/ugd/659775_375…

"Uncanny similarity" was also corroborated by Ruan Jishou of Nankai University. When looking at the genome sequence of the new coronavirus, he found a section of mutated genes that did not exist in Sars, but were similar to those found in HIV and Ebola. archive.is/S9aGi#selectio…

On January 31, 2020, the same day “Uncanny similarity” came out, the father and son team of Karl and Dan Sirotkin (@Harvard2H) published "Logistical and technical analysis of the origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus (2019-nCoV).” archive.is/dGU40

The Sirotkins published anonymously as “a retired government scientist with 30 years of experience in genomic sequencing and analysis who helped design several ubiquitous bioinformatic software tools, and a retired NSA counterterrorism analyst”

When they later revealed their identities, it should have been front-page news that a career National Institutes of Health scientist like Karl Sirotkin was compiling evidence that COVID-19 was genetically engineered.

But, instead of promoting the father’s resumé, they led with the son’s foul mouth and the years he spent in prison for a sex offense. His Twitter bio at the time read, “Incarcerated for 1,300 days. If this account offends you, I know your mother Biblically.”

The Sirotkins published the 1st peer reviewed paper on lab origins of COVID-19, “Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture? A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome,” 8/2020. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bi…

Dan Sirotkin chased reporters away, claiming he wrote the paper and his dad merely served as a thesis advisor “since he has the technical background and I haven’t formally studied science since AP Bio about 20 years ago.”

https://twitter.com/Harvard2H/status/1293592397314756608?s=20

Prior to COVID, Dan Sirotkin’s Twitter passion was arguing in favor of the concept of “biologically distinct races”...

https://twitter.com/Harvard2H/status/1148679168491741185?s=20

...promoting the idea that European whites are intellectually superior to people of African descent...

https://twitter.com/Harvard2H/status/1222483576261894145?s=20

...and defending eugenicist Charles Murray.

https://twitter.com/Harvard2H/status/1228285165748785152?s=20

Dan Sirotkin often spoke on behalf of his father Karl, an expert in human genetic diversity. He frequently made the point that “racial-genetic links” would be revealed once there was a complete global Genome Wide Association Study.

https://twitter.com/Harvard2H/status/1130942980515278848?s=20

Apparently, the Sirotkins are adherents to the philosophy of sociogenomics, the modern-day eugenics movement that Eli Broad and Eric Lander’s Broad Institute have fostered. technologyreview.com/2018/10/23/139…

Researchers interested in tracing socioeconomic outcomes back to genetics have availed themselves of the databases Karl created at NIH to connect DNA to traits and behavior. Karl spent his career developing databases of human genetic variation...

...for the National Center for Biotechnology Information, including the Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Database (dbSNP)...ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/

...and the 1000 Genomes Project internationalgenome.org

Researchers have used Karl Sirotkin's databases to publish on topics including the genetics of success... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

...the genetics of crime... journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09…

...the genetics of nurture... psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-17…

...the genetics of disinhibition... acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

...and the genetics of parental investments in children's education srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

Was the movement for the truth about the origins of COVID-19 infiltrated in January 2020 by a controlled opposition organized by sociogenomics leaders?

It would be unsurprising, given that the U.S. government was the first source of “rumors” about the lab origins of COVID-19.

I'm going to put that aside for now to go back to Eric Lander’s participation, through his Broad Institute, in the U.S. government’s COVID origins cover-up...

In January 2020, when scientists examined the genome of SARS-CoV-2 it was immediately clear that the unique feature...

...that made it “100 to 1,000 times” more infectious than the first SARS was something that couldn’t have been achieved through natural recombination. In fact, the virus’s genetic code bore tell-tale signs that it had been engineered in the lab.

This was obvious to every scientist who looked at the virus, even those who later published articles claiming the virus wasn’t engineered.

The U.S. government engaged in a coordinated cover-up that has been revealed in emails obtained through FOIA requests, but...

...one aspect of the cover-up hasn’t been explored before now: A January 2020 analysis conducted by Eric Lander’s Broad Institute for the Director of National Intelligence that falsely claimed that the virus wasn’t genetically engineered.

The Broad Institute's conclusion that the novel coronavirus had not been genetically engineered was a deliberate cover-up aimed at suppressing the obvious fact that the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2's unique furin cleavage site was glaring evidence that it was lab-made.

