Skip to content

When virologists lied, science died

“Scientists at Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments.”

The words – since February 1, 2020, when Covid broke out all over the world – come from a note written by none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s own doctor. They come as Fauci and top virologists were beginning their arduous efforts to hide and distract from the potential Chinese lab origins of Sars-Cov-2.

And after the first cover-up came the second. The National Institutes of Health hushed up Fauci’s words, redacting the entire email he wrote based on Freedom of Information Act requests. The NIH gave up the memo only in response to a House subpoena, years after Fauci wrote it, too late.


Fauci’s email is in a devastating new federal report that shows political factors influenced the search for the origins of the coronavirus even before this quest actually began.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released the report last week. Predictably, the media has largely refused to cover it. The silence is too bad, because the report is cautiously written. It does not make unfounded or exaggerated claims. It’s not necessary.

Instead, he draws on the testimony and records of the virologists at the center of the debate, using their own words to argue forcefully that they feared stigmatizing China, and possibly damaging their own chances for future research funding, if they acknowledged their private fears.

The report also makes clear that three of the world’s most powerful and politically connected scientists were integrally involved with the first “Proximal Origins” paper. This article did more to shape the debate about the origins of Covid than anything else after it was published in the journal Natural Medicine on March 17, 2020.

Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, who as NIH head was Fauci’s nominal boss, and Jeremy Farrar, a British infectious disease researcher who is now the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, all saw drafts of the document, though their names did not appear.

Then the scientists who wrote the paper hardly needed Fauci, Collins and Farrar to remind them of the interests of the fight over the origins of Sars-Cov-2.

As Andrew Rambaut, one of the scientists who wrote Proximal Origins, wrote to three others on February 2, 2020, they had to consider “what a shit show that would happen if anyone seriously accused the Chinese of even an accidental release.”

In turn, Kristian Andersen, another author, responded that Rambaut’s concerns were “very reasonable.” He added: “I hate it when politics is injected into science, but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances.”

(Suspicion rose… When in doubt, use the passive voice.)


The report also offers two tantalizing hints that intelligence agencies were involved in the search for the origins of the coronavirus from the beginning.

On January 31, 2020, Andersen told Fauci that he was concerned that the coronavirus seemed strangely well-adapted to infect humans because of its furin cleavage site, a highly unusual feature in a bat coronavirus, Fauci sent an email to Farrar that he planned to “alert my U.S.” Colleagues in government officials from my conversation with you and Kristian and determine what further investigation they recommend.”

Fauci, always careful with what he put in writing, did not specify who he meant by “official colleagues”. But apparently he did no means civilian law enforcement authorities in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because they are referred to separately in the memo.

Ten days later, the four original authors of the Proximal Origins paper recruited Ian Lipkin, a prominent virologist at Columbia University who was probably best known for consulting the film. contagion, as the fifth

Speaking of Lipkin, Edward Holmes, one of the initial authors, emailed Andersen that “Ian Lipkin just called, very concerned about the furin cleavage site and says the highs are too, Inc. intelligence.” [emphasis added].


However, when they published the paper online on February 16, and published it in Nature Medicine a month later, the authors took a very different path. They flatly ruled out that Sars-CoV-2 could be “a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”.

In the same paper, the authors did not rule out absolutely that the virus could have leaked from a laboratory. Instead, they dismissed themselves by writing that “it is improbable [emphasis added] that SARS-CoV-2 arose through laboratory manipulation” while offering two more “plausible” scenarios of natural origin.

But as the House report notes, as they discussed the paper afterward, the scientists essentially erased any distinction between the theory that the Chinese researchers had made. intentionally created the virus and that it was accidentally leaked.

For example, Scripps Research, where Andersen worked, published a Press release about the newspaper entitled:

“We can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes,” Andersen said.

At best, “natural processes” is deliberately misleading language: It refers to the possibility that Chinese researchers in Wuhan put a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 through cell cultures until it picked up a furin cleavage site and other features that made it more dangerous.

Virologists have a name for this kind of work. they say so gain of function research

And as everyone involved in the Proximal Origins paper, including Anthony Fauci, knew all too well, the Wuhan researchers had been carrying it out for years.

Too bad they didn’t see fit to tell us what they really thought. They have been caught in a web of deception that has only become more ensnared in the last three years.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *