Now comes another International Classification of Disease (ICD) billing code (Z28.310), complements of the World Health Organization, intended to inform the government and your insurer of your Covid vaccine status. The code will be required, no doubt, to receive full...
The China Virus Game of Funding Cover-Up
There is no longer any doubt that the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Tony Fauci, lied repeatedly to Congress last May that NIAID has “unequivocally” never funded gain-of-function research at the Chinese Wuhan laboratory broadly suspected of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A letter to Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., from the NIH’s principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, clearly says otherwise.
About $600,000 in NIH funding had been funneled to Wuhan through a New York-based nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance, run by Dr. Peter Daszak, one of the most vocal opponents of the “lab leak” theory who has asserted that the virus probably emerged spontaneously from the wild.
That same Peter Daszak was dubiously chosen by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the only representative from America in a ten-member international team to travel to Wuhan to take part in its fake investigation into the virus origin.
As Dr. Richard Ebright, a biosecurity expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, observed: “Peter Daszak has conflicts of interest that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic … He was the contractor responsible for funding of high-risk research on Sars-related bat coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology and a collaborator on this research.”
Daszak reported that all of those scientists spent most of their time quarantined in hotel rooms conducting Zoom discussions with Chinese scientists and a brief visit to the Wuhan wet market all agreed that the source evidence most likely pointed to an animal origin within China or Southeast Asia. The group largely discounted claims that the virus originated in a lab, saying that it wasn’t worth further investigation.
On Jan. 11, following a months-long battle between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — the parent organization of NIH and Fauci’s NIAID — and House Oversight Committee Republicans finally obtained and released some newly unredacted emails from a small group of top scientists spearheaded by Fauci that had sought to promote a natural origin theory despite having evidence and internal expert opinions to the contrary.
In order to obtain this information, House Republicans were forced to apply a rarely used 1928 so-called Seven Member Rule which requires an executive agency, such as HHS, to provide information when requested by seven members of the House Committee on Government Operations (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform).
A close examination of the newly unredacted emails reveals that none of the usual justifications for redactions, such as private information about people or threats to sources and methods, apply. All appear to have been made solely to shield Fauci and the NIH from scrutiny over its cover-up of the virus’ origins.
An April 19, 2020 email from Peter Daszak thanked Tony Fauci for “publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover.” This was two days after Fauci had announced that it was believed the virus had emerged from bats in China.
Daszak then persuaded 26 other scientists to sign off on a letter he had written to world-leading scientific journal, The Lancet, claiming the virus could only have been natural in origin, and that to suggest otherwise based upon “conspiracy theory” only creates “fear, rumors, and prejudice.”
Also involved in the obfuscation effort were Fauci’s boss, recently retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, as well as Jeremy Farrar, the head of the British Wellcome Trust.
The most significant new email revelations came from Robert Garry and Mike Farzan, both of whom had received funding from Fauci’s NIAID, who reported in notes to Collins, Fauci, and Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak, following a Feb. 2, 2020, teleconference that they were 60 to 70 percent sure that COVID had come out of a lab.
In those notes, Garry said in no uncertain terms that “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus” to COVID-19.
Dr. Garry added, “Of course, in the lab, it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.”
A recent study in the science journal Nature noted that the COVID-19 virus was uniquely adapted to infect humans, as it “exhibited the highest binding to human hACE2 of all the species tested.”
Remarkably, only a day earlier, on Feb. 1, 2020, Garry had helped with drafting a proximal origin paper that indicated the opposite, the idea that the virus had originated in nature. That paper became the media’s and the public health establishment’s go-to evidence for a natural origin for the COVID virus and firmly excluded the possibility of a lab leak.
One of Garry’s co-authors for the proximal origin paper, Andrew Rambaut, speculated that the virus might have arisen in another animal, a so-called intermediate host.
Two years later, no such host has been identified, and Rambaut also since recognized that while COVID-19 is “an extremely fit virus in humans — we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species.”
Mike Farzan, an immunologist who in 2005 discovered the receptor of the original severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus, wrote that he was “bothered” by difficulty explaining it “as an event outside the lab,” and that the possibility that the virus could have arisen in nature was “highly unlikely.”
The emails indicate that Farzan, who has received grants totaling almost $20 million from Collins’ NIH and Fauci’s NIAID since the beginning of the pandemic, was cognizant that the Wuhan lab had a very low level 2 biosecurity standard for such experiments.
This fact was later admitted by the Wuhan lab’s director, Shi Zhengli, in July 2020.
It was known from previously released emails that Kristian Andersen, a scientist at the Scripps laboratory who has also received funding from Fauci’s NIAID, had privately told Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020, that the virus looked engineered. Andersen later spearheaded Fauci’s efforts to promote a natural origin narrative.
Nevertheless, on Feb. 3, just one day after Robert Garry, Mike Farzan and Andrew Rambaut shared their views disputing that story, Tony Fauci attended a meeting at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) urgently convened at the behest of White House Director of Science and Technology Kelvin Drogemeier.
The meeting, which included a presentation by Fauci, which was also attended by Peter Daszak — the person through whom Fauci had funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology —and Kristian Andersen, disingenuously made no mention of their private discussions —which were taking place at the same time — that the virus most likely originated in a Wuhan lab.
This is the very same Dr. Anthony Fauci who brazenly claimed, “a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly are attacks on science.”
The only scientific agenda should be to get facts right; to explain what is known and provable, and what is not, and to be honest.
The principal assailant of science is none other than Tony Fauci himself.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.