The Broad Institute claims to have compared SARS-CoV-2 to 58 million virus sequences and, after only 10 minutes of analysis, determined that "all regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome match naturally-occurring coronaviruses better than they match any other organisms, including...

...any other viruses. This analysis indicates that no sequences from foreign species have been engineered into SARS-CoV-2."

This statement is demonstrably false.

Eric Lander's Broad Institute's analysis is presumably the basis for the April 2020 Intelligence Community Statement on the Origins of COVID-19. dni.gov/index.php/news…

Interesting how this squares perfectly with the U.S. government's first statement on the #OriginOfCOVID19 in its Radio Free Asia report (see above). It wants to blame the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but it doesn't want to implicate U.S. scientist Ralph Baric the GMO virus expert

Let's circle back to Kristian Andersen, the scientist who initially told Anthony Fauci that the novel coronavirus looked engineered. He ended up being listed as the corresponding author on “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” (March 17, 2020), which claimed that “SARS-CoV-2 is...

...not a purposefully manipulated virus.” “Proximal origin” didn’t mention the analysis Eric Lander's Broad Institute did for the Director of National Intelligence.

What changed Andersen’s mind?

It wasn’t science, but a quid pro quo. Fauci gave Kristian Andersen a lavish gift, a new Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Disease (CREID) funded by Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

When this “CREID pro quo,” as Richard Ebright called it, came to light in May 2021, Andersen needed a reason besides the money to explain his attitude adjustment.

https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1391098010696835072?s=20

In a public statement dated June 3, 2021, Andersen still didn’t mention the Broad Institute's analysis. Instead, he pointed to “related viruses from pangolins carrying a near-identical receptor binding domain." yurideigin.medium.com/response-of-dr…

Andersen claimed this was proof that “all the features of SARS-CoV-2 exist in nature.” He didn’t mention that a U.S. Right to Know Freedom of Information Act inquiry, had revealed Nature’s editor had “concerns” about the pangolin data... usrtk.org/biohazards-blo…

...and that, even before that, the scientific consensus was that it was time to exonerate the pangolin. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768565/

Why didn’t “Proximal origin,” or any other published study on the origins of COVID-19 for that matter, mention Eric Lander's Broad Institute's analysis?

It was shabby and presented without evidence, but there's an even more disturbing conclusion to be drawn...

Keep in mind that Eric Lander's Broad Institute was working for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity and much of what IARPA does is classified and funded from a classified budget. archive.is/U4ktX#selectio…

The ostensible goal of IARPA's Finding Engineering-Linked Indicators, or FELIX, program was to be able to tell the difference between a naturally occurring pathogen and one that was engineered in a lab. raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/news/feature/r…

It could also be used to help scientists get better at what Ralph Baric calls the “no-see-um” technique that keeps detectable fingerprints off lab creations.

“If you know how to detect bioengineering, you theoretically understand how to hide your own.” link.medium.com/jbrVYsZEsib

Was the true purpose of Eric Landers’ Broad Institute’s FELIX work to hide bioengineering rather than reveal it?

If so, the shabbiness would be a feature not a bug.

It’s difficult to check the Broad Institute’s work, as they posted only one short paragraph about their SARS-CoV-2 FELIX analysis online:

The three bat coronaviruses appear to have been chosen by the Broad Institute scientists at random.

BtRs-BetaCoV/YN2018C and BtRl-BetaCoV/SC2018 were published in this 2019 paper: frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

SARSr-Rf-BatCoV YNLF_31C was identified from R. ferrumequinum collected in Yunnan, China, in 2013, and published in this 2015 paper: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26269185/

The Broad Institute scientists didn't include RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, even though the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Shi Zhengli had posted it online on January 23, 2020: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

Later, the Broad Institute's FELIX analysis was portrayed as having a “junk-in, junk-out” problem.

But, it couldn't have been a failure. It was falsified.
forbes.com/sites/erictegl…

Ignoring RaTG13 is one clue, but the most revealing aspect of the Broad Institute's FELIX analysis is its focus on HIV. For one, it means they did their analysis no earlier than January 31, 2020, the day "Uncanny similarity" came out. Even more significantly...

