by Dr. Joseph Mercola<\/a>August 4, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you prefer direct links to content? Check out our brand new sister site at Uncanceled.news<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the July 22, 2021, article,1<\/sup> \u201cDid Scientists Stifle the Lab-Leak Theory,\u201d foreign reporter and columnist for Unherd, Ian Birrell, analyzes the circumstances that led to a near-complete blackout of questions about SARS-CoV-2\u2019s origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In September 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board issued a warning that a new infectious disease was poised to spread around the world, and that nations were ill prepared for such an event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board is a joint arm of the World Health Organization and the World Bank \u2014 two technocratic entities<\/a> that aren\u2019t always working in the best interest of humanity as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the 15-person Board are Sir Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the NIH\u2019s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID) and George Fu Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As noted by Birrell, the board\u2019s warning was \u201castonishingly prescient,\u201d as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2020. Importantly, the board did not necessarily focus its prediction on the emergence of natural zoonotic diseases but, rather, warned of technological and scientific advances that \u201callow for disease-creating micro-organisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the board, accidental release of such manmade organisms<\/a> could actually be far more devastating than a natural outbreak. \u201cAccidental or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose global catastrophic biological risks,\u201d the board stated in its September 2019 report, titled \u201cA World At Risk.\u201d2<\/sup> In passing, the report also mentioned the need to control the flow of information:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the Board\u2019s recognition that manmade pathogens pose a significant threat, some of its board members \u2014 Fauci and Farrar in particular \u2014 have played central roles in roundly dismissing the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab<\/a>. As reported by Birrell:3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFarrar was a central figure behind two landmark documents published by influential science journals that played a key role in shutting down discussion of the lab leak hypothesis by branding it conspiracy theory.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n These statements, signed and promoted by leading figures in the scientific establishment, pushed an idea that the pandemic was a natural occurrence by arguing against the plausibility of \u2018any type of laboratory-based scenario.\u2019 Critics say this \u2018false narrative\u2019 set back understanding of the disease for more than a year.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In his book, \u201cSpike: The Virus vs. The People \u2014 the Inside Story,\u201d Farrar praises China for its pandemic response at the outset of the pandemic. This despite the fact that the Communist dictatorship is known to have silenced doctors who wanted to warn the public, and allowed the annual Chinese New Year\u2019s celebration to proceed, thereby ensuring massive spread as people from all parts of China and across the world gathered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Birrell goes on to detail how Farrar and Fauci reacted to early reports suggesting the virus had telltale signs of gain-of-function<\/a>. Emails4<\/sup> obtained via freedom of information act (FOIA) requests reveal Fauci received a Science magazine article detailing the work of Peter Daszak<\/a> (EcoHealth Alliance) and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe article discussed controversies over risky \u2018gain of function\u2019 experiments, including mention of a 2015 paper by Shi and a U.S. expert on modification of a Sars-like bat virus to boost infectivity to humans,\u201d<\/em> Birrell writes.5<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEmails released through freedom of information requests show Fauci instantly circulated the article to U.S. officials and contacted Farrar saying it was \u2018of interest to the current discussion\u2019 \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n [Scripps virologist Kristian] Andersen, when sent the Science article at the end of January, admitted a close look at the genetic sequences of Sars-CoV-2 showed that \u2018some of the features (potentially) look engineered\u2019 and that other experts agreed the genome was \u2018inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory\u2019 \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Wellcome boss then set up a conference call for the pair of them with 11 other experts from around the world, warning their discussions were \u2018in total confidence\u2019 and information \u2018not to be shared\u2019 without prior agreement.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Farrar also sent Fauci a link to an article on ZeroHedge \u2026 that tied a Wuhan researcher to the virus outbreak. The site was banned the next day from Twitter \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n While we don\u2019t know the full details of what was discussed during that February 1, 2020, phone call, Birrell points out what we do know. For example, we know they discussed contacting the WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and that two days later, Ghebreyesus made a public call for censorship of misinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Five days after that call, Daszak also circulated the first draft of a scientific consensus statement6<\/sup> that eventually got published in The Lancet, and thereafter was used by mainstream media and fact checkers everywhere to \u201cdebunk\u201d any and all evidence of a lab leak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dam is breaking. And with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong. ~ James Meigs<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The statement, signed by 27 experts, including Farrar, condemned \u201cconspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.\u201d A FOIA request revealed Daszak was the mastermind behind that Lancet statement7<\/sup> \u2014 which, by the way, presented no actual evidence of natural origin \u2014 and that he wanted to make sure it could not be identified as being from a single individual or organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Six weeks after Farrar\u2019s group call, four of the participants on the call \u2014 including Andersen \u2014 also published a commentary in Nature Medicine, titled \u201cThe Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,\u201d8<\/sup> in which they stated they \u201cdo not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis statement in a world-renowned journal, which has been accessed 5.5 million times, further depressed debate of alternative theories on the origins, despite being challenged by a few brave voices in the scientific community,\u201d<\/em> Birrell writes.9<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n In his book, \u201cSpike,\u201d which was published July 22, 2021, Farrar admits he had deep concerns about the \u201chuge coincidence\u201d of SARS-CoV-2 emerging in a city with a biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory that just so happens to specialize in collection, storage and research of bat coronaviruses. Birrell writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe new coronavirus \u2018might not even be that novel at all,\u2019 he thought. \u2018It might have been engineered years ago, put in a freezer, and then taken out more recently by someone who decided to work on it again. And then, maybe, there was \u2026 an accident?