2017: Fauci, Collin’s overturn the US moratorium on funding GoF research of concern.
2018: Daszak, Shi ZhengLi, Baric et al write a grant that serves as a blueprint for SARS-CoV-2
2019: All the authors of the grant, who never wrote another paper before nor since, were on an NIAID call discussing SARSr-CoVs
2020-Present:
-Andersen writes Holmes that he believes SARS-CoV-2 may be from a lab, they wrote Fauci
-Fauci tells Hugh Auchincloss to answer his phone, attached one of Baric’s papers, says he needs to wait for a call due to important work ahead
-Fauci brings GOFROC lobbyists to a call to berate and challenge Andersen’s thesis.
Eddie Holmes on the call: “Big Ask!”
Andersen: “Destroy the world with sequence data, yay or nay?”
-Andersen, Holmes et al. begin ghostwriting a paper claiming a lab origin is implausible, prompted, edited, and supported by funders of Peter Daszak (Collins/Fauci through NIH/NIAID, Farrar through WellcomeTrust —> CEPI —> GVP). Privately, authors make fun of Daszak, say he couldn’t “PREDICT” a virus coming from his own lab, confess a lab origin is “so friggin likely”.
-Fauci meets with Baric to discuss Baric’s GOF work on CoVs, work Baric did with Baric’s former student Shi ZhengLi.
- Andersen et al. published, Fauci advertises their paper on international television in his capacity as NIAID director briefing Americans on COVID. Farrar advertises paper. None mention their involvement.
- Farrar, Daszak et al. write paper claiming lab origin theories are “conspiracy theories” and conspire with Daszak, Baric, and other blueprint PI’s to not sign it. Baric, Linfa Want didn’t sign it, but Daszak did without disclosing his COIs
- Fauci lied under oath, saying (1) he did not find GOF research in Wuhan and (2) he didn’t know Ralph Baric. FOIAs obtained today show Fauci’s recognition that Baric’s work (with Wuhan scientists) was GoF/P3O work and show Fauci knew Baric.
- NIAID FOIA lady hides everything throughout COVID, but Fauci’s deputy Morens cracks and admits the FOIA lady can “make emails disappear”. Morens was close friends and a confidante of Daszak, said Fauci knew their reputations are tied. Morens demonstrably violated federal records act by using his private gmail for official NIAID business, and FOI lady Marge Moore has plead the fifth.
What does this all mean?
Anthony Fauci overturned the moratorium on GOFROC, funded the group that wrote the blueprint for SARS-CoV-2, and then used his position as NIAID director to cast doubt on the lab origin theory by
(i) pressuring authors to ghostwrite manuscripts claiming a lab origin is implausible
(ii) giving funding to those authors
(iii) advertising their work during official NIAID duties like briefing the American people
(iv) sending the paper in (i) to DoS COVID origins investigators who requested all info on NIAID funded work in Wuhan in 2019
(v) pushing the US to censor a lab origin as “disinformation”
(vi) lying under other about NIAID funding labs in Wuhan, and demonstrating a knowledge of this lie’s consequences by also lying about his connection with Ralph Baric.
Currently, we see a clear pattern of NIAID officials violating federal records laws, misleading to DoS investigators, lying to congress, and hiding their knowledge of risky research behind a thin veil of expertise that an expert like me can confidently see through. Why the lies, ghostwriting, FOIA abuses, perjury, and more?
On a more societal note, why is the media letting Fauci get away with this?
We need full transparency from NIAID to either rule out their involvement in the lab origin of COVID (even if possibly revealing a conspiracy to defraud the US government by Fauci et al), or learn of a lab origin due to two bureaucrats’ terrible decision in 2017 and put all the blame on them, letting there be truth and fair trials and justice as our constitution permits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Safety" cannot alone be justification for abridged liberties as many arguments over the use of government powers concern tradeoffs between safety and liberty.
Can we citizens never propose policies that advance liberty, even if they are less safe?
Can I be censored for speaking up against public health recommendations that I think are ridiculous?
Is it okay for me to be shadowbanned for expressing my values to drink 3 beers a day instead of the "safe" recommendation of <1 glass of wine a day?
2/
Another point of Murthy v. Missouri concerns who gets to define "safety" to begin with.
As a scientist & statistician estimating risk, can I be censored if my estimates of risk are less than those used by the government?
There's a lot of toxic self-marginalization being used to bypass hard discussions on the probable lab origin of SARS-CoV-2
Providing no evidence of misogynistic behavior, scientists are pulling the woman card to play victim at the expense of critical conversations on biosafety.
A more critical and wholistic conversation about lab origin dialogue would focus on the Queen Bee behavior of self-declared "ad hominatrix" Angela Rasmussen and the way she curses and undermines women of color & folk of diverse backgrounds with different paradigmatic perspectives
When I sought to contextualize social scientific systems supporting risky work as banal, with appropriate context given to Hannah Arendt, many Jewish zoonotic-origin people claiming such an effort to draw comparison (through "banality", not "evil") was anti-semitic.
The paper is our paper documenting the anomalous BsaI/BsmBI map of SARS-CoV-2 and providing the important context that this map is consistent with how people made viruses in a lab pre-COVID.
Our preprint received a high volume of public attention. We paid close attention to the feedback we received from the thousands of people who read our MS, and made slight modifications to our discussion section pointing to future work
Fauci's main efforts to change definitions are either:
1) bat SARS coronaviruses are not "potentially pandemic pathogens"
or
2) It's not "GOFROC" if you're enhancing potentially pandemic pathogens to make a vaccine.
2/
Let's get super specific.
The NIH/NIAID grant in question, "Understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence" funded work on bat SARS-CoVs from 2018-2019 at a time when DEFUSE collaborators were all on the grant.
If you think we've had a full investigation into SARS-CoV-2 origins...
think again.
If it weren't for independent sleuths & investigative journalists, we wouldn't have DEFUSE, the blueprint for SARS2, the October 2019 emails of NIAID on a call with DEFUSE authors & more...
Dr. Fauci and NIAID have not been transparent about the nature of research on that call.
David Morens, a program officer at NIAID, was using gmail to coordinate with gain of function allies but we don't know if Morens violated other laws besides federal records
2/
Fauci hasn't disclosed what he discussed with his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, when he heard SARS-CoV-2 might have come from a lab and demanded Hugh do urgent work.