The HIV motifs in the receptor binding domain of the spike protein with its unique furin cleavage site are the equivalent of Ralph Baric’s fingerprints on SARS-CoV-2.

In Baric’s infamous gain-of-function paper, he describes his methods for genetically engineering and synthesizing novel viruses, including his use of HIV: nature.com/articles/nm.39…

What is pseudotyping and how would Ralph Baric use it to engineer a coronavirus? journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.29…

This is exactly the process described in “Uncanny similarity” and “The S protein of Wuhan 2019 coronavirus,” mentioned above.

HIV or none, no one doubts that Ralph Baric could have created SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.

What would have been truly damning is if the virus he had engineered for “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses” had been the virus most similar to SARS-CoV-2.

We have to take Ralph Baric's word for it that SHC015-MA15 isn’t a close match to SARS-CoV-2, because he didn’t deposit the sequence of his virus in GenBank until May 22, 2020! nature.com/articles/s4159…

New topic: Eric Lander and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

Eric Lander doesn’t seem to have much to do with gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens or any connection to the controversies involving it.

Nothing that I’m aware of links Eric Lander to the origins of COVID-19. It seems he has never even weighed in on the ethics of gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

In fact, beyond being clean of any gain-of-function controversy, Eric Lander is actually associated with critics of gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens. Marc Lipsitch gave a 2014 talk at the Broad Institute on its risks. broadinstitute.org/videos/new-par…

As the director of the Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, Eric Lander has been asked by House Republicans to answer several questions about gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19.
republicans-science.house.gov/news/press-rel…

Will he answer these questions honestly and guide policy changes necessary to prevent the next pandemic?

Early in 2021, it looked like Lander to might take a stand for the truth about COVID-19 and support a ban on gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens...

...or at least be convinced to do so, because of the inspiring work of a young Broad Institute postdoc Alina Chan who was investigating the origins of the pandemic.

This hope evaporated rapidly when Alina Chan joined the “weigh the risks and benefits” and “do it responsibly” camps and came out against banning gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

The failure of the “weigh the risks and benefits” and “do it responsibly” approach is what got us into this mess. Anthony Fauci funded Ralph Baric’s infamous gain-of-function experiments on SARS-like bat coronaviruses during an Obama-era moratorium and...

...he continued to do so after the moratorium was lifted without checking with the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight Committee that had been established to weigh risks and benefits and make sure scientists were doing gain-of-function research responsibly.

A ban is necessary because more measured approaches have failed, but you won’t hear that from Lander’s young protegé Alina Chan.

Why won’t scientists like Alina Chan consider a ban?

They fear that, if the public can come together to ban one unnecessarily dangerous practice of scientists, they might ban any number of unnecessarily dangerous or destructive things that scientists do.

Alina Chan lives in a particularly fragile glass house.

She hacks human cells for a project that could result in the wholesale genetic engineering of human beings.

Her work at Eric Lander's Broad Institute involves creating human artificial chromosomes for DARPA under a $32M grant. broadinstitute.org/news/darpa-awa…

Chan’s research was conducted for GP-write. By Chan's own account, she was interested in human artificial chromosomes for "genome writing" and "mammalian cell engineering" and wanted to create synthetic DNA and "deliver them into human cells."

Alina Chan developed a method for fusing yeast to human cells to create "Frankenstein cells." With this technique, she successfully inserted ebola into human cells in order to make human cells produce the infectious virus.

Alina Chan currently works at the Broad Institute’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, which does all the crazy work mentioned above involving genetic markers for mental illness, sexuality, PTSD and the psychological resilience of soldiers. giving.broadinstitute.org/broadignite/te…

We know all of this thanks to the detective work @gumby4christ. While researching the origins of COVID-19, “Gumby” looked into Alina Chan’s research and found some very disturbing things, which he laid out in two must-read Twitter threads... threadreaderapp.com/thread/1398488…

https://twitter.com/gumby4christ/status/1399749578589679626?s=20

Alina Chan will soon publish “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19” with journalist Matt Ridley. google.com/books/edition/…

Ridley is the author of several books on genetics. He believes:

"The history of eugenics teaches us that nobody should be forced to engineer her children’s genes, but, by implication, neither should anyone be forced not to." libgallery.cshl.edu/archive/files/…