\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n He was so concerned that he confided in Eliza Manningham-Buller, then the Wellcome Trust chair and a former head of the MI5 intelligence service, who told him to start taking precautions such as avoiding putting things in emails and using a burner phone for key conversations.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So what changed his mind so firmly he started signing letters and tweeting about alleged conspiracy theories? When I asked Farrar to share the evidence that set his mind at rest, he pointed to the Nature Medicine article. Yet his office told me later he helped \u2018convene\u2019 these five authors.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n They also insist that \u2018the weight of available data and scientific evidence continues to point towards zoonotic origins.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n But scientists have found no hard evidence on the pandemic origins, despite testing 80,000 samples on animals to find a natural link, while China has made increasingly ludicrous claims over the origins as well as covering up the outbreak, lying over the date of first cases and taking offline Wuhan\u2019s key database of samples and viral sequences.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In his book, Farrar also discusses specific concerns brought forth by Andersen in January 2020. Recall, in April 2020, Andersen published \u201cThe Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2\u201d with four other co-authors. But in January, three things alarmed him about the virus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before Farrar\u2019s February 1, 2020, call, Andersen was \u201c60 to 70%\u201d convinced SARS-CoV-2 was a lab creation, according to Farrar\u2019s account. Yet Andersen also told Farrar he did not want to be a front man for the lab leak theory. Birrell writes:10<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnderson told [Farrar] that he suddenly realized he might be the person who proved the new virus came from a lab. \u2019I didn\u2019t necessarily want to be that person,\u2019 he said.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018When you make big claims like that you had better be sure that you can conclude something is based on evidence and not on speculation.\u2019 So according to Farrar, then five experts wrestled with the evidence and, the following month, they declared in Nature Medicine that Sars-CoV-2 was \u2018not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus\u2019 \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n They offered the circumstantial evidence that RaTG13, the closest known coronavirus to Sars-CoV-2, had different binding mechanisms \u2014 yet similar ones were found on pangolins, so \u2018the ingredients \u2026 were out in the wild. They did not need to have escaped, or been unleashed, from a containment lab.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem with this argument is that they have no firm evidence of natural emergence. What\u2019s more, while Andersen and co-authors claim they spent many sleepless nights carefully analyzing and evaluating the lab leak theory before finally dismissing it, in a May 2021 interview,11<\/sup> co-author Robert Garry admitted the first draft of the Nature Medicine paper was finished February 1, 2020 \u2014 the day of Farrar\u2019s conference call, which included four of the five co-authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fauci\u2019s email<\/a> trove also reveals Farrar sent Fauci a rough draft of the Nature Medicine paper three days after that conference call, urging him to keep it confidential. That same day, Andersen also told another group of experts that the data \u201cconclusively show\u201d there was no engineering involved. \u201cSo far from having \u2018many sleepless nights,\u2019 these scientists seem to have changed their minds amazingly fast and reached fresh conclusions,\u201d Birrell writes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another article addressing the subversion of truth by some of our most trusted scientific institutions is James Meigs\u2019 Commentary piece, \u201cThe Lab-Leak-Theory Cover-Up.\u201d12<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe dam is breaking,\u201d<\/em> Meigs writes. \u201cAnd with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Worse, they worked furiously to discourage anyone else from getting it right. The leading scientific experts turned out to be spinning the truth. Our public-health officials put their political agenda ahead of any scientific mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And the press and social-media giants eagerly played along, enforcing strict rules about which COVID topics were acceptable and which had to be banished from the national conversation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Trump years, we heard a lot of hand-wringing about the public\u2019s unwarranted \u2018distrust\u2019 of our society\u2019s designated experts and leaders. But to be trusted, people and institutions have to be trustworthy.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a profound corruption at the heart of our expert class. The impact of that revelation will reverberate for years to come.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n As noted by Meigs, leading institutions not only declared the lab-leak theory incorrect, but also \u201cdangerous and malicious,\u201d and went to extraordinary lengths to \u201cprotect\u201d the population from hearing anything that might infect their minds with such wrongthink.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, all such efforts failed. Despite the ridicule, personal attacks and censorship<\/a>, common sense and logic have managed to break through and, today, the failures of our most prestigious science institutions are laid bare.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSTORY AT-A-GLANCE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Technocrat-Led Board Predicted Manmade Pandemic<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Same Board Members Denied Possibility of Manmade Pandemic<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Did Fauci and Farrar Collude to Suppress Lab-Leak Theory?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Unanswered Questions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Evidence of Collusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Elite Institutions Have Subverted the Truth<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Government Only Pays Lip Service to the Truth<\/h3>\n\n\n\n