Gaslight of the Gods, part II: A 13% 'Consensus' of implicated scientists censored science - & then us - to protect themselves
It turns out that censorship is a great way to build consensus
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
What started as a sequel became a miniseries, and here’s some of the findings that forced the switch:
Gaslight of the Gods [part 2 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 – and 89% of the articles openly advocating from that side came from two core groups of scientists [or their media allies] who met with Fauci on 2/1 & 2/3/20. To combat ‘misinformation.’ I did the math.
III – Amber Waves of Grassroots: 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. Its champion? Peter Hotez, who never shares his COI; instead, he argues that questioning scientists like him is a HATE CRIME. He’s going to be disappointed.
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? Later, Fauci & Kelvin Droegemeier NEVER told President Trump or his National Security Council about their links to Wuhan, GOF research or their censorship of science – directly aimed at protecting himself, not you. Now, it’s evolved into something much bigger.
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. After all, we can be sure that the one acronym Fauci doesn’t want to hear is “HIV.”
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? More importantly, why did we shut down that conversation when it could’ve potentially saved millions of lives? And how did China ‘discover’ EK1C4 so fast; and Why didn’t they mention it before?
Albert Einstein famously said "God doesn't play dice."
While we can't confirm the dice-rolling habits of the creator, this pandemic HAS made something else incredibly clear - scientists LOVE to gamble, with our money, lives & future.
The ever-growing mountain of evidence strongly suggests that that perception is about to change - and deservedly so. The most striking & unexpected aspect of our pandemic response - in my opinion - is a tactic from poker, not dice: bluffing.
The intensity of the campaign to smother the lab-leak hypothesis for COVID-19 has always seemed out of proportion to the evidence that points to either possibility, but the strength of the assertions from the global experts on coronavirology & microbiology quickly established the appearance of an authoritative consensus. The majority of my research has been focused on compiling and laying out the evidence that shows how Anthony Fauci & others manufactured that consensus, and used censorship to prevent the public from learning of their activities.
The majority of readers are likely aware that this blog, Prometheus Shrugged, is primarily a chronicle of the investigation I’ve been actively participating in as a member of the DRASTIC group of scientists & researchers, dedicated to uncovering the truth of the pandemic’s origin [until that job is done, at least]. My 1st article on Substack, from 2/25/21, introduced my discovery that Dr. Fauci had been involved in the effort to push a natural-origin narrative; a year later, that censorship is just one facet of the broader story I’ll discuss here.
I didn’t know what I would find when I began looking; what I did know was that before anyone could begin to understand why this pandemic unfolded like it has, we had to first piece together what happened.
Last May, I finished going through all of the COVID-origin FOIA documents that had been released to that point; it was a side project that I’d started in February after I wrote that article mentioned above. It took me a couple of months because I was busy - and also because there were 83,000 pages to review. My primary motivation for doing so was to ensure that nothing else had been missed, because I’d already found something important after a few hundred pages. The discovery also made me feel fairly confident that if I didn’t, there might not be anyone else - a conclusion that I’ve been told is accurate [& unnerving].
I never found something ‘bigger’ than the evidence that tied Dr. Fauci to the 2/3 conference call on “combatting misinformation” [and also suggested that Dr. Fauci and Kelvin Droegemeier [the Presidential Science Advisor], but I did learn a massive amount about our federal government’s pandemic response apparatus and who the important people were. Over those three months, I was primarily researching other aspects of the pandemic, and it didn’t take long to realize how strong the connections were between certain scientists and their counterparts in the bureaucracy.
It was then that I decided to go through the 450 origin-related references I’d compiled and highlight authors whose names kept popping up. As I became more familiar with the science [reading 1500+ research papers ought to teach you something - and I should clarify that I didn’t go back to work, and that this has been my full-time job [pro bono] for two years*], knowing what perspective an author is coming from has become instantaneous. Below are the final numbers from that censorship analysis last May:
*If you’re curious about why I’m doing this and what DRASTIC is, click here to listen to my recent livestream with Dr. J. Couey, a fellow DRASTIC member. The stream starts near the 15 minute mark.