New topic: Eric Schmidt & Eric Lander

Upon Eli Broad’s passing, Eric Lander found himself a new billionaire patron, Eric Schmidt, the subject of our last entry in the Gain of Function Hall of Shame series. organicconsumers.org/blog/googles-e…

Schmidt is Eric Lander’s board chair at the Broad Institute, funder of the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center at the Broad Institute, and business partner in Terra, a joint project of the Broad Institute, Microsoft and Google (Alphabet)’s Verily. terra.bio/about/our-team/

The two share a transhumanist life-extension project in Google (Alphabet)’s Calico partnership with the Broad Institute. broadinstitute.org/news/broad-ins…

Lander and Schmidt go way back. They served together on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Advisory Board, which spawned the Defense Innovation Unit... diu.mil

...to help tech enterprises like Google get defense contracts. Currently, they’re on the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Innovation and National Security, formed in 2019. cfr.org/report/keeping…

On the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Eric Schmidt and Eric Lander crafted a pandemic planning document for the 2009 H1N1 epidemic that now reads like a blueprint for the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: hsdl.org/?view&did=34291

On the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Advisory Board, they made recommendations on preparing for biological threats and using artificial intelligence to manage the Pentagon’s disease collection (the world’s largest). innovation.defense.gov/Portals/63/doc…

Eric Schmidt shaped the pandemic industrial complex by launching Predict and Prevent at Google.org in 2008 and finding a home—and hundreds of millions of dollars—for it at USAID in 2009. google.org/Predict_Preven…

Eric Schmidt is connected to the origins of COVID-19 through Google’s investments in and business relationships with Metabiota, which was at the scene of the crime in 2012, in Yunnan, China, hunting for bat viruses with its fellow USAID PREDICT Consortium members...

...the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance, when six men exposed to bat guano ended up in a Kunming hospital with a SARS-like illness that killed three of them.

All of the most famous bat viruses, including the viruses used in Ralph Baric’s infamous gain-of-function experiments, the first bat virus known to target the human ACE2 receptor, and the bat virus that is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2...

...were found during the 2012 USAID PREDICT expeditions. healthmap.org/predict/

But, none of the USAID Predict scientists mentioned the 2012 Kunming outbreak when they published their discoveries of these extraordinary viruses, even though documenting this type of “spillover” event was the main justification for their research.

They didn’t even report the cases to the World Health Organization. vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/t…

Did the scientists have something to hide? Were those bat viruses collected from a hospital rather than a bat cave? Were the six men who got sick cleaning bat guano from an abandoned mine working for the USAID PREDICT virus hunters?

What is the significance of the 2012 Kunming SARS-like outbreak and its relationship to the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

Is it a comedy of errors where scientists, who tell funders they're predicting the next pandemic, are so inept that they accidentally cause it, making prophets of all the lab safety advocates who warned about the dangers of gain-of-function research?

Or, has the origin of COVID-19 been grafted on to this spillover event to give an intentionally released genetically engineered virus the semblance of a natural origin?

After all, Anthony Fauci said, if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped, “that means it was in the wild to begin with.”
nationalgeographic.com/science/articl…

To answer these questions, we need an impartial investigation, but Eric Schmidt’s foundation is funding a COVID-origins cover-up and Google is censoring evidence of a lab release of SARS-CoV-2.
takecontrol.substack.com/p/covid-commis…

Rockefeller Foundation director Rajiv Shah is helping Eric Schmidt fund the COVID origins cover-up. Shah also helped him fund the Wuhan lab. Fresh from the Gates Foundation, Shah was USAID director during the PREDICT virus hunts.

To stop the next pandemic, we need a ban on virus hunting and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens... advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/18957/pet…

...but Eric Schmidt is using his power to make sure even more government money is spent on even more frightening technologies and experiments. unlimitedhangout.com/2021/05/invest…

Eric Schmidt has big plans for digital surveillance and human genetic engineering, projects that have been central to Google’s business model and investments.

If you’re not familiar with Google’s history of surveillance...surveillancevalley.com

And, if you don’t know about its investments in human genetic engineering, check out Google’s transhumanist life-extension company Calico.
smithsonianmag.com/innovation/hum…

Now that Eric Lander is Biden’s science advisor, cabinet secretary, and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Schmidt-Lander duo has never been more powerful.
organicconsumers.org/blog/stop-arpa…