Gaslight of the Gods, part III: The Architects of COVID-19 #Consensuship
I’ll never mandate paid subscription*
*..but I won’t turn down donations via subscription.* Every donation means another spike protein of justice, riding a lipid nanoparticle across the blood-brain barrier of the bureaucracy.
[*in my fight against the mortgage mandate]
SUBSCRIBE NOW. Alternatively, if you despise the shackles of Substack’s limited subscription options, you can donate any amount you want via Paypal @SARSCoVRix
Gaslight of the Gods [part 3 today]
Prologue – The Sword of D’Omicron: Changing the meaning of “unvaccinated” will allow incriminating data to disappear.
I – The DARPA/Project Veritas leak: proves the intelligence community lied to America-for starters.
II – Manufactured Consensus: Fauci’s scientific ‘consensus’ on COVID’s ‘natural’ origin was only 13% of researchers – I did the math.
III – The Architects of Consensuship: We break down ‘Who’ the 13% are & how they published 6 ‘waves’ of pro natural-origin propaganda to respond to developments in the origin story.
IV – Anti-Science: a now-fashionable label for ANYONE who disagrees with ‘The Science’ – including other scientists.
V – The Sound of Science: Did you know that the approval to start preparing to re-activate Gain-of-Function research came before Trump was sworn into office – though later blamed on his administration?
VI – Pandora’s Pox: Robert Garry, Bill Gallaher, Mike Farzan & Stefan Pohlmann are names you probably don’t know – which is almost certainly what Anthony Fauci prefers.
VII – The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker: What do you get when you mix unprecedented censorship, gaslighting, suppression of research & and an unexplained Furin cleavage site?
-The Apocryphal Origin of SARS-CoV-2-
In part II, the big picture regarding scientific censorship was introduced, and I discussed the six clear 'waves' of 'zoo-leaning' articles. The most important takeaway - to me at least - is that of ~129 refs with a strong 'natural' lean, 89.15% were written by scientists implicated in Dr. Fauci’s censorship scheme [or journalists/science writers who’ve actively supported efforts to shape the natural-origin narrative].
To put that in perspective, of 1,027 ref's from 1/1/20 until now, only 194 have ANY lean towards a natural origin . 59.28% of those come directly from potentially implicated scientists or their consistent backers. The 'consensus' leans LAB, & 60% of ZOO is from the WIV links.
If you subtract the 115 articles I broke down further into 'waves' [and the ~600 neutral sources], that's ~349 to ~60 or 83% - 17%, or 6.61% of 1,027. Without direct and continuous interference from the institution that controls grant funding, there might not even be a natural-origin narrative - much less two years of censorship imposed on any other explanation for where the COVID-19 pandemic came from.
-The Proximals & The Lanceteers combat “Misinformation”-
It would be useful - prior to a full accounting of the chorus members of this ‘Geek’ tragedy - to ponder why an esteemed group of virologists and public health officials would go to such great lengths to smother any inquiries into their recent activities. An innocent scientist should be interested in clearing his or her name in a situation where the implication is that experiments they were conducting may have triggered a global pandemic that has killed more than six million people and counting. Their continued reluctance to do so [in the best case] implies that they lack the evidence needed to exonerate themselves completely. In the worst case, of course, the reason for withholding evidence would be that it implicates them instead.
For more than a year, I’ve used the nicknames ‘Proximals’ & ‘Lanceteers’ to refer to two groups who’ve played major roles in the dissemination of research & commentary supporting the natural [zoonotic] hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
The first group, the Proximals, included the authors of the article "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2." The 5 authors [Kristian Andersen, Ian Lipkin, Andrew Rambaut, Edward Holmes & Robert Garry] began writing the article no later than 2/1/20. Its purpose was to argue AGAINST the possibility of a lab-origin - even though they were privately leaning the opposite way.
On 2/1, a group of global scientists had a conference call to discuss concerns about where the new coronavirus came from. On 2/3, another group met with Fauci to discuss "misinformation," and afterwards were tasked with writing a document addressed to Kelvin Droegemeier, the Presidential Science Advisor and chair of the White House’s Office of Science & Technology Policy [OSTP]. Droegemeier had been one of the speakers during the meeting, in addition to Dr. Fauci, Alexander Pope & Chris Hassell. Pope was the science policy advisor for the National Academy of Science, and Chris Hassell was the science advisor for Robert Kadlec, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness [AS/PR] for the Department of Health & Human Services [HHS]; Hassell was also the chair of the P3CO board implemented in 2017 to provide oversight for any planned gain-of-function experiments.
The Lanceteers were a collection of scientists who [mostly] worked directly with the WIV, EcoHealth Alliance [EHA] and the PREDICT program, gathering bat samples and looking for viruses. In other words, they included the very same scientists who, in the event that SARS-CoV-2 had a non-natural origin, would be directly implicated in its creation.
EHA’s president, Peter Daszak, worked to put together the letter to further bolster the natural-origin claim, but several sections that strongly rejected non-natural origins were removed prior to publication. However, many of the excised sentences ended up in the 'Lancet letter,’ the 1st draft of which was being written and passed around as early as 2/6 - the same day that the OSTP letter was submitted for publication. The pre-print of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” was published on Virological.com on 2/16, and The Lancet published the Daszak-produced letter on 2/19.
The importance of the two letters can't be overstated - "Proximal" became the most-viewed journal article of the pandemic [5.6million] and was used by global leaders to reject any non-natural hypothesis [Fauci repeatedly referred to both letters during later interviews, whenever the origin of the pandemic was brought up]. They sent a clear signal that the origin topic was largely settled and not worth further investigation. They were explicitly used by Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms as support for the removal of any lab-leak discussions and content, under the auspices of removing ‘disinformation’ and dangerous conspiracy theories.
