The 'Disingenuous Dozen:' The Hypocrisy is strong with these ones
Scientists are being vilified by those who are actually lying to us
Note: **My new Prometheus Hub page** compiles most of the research and resources I’ve used/found/analyzed/watched/etc. during [and prior to] my efforts with DRASTIC, so that those who are looking for more about COVID’s origins can find it in one place.
I don’t plan on ever charging a subscription fee for any of the content on my site; everything I keep here is the result of 18 months of research conducted because it needed to be done and very few were doing it. However, this has literally been my full-time job since March 2020, so any ‘subscription’ as a donation will help me continue this work uninterrupted by the real world.
Or, if you’re still in the recovery phase of the financial pandemic, spreading the word could be just as helpful to the cause; after all, everyone has suffered from the lack of honest & unbiased information from our leaders that would’ve helped us be clear-eyed about what we were going to face. I have no greater responsibility with this site than to keep it accessible to anyone who deserves the truth - which, of course, is all of us.
Perspective is important
As this article was being finished, yet another article appeared in the world’s foremost academic journal Nature that perfectly illustrates the phenomenon that I highlighted last week, when I analyzed the COVID-19 origin articles that were published by the world’s top-6 most prestigious academic journals. The results of that analysis showed a 35:1 ratio for natural-origin to lab-origin publications, despite the fact that, at best, the evidentiary basis of both possibilities is equivalent [a very generous assertion, as virtually all evidence found thus far argues against a natural origin [per recent Congressional testimony].
Yesterday’s [8/25] Nature article Origins of SARS-CoV-2: window is closing for key scientific studies is the 3rd peer-reviewed article by scientists pictured above in the last two weeks, a phenomenon that seems [luckily?] to coincide with the growing focus on the Congressional origin investigations - and [miraculously] appeared on the same day as the Biden report was delivered to Congress. Only Peter Daszak could have rationalized making an obviously political move even more blatantly political, as if it were a good maneuver. It would’ve been much easier for Daszak to simply call up Peter Ben Embarek, the leader of the World Health Organization’s COVID origin investigation, and tried to talk him out of releasing a documentary last week in which Embarek describes China’s creation and nurturing of a false narrative for the WHO. I’m not sure why anyone would think gathering the rest of that team in hopes of debunking its leader is an effective response.
This week, I want to focus on the scientists who’ve been writing these articles and appearing on television, arguing against the possibility that COVID-19 came out of a lab, rather than jumping from animal to human somewhere in the wild. In particular, I want to highlight the fact that these same scientists are the ones that are on the record as having lied to us about their ‘expert’ opinions regarding COVID’s origins:
Recently, Dr. Mercola’s Fauci Exposed: Historical Research of COVID highlighted my Fauci research, and it’s only fitting to use his experience to highlight the stunning hypocrisy that we’re still seeing from some scientists. Since March, several mainstream media outlets have been attacking Mercola [more than usual] in response to his being listed as the number 1 spreader of '“disinformation” about vaccines and masks in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. These attacks have been fairly successful - despite the fact that Facebook itself rejected the researcher’s conclusions as having been exaggerated; Facebook’s data was the primary driver of the arguments used in that study, but that fact hasn’t prevented Dr. Mercola from being blacklisted and effectively censored for his views.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what the purpose of science actually is, but growing up I was always taught that it was the rational pursuit of an understanding of how things work in the real world, built upon a foundation of conclusions drawn from evidence. Scientific truths are not meant to be flexible or political. Some have argued that the circumstances of this pandemic require scientists to speak with one voice, because otherwise the public at large will be confused and thus not know what advice to trust.
COVID-19 has shown us that the opposite is true: the public is perceptive enough to see that the scientists speaking with the most certainty are the ones who’ve been shown to have the largest conflicts of interest, and their crusade against fellow scientists who disagree continues to do more damage to ‘Science’ than any public discourse on the merits ever could.
I’d argue that the full picture is actually even worse, because we can at least look at Dr. Mercola and see someone whose advocacy for natural remedies appears genuine; in contrast, we already have proof in writing that Dr. Fauci and most natural-origin supporters were literally lying as they wrote & published peer-reviewed articles in the world’s most prestigious journals. During that same period, they were privately voicing their very real concerns that SARS-CoV-2 might not be natural. In other words, Dr. Fauci and many of the world’s leading virologists have supported the censorship of scientists who legitimately disagreed with them, while privately harboring many of the same concerns. Dr. Mercola, at least, actually believes what he’s defending; how can Dr. Fauci claim that “questioning me is questioning science” when we have proof that his ‘science’ consists of narratives that he wants us to believe?
When common sense was an uncommon virtue
Of course, my argument depends upon a situation in which common sense is meaningfully applied, and our current circumstances don’t meet that standard. After all, we’ve seen renewed vigor from natural-origin proponents in the last few weeks, despite zero new evidence to support their position. It appears to be a repeat performance in the vein of the 2 months following a 2/4/20 email exchange that explicitly documented their efforts at collusion, meant to steer the narrative towards more favorable ground.
