A bizarre and abrupt reversal by scientists regarding COVID's origins, along with clear conflicts of interest, create serious doubts about their integrity. Yet major outlets keep relying on them: Peter Daszak, desperate to deny a "lab leak," but others who are highly compromised.
One of the most bizarre and still-unexplained episodes in the COVID pandemic was the group of scientists who told Fauci in late January they concluded COVID came from a lab. Within days, they publicly recanted, then received millions in grants from NIAID, controlled by Fauci.
Due to that dishonest Lancet letter omitting Daszak's gigantic conflicts, it was declared off-limits for months to question COVID's origin. People who did were banned online. Now it's recognized the debate is unresolved, yet news outlets keep pushing the same discredited sources.
One of the scientists who told Fauci early on COVID was made in a lab was Robert Garry. He then publicly recanted, receiving millions from NIAID, and is now used by the Post -- with no disclosure -- to pronounce the debate closed about COVID's origins: it was naturally occurring.
Amazing, the overwhelming scientific consensus -- and the Biden Admin's view -- is exactly that which, for the first year, was banned: we don't know if it came from a lab or was zoonotic. But news outlets keep using dubious sources to push the latter:
(It was always bizarre it was to hear -- including from NYT's own COVID reporter, @apoorva_nyc -- that it was "racist" to consider the lab leak theory. The more racist view was always that COVID came from Chinese wet markets. But either way, all that should matter is the truth.)
He apparently did not like my reporting today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Foi uma honra poder passar alguns dias com uma mulher, Luisa Mell, que dedicou tanto de sua vida à proteção dos animais, uma causa central para mim e David.
It was an honor to be able to spend a few days with Luisa Mell, who has devoted her life to the protection of animals.
Se você está em São Paulo e está pensando em adotar um cachorro ou um gato, o instituto dela é inspirador - e tem lindos animais. E se você está no Rio (Maricá), nosso abrigo, @abrigo_hope, tb tem.
For instance, we have not been treated to any of this throughout 2021 even though the situation at the border has been utterly horrific for migrants and other asylum seekers:
In our podcast yesterday, @AndrayDomise and I discussed one of the key changes of the Trump era for left-liberal politics: by casting Trump as the supreme threat, any institution opposed to him (including security state agencies: CIA/NSA/FBI) became benign if not overt allies.
We also discussed how vital this Trump-era transformation is: how spaces on the liberal-left for working against the security state virtually disappeared, while the populist right became receptive to it, a key driver of the split of myself and others with parts of the left.
We also discussed the immediate exploitation of the new COVID variant to again justify a broad array of some of the most repressive state policies, and how there seems to be no end in sight, by design. @andraydomise presciently warned of these dangers in April of last year.
For the Outside Voices page of our Substack, @lwoodhouse reports: as public anger grew over gruesome and medically useless dog experiments funded by Fauci's agencies and budgets, his media allies came to the rescue with a pack of lies.
What happened here is fascinating: Fauci's agencies have funded *thousands* of gruesome dog experiments. To discredit this, the WPost and others focused on *one*: a particularly hideous one where the researchers said they had NIAID $$, then retracted that when public anger grew:
I'll be on Fox tonight at 8:50pm ET with Tucker Carlson discussing the gruesome dog experimentation industry, how taxpayer-funded programs fuel some of the worst abuses, and how media outlets -- to protect Fauci -- are denying the key facts under the guise of "fact-checking."
Here's the reporting I did last week on the hit piece the @washingtonpost was preparing to punish @WhiteCoatWaste, one of the key groups -- along with @beaglefreedom -- denouncing these moral atrocities. They're shielding these programs to protect Fauci.
We'll have a new article on our Substack tomorrow from @lwoodhouse on the disinformation campaign from media and the NIAID, along with the usual propagandists like @davidfrum, to lie about dog experiments to protect Fauci. He's been reporting on it from the start. His key point:
In this video, I recount an episode from this week where I went on a podcast devoted to discussing *parenting and fatherhood.* It was a great, earnest talk, yet some liberal journalists/activists investigated the host's old tweets to decree the show *a white nationalist program*.
What kind of twisted mentality leads someone to hear about a mainstream podcast on *parenting* -- one that has interviewed Chris Wallace, Tom Brady, Perez Hilton, Deion Sanders, other dads -- and investigate the host for problematic tweets, then declare the whole show off-limits?