It's vital to realize that at first, no one knew that censorship/narrative control were taking place - it certainly wasn’t immediately obvious that those who were leading the charge [like Fauci] were potentially implicated in the funding [or conduct] of research that may have led to its construction. In fact, it took almost a year for the first evidence of collusion to be found in a FOIA release published by US Right-to-Know. Since then, virtually every FOIA release has provided further evidence; sadly, the mountain of evidence hasn’t been enough to shame the co-conspirators from continuing to lead the charge against the lab-leak hypothesis.
In particular I’m referring to these articles; here’s the 89% of articles actively supporting the natural-origin hypothesis that were written by [or in coordination with] the Proximals, Lanceteers, Approximals, SciComm [science writers], Torch-Bearers [media/journalists] or the Wuhan Institute of Virology:
Some of my previous research/findings:
-I was the 1st person to point out the fact that Fauci was present at a meeting called by the OSTP Director, Kelvin Droegemeier to combat ‘misinformation,’ which was held on 2/3/20 - the day before Daszak and Andersen et al began colluding on their letter to that same OSTP director [VIII, VII].
-I explicitly showed how the world’s top 6 academic journals had only published 1 side of the origin debate until May, 2021 [the ratio as of last July was 35:1].
-I was the 1st person to argue that Fauci & Droegemeier had conspired to hide the NIH’s research connections to the WIV, even from the President himself; Sharri Markson later confirmed this during her blockbuster documentary, in a conversation with Trump.
Here’s a pie chart and some further data:
The two main categories saw almost no mixing; we can assume that Fauci was very careful to avoid having Daszak, Baric or other WIV-linked scientists involved with “Proximal Origin,” and this separation has continued to the present. Most aren't aware that Michael Worobey knows Eddie Holmes from way back at Oxford, which made him a good choice to carry on the Proximals' struggle; however, they [Garry/Andersen/Holmes/Rambaut] combined for these latest market papers, making the link far more obvious than last November.
The science writers' blatant efforts are more confusing when one considers that Amy Maxmen has previously come under fire for lying about knowing Peter Daszak. Nor was that the only time that she or others has been criticized for shamelessly cheerleading a particular side in scientific debates:
That’s an informative & entertaining article from Paul Thacker, whose Disinformation Chronicle focuses on exposing shoddy & nefarious reporting, especially by science communicators in today’s media. Here’s another article of his, pertaining to coverage of our [DRASTIC’s] DEFUSE proposal leak & analysis:
As bizarre as it sounds, no one seems all that worried about coming across as insincere, including Jon Cohen of Science - which looks pretty embarrassing given the latest Vanity Fair expose that shows Cohen selectively reporting aspects of an investigation into deleted sequences within the NIH’s GISAID database. Then again, my research has shown that a lack of evidence hasn’t previously hurt other narratives peddled by friends of Fauci:
;Other articles analyzing recent coverage on the Wuhan outbreak: Journalists, or PR Agents?, downstream of Fauci, The Dark Horse Podcast, Chris Martenson
-The Arc of Inquiry-
Last spring I published the first version of my SARS-CoV-2 Origin Reference Research Project, a list of ~450 relevant origin research & news sources, because A) I wanted to help make the truth about COVID-19 more accessible and B) I wanted to provide some context for the trends I’d been seeing about the list I’d made.
I named the project “The Arc of inquiry bends towards enlightenment” as a reference to Martin Luther King Jr.’s The Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards Justice;’ my argument was and is that over time, the truth of the origin of the pandemic would be revealed by the trends within the research.
On its face, that’s not much of an argument - after all, science is built on evidence & inquiry - but COVID-19 wouldn’t be the first time that scientists suppressed scientific discoveries for some selfish or nefarious purpose; virtually every paradigm-shifting weapons technology is a closely-guarded secret because the strategic consequences of being last to the post can now be fatal. Unfortunately, the nature of our exponentially accelerating technological advances means that all sorts of new threats are about to emerge, and the institutions we trust to guide us through those changes failed miserably, regardless of where the virus originally came from.
Thankfully, that same explosion of technology is what enabled DRASTIC & others to uncover the evidence that we have, by connecting scientists, researchers, front-line doctors, whistleblowers and even parents together. Almost every day there’s new revelations emerging that expose the arrogant “noble” lies holding up the narrative; the same bureaucrats that lied to Congress, to the President [at least 1 of them], and to us have been actively soliciting Congress to expand hate crime laws so that they include “anti-science” behavior.
I’d argue that consensuship [building a consensus with censorship] is the real anti-science behavior.
Charles--I've wanted to give your graphics the close observation they deserve, but have been held back by the tiny print. Some of them are pretty unreadable. Would you consider making them full-page width? It seems to me that using all the screen area available to you would go a long ways to enhancing readability.
Thank you for the mountains of materials you've reviewed and summarized for us.
Charles, love your research - exhaustive and on point. Thanks for the graphics also and for making them clickable so we can view them larger. Lots of information there that would - should - stand up in a court of law. Kudos bro.
Now... ahem. I think we need some clarification, either here or especially over at DRASTIC. re: biolabs in Ukraine. The data coming out so far seems pretty f'ng specific ie: coronaviruses and dispersal experimentation. And yet... going over to the DRASTIC website the search results for "Ukraine" are still "NO POSTS FOUND" and ...ummm... seriously? Did I miss a post or two over the past month???
I know you are really busy and all, so maybe you could just point us in the right direction plz? Thanks!