Our government working hard to prove that they don't give a shit about us. Revelations by Rand Paul. Corporate media, fascinated by the COVID pandemic, avoids this this story like the plague.
We now know more than ever about the origin of COVID, but you wouldn't know this if you stick with the corporate news, the biggest cheerleaders for Anthony Fauci. Here's a summary of the testimony of Stephen Quay from the recent Senat Homeland Security Committee's hearing on the "ORIGINS OF COVID-19: AN EXAMINATION OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE."
Stephen Quay (M.D., PH.D.) is former Faculty at Stanford University School of Medicine). As John Leake summarizes Quay's testimony, "He presented highly persuasive arguments that SARS-COV-2 was the creation of American scientists working with partners at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)."
First, the virus was spreading in Wuhan in the early fall of 2019, two to four months before the first case in the Hunan Seafood Market. This is supported by fourteen observations or evidence. This should be sufficient to dismiss the Hunan Market as the source of the outbreak.
Second, I look at the data from the market, including human infections, animal samples, and environmental specimens. This involves looking at eight observations or evidence. None of these data are consistent with an infected animal passing SARS2 to a human at the market.
Third, documented events at or related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV, beginning in March 2019, are consistent with the expected activities of a virology lab in which a laboratory acquired infection has occurred. I will go through that timeline.
Fourth, the evidence that is found in a natural zoonosis with respect to the animal host, the virus, and the human population in the vicinity of the outbreak is missing for the COVID pandemic. Each of these three components of a zoonosis will be examined separately and each will be found wanting.
Fifth, the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has seven features that would be expected to be found in a virus constructed in a laboratory and which are not found in viruses from nature. The statistical probability of finding each feature in nature can be determined and the combined probability that SARS2 came from nature is less than one in 1.2 billion. These same features were described in a grant application submitted to DARPA in 2018 by scientists from the WIV, together with US collaborators.
Sixth and final, the earliest genomes of SARS2 were unstable and could not have come from an animal host without the stabilizing mutation, the so-called D614G change, that appeared in human viruses beginning January 1st, 2020. The consequence of this is that I can conclude that the first human infection occurred soon after the insertion of the furin cleavage site in the laboratory and before extensive animal testing. Otherwise, the first human cases would have had this stabilizing mutation. It also means that the unstable version of SARS2 could not have been circulating in animals, otherwise it would have acquired the stabilizing mutation. If any virologist can find an animal host that can transmit the unstable ancestral SARS2 five or more times without obtaining the stabilizing mutation, they have found a hypothetical candidate for a spillover host. All testing to date of potential hosts has failed this test.
Natural spillovers have multiple markets. SARS-CoV-1 , which emerged in China in 2002, and was found in at least 11 markets. 192 animals showed a 100% infection rate for SARS-CoV-1. This starkly contrasts with 457 animals that were tested for SARS-CoV-2, with zero found to be infected.
Leake also offers further summary and analyis regarding the hearing, including the testimony of Professor Richard Ebright (PH.D. Rutgers University):
The “smoking gun” evidence for a lab origin of COVID-19, came from a separate EcoHealth proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—which deemed it too dangerous—presenting the exact feature of a furin cleavage site in the virus.All the while, Anthony Fauci is making the rounds again, pushing the natural zoonosis (zoenetic, non-lab) origin. In fact, he is doubling down on his claims that COVID spontaneously emerged out in the wild. Why? Brett Weinstein explains:SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of more than 800 known SARS viruses that possess a furin cleavage site.
Fauci has to keep the ridiculous “natural origin” idea alive for 2 reasons:
1. If SARS-CoV2 came from the lab, he can’t hide the harms with accounting tricks—ALL the harms of Covid and our response belong to him.
2. His legacy and kingdom depend on irrational fears of zoonosis.
Anthony Fauci needing applause for his deplorable mismanagement of the pandemic. Corporate news once again being obsequious.
Better late than never, NYT.
The NYT has finally come around. It's been a long wait. Way back in May of 2021, NYT Science reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli lectured us that it was "racist" to be concerned that scientists concocted COVID in a lab.
Fast forward to June 3, 2024: A guest essay in the NYT argues that the pandemic "Probably stared in a Lab." All in five easy steps. Well illustrated, including this graphic:
I woke up this morning to the news that—after four years of printing lies—the New York Times has finally published an Opinion piece acknowledges the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 did not originate in nature, but in a lab.
Why would there be a three year moratorium on discussing what is arguably the most important story of this century? I'm back to the same questions I keep asking myself: Who is controlling the information that we are allowed to read and hear, especially in corporate media and social media? What is their long range plan? Given that we are purportedly in a democracy, why is there almost no public deliberation and debate on key issues, but rather top-down ham-handed edicts? Why have so many of the pronouncements from our public health "experts" been so incredibly wrong? Such as the mask problem pointed out here:
We have a big problem in the U.S.. It is seemingly insurmountable. I'm not yet despondent, but heading there too often. I have repeatedly come to the conclusion that being being curious, distilling the facts with care, and sharing my ideas might make a difference. That can only happen, I believe, in a culture that is not locked down with military-grade censorship. That's where are already are, I fear. Arguments are not being won on the merits, but because someone, eventually, decides that it is no longer "bad" to say things that made sense all along. Or perhaps, the NYT noticed that the stench of its censorship of real stories was becoming grotesquely embarrassing, so it became time to hit the limited hangout button on lab leak. Limited Hangout:
[A] limited hangout is "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."
We who do not have any significant power/money don't have the main tool for winning arguments. As Rob Henderson pointed out (paraphrased by Claire Lehmann: "people who are high in status don't actually have to point out where an argument is wrong, just that an argument (or speaker) is low in status."
It's at times like these that, strangely, George Orwell brings me some consolation:
A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial...when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society...can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable.
[From The Prevention of Literature]