Among the most recent disclosures, FOIA emails show that a scientist in Beijing contracted COVID-19 while working on it in a lab, that the existence of the Furin Cleavage Site [FCS] was "very chilling" and that Zheng-Li Shi & Ralph Baric, the scientists at the center of the lab controversy, were were involved in the editing of an article that rejected the lab hypothesis.
In The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review - Andersen, Holmes et al barely referenced Jeremy Bloom's analysis of deleted sequences from Wuhan, and only then so that they could categorically deny that it affected any of their conclusions. That’s an incredibly bold assertion for them to make, when the sequences point away from their preferred wet-market narrative. Ian Lipkin, another signatory of the Lancet letter organized by Daszak, also ignored most of the last year’s worth of questions in his recent article The known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns of COVID-19.
The duplicity of Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Kristian Andersen, Ralph Baric, Stanley Perlman, Ed Holmes and Ian Lipkin emerged within Buzzfeed’s FOIA emails of Fauci’s, while Linda Saif, Susan Weiss, Shan Lu, Shan-Lu-Liu, Lishan Su & Ralph Baric [below] discussed their misgivings across several FOIA caches obtained by US Right-to-Know:
As a reminder, here are the scientists who wrote these emails [Saif & Liu are faculty at Ohio State, Su & Baric are from UNC-Chapel Hill, Susan Weiss is from the University of Pennsylvania [Penn] and Shan Lu is an editor for Emerging Microbes and Infections and recently transferred from U-Mass to the University of Maryland]:
Special highlights for Susan Weiss:
Here are snippets from Shan-Lu-Liu:
The same authors’ article was ultimately read 75,000 times - an article they made up solely to trash the hypothesis they found credible. It ended the year on Taylor & James’ Top 10 Open-Access Articles for 2020 [at #5].
Susan Weiss’ timely re-entry into the fray last week was quite similar in substance and tone to what they’d produced 18 months ago, but at least she was willing to address some of the substantive concerns raised in the interim in Can Science Help Resolve the Controversy on the Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic?. Unfortunately, the quality of the peer-review is very reminiscent of that old article, too [but at least in that case there literally was no peer review].
I’ve included a couple of the many errors:
First, she and her co-authors repeat the same argument from the ‘landmark’ The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 - that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can’t have been manipulated in a lab because it’s genome doesn’t resemble anything previously published. Weiss further states:
“Prior to COVID-19, there would’ve been no need for secrecy in this type of fundamental science work.”
What? No need for secrecy? I hope the virology community is sitting down, because apparently they’re going to be shocked to learn that scientists don’t always publish all of their work - especially if that work might look suspiciously like bioweapons/defense research. Imagine being Hirohito in 1945, post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and shrugging off suggestions that the atomic bombs were actually just regular ones; after all, why would anyone build a bomb with material other than conventional explosives?
As idiotic as that analogy might seem, imagine being a world-renowned virologist, and publishing a paper that [as 1 of its 3 primary arguments] rejects the COVID-19 lab-origin hypothesis on the basis of the viral genome not utilizing a known viral backbone in its construction. 5.5 million people read that article in Nature Medicine, and nobody questioned that assertion?
If I were engaged in research that potentially violated the Biological Weapons Convention [BWC], I’d probably refrain from using anything that would point directly at my lab in a future investigation. It really isn’t that complicated.
“…since the virus is not stable in air for long and even less stable on surfaces.”
This fragment isn’t even grammatically correct, but who am I to judge? Weiss should look further into the literature, because SARS-CoV-2 is stable enough to be at least the 2nd-most efficient aerosol-transmitting virus known to man.
-What is science if it’s not honest?-
In a sane and just world, all of the COVID-origin articles published by authors for whom we have proof that they were lying about their conclusions should be retracted immediately.
Alternatively, journals like Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine should clarify who is allowed to use their platforms to deceive us and which circumstances justify the use of fabricated narratives.
At first glance, it might seem that my last statement was meant to be sarcastic, but I assure you it isn’t sarcasm. As I wrote last week:
Just 3 weeks ago, Dr. Peter Hotez’s Mounting Anti-Science Aggression in the United States openly called for hate crime legislation from Congress to combat those who question scientists. He even ended with a comparison to 1930’s Nazi Germany, which seems odd for someone whose favored political party is in control and actively suppressing free speech.
Science is literally the development and enhancement of a system of knowledge through evidence, observation and investigation. Dr. Hotez’s proposition to protect science is actually anti-science itself; in a world filled with common sense, he would be one of the first people arrested for the hate crime of questioning science, so I’d respectfully ask him to withdraw his idea to prevent his own prosecution.
Since time may be running out on our ability to question scientists, I urge everyone to share this article with your own motley crew of dissidents, by clicking the button below. Or, as I’m sure pediatrician Dr. Hotez would argue,
Do it for the children.