**For an outsider’s take on my work, here’s Dr. J. Mercola’s commentary from August.
The legend on the left-hand side explains the color codes; green means natural origin & gold means lab-leak, with darker colors signifying a stronger lean into either direction. The primary finding back then was that the lab leak was censored almost immediately, but after initial flood of papers, the origin question mostly disappeared from academic journals. and sat on the sideline while the entire world was hit by the first waves of the pandemic.
There were other takeaways, however.
The news coverage began to shift dramatically in April 2020 - right as the lockdown trapped everyone in their homes - and Josh Rogin broke the story about the 2018 State Department cables that warned of unsafe conditions at the WIV’s labs. The trend in all types of publications [peer-reviewed articles, pre-prints, commentaries & newspapers, etc.] has been an increasing gap between the overall volume of coverage favoring the odds of a lab origin over a natural origin.
In the last month, the natural-origin crowd has returned with a head of steam - not because important evidence has been discovered that supports their case [actually the opposite] - and the coordination between various scientists and journalists has become so obvious and predictable that it motivated me to update the statistics I calculated last spring. My list of origin references has grown from 450 to 1204 [now 1254, but the latest ones weren’t added to this analysis], and this time I broke down the results using many different variables.
Here’s pie charts showing the proportions of each origin perspective, with and without neutral articles included, along with each perspective’s proportion of a given type of publication:
This next chart shows the data behind the ‘wave’ graph at the top of this article. I was able to identify 6 waves [or clusters] of articles, with the first one being a result of Dr. Fauci’s exhortations on 2/1 & 2/3. I ironically refer to these waves as ‘grassroots’ because it’s become increasingly clear that very little about them is coincidental:
[For those who are curious about who the ‘Proximals’ or ‘Torch-Bearers’ etc. are, that will be explained in depth in tomorrow’s part III of this little series]
To measure the ‘amplitude’ of each wave, I calculated the average number of articles published per day. This makes it easy to compare the intensity of each batch; many readers will already have noticed that the very first wave was by far the most intensive until last September, when several hammer blows fell in rapid succession. The most impactful one, long-term, turned out to be the DEFUSE proposal we released.
The impact of the 2/1 & 2/3 meetings can’t be overstated; in the 3.5 weeks after Fauci gave them the green light to combat ‘misinformation’ about COVID’s origin, 22 articles were published - most in peer-reviewed journals - by the meetings’ participants or scientists closely tied to them. All of those articles rejected or downplayed the possibility of a lab-related origin for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only 1 pro-Lab Leak article appeared during that period, and it was forcibly withdrawn within days. The only other lab-leaning pre-print was removed from bioRxiv even faster, by one of the attendees of the 2/3 meeting, Trevor Bedford. An auspicious start, to be sure.
It didn’t get better from there, however. It turns out that censorship is a very effective way to build a scientific consensus:
The importance of the elite journals also can’t be overstated, especially since the global top 6 across ALL academic disciplines are all from the life sciences. That means #’s 1-6 out of ~25,000.
Jeremy Farrar, who helped organize the 2/1 teleconference, is on the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine AND head of the largest private grant funder [The Wellcome Trust, in the UK]. Alexander Pope, then the science policy director for the National Academy of Science [which publishes PNAS], was there on 2/3. Nature & Science & The Lancet have their own close ties to the scientific ‘establishment’ and most of the articles published in these journals are written by scientists wholly funded by Dr. Fauci, the NIH, the Wellcome Trust and/or the Chinese Academy of Arts & Sciences. The results aren’t surprising from that perspective:
Of the category ‘zoonotic activists,’ 89% were written by scientists directly connected to Fauci’s 2/1 & 2/3 meetings, or a few select journalists writing on their behalf - and increasingly in direct coordination.
How does this work? Here’s a network analysis from a study on citation connections between COVID-19 articles. I highlighted the top 6 journals in yellow and other noteworthy/connected journals in blue. The journals most likely to address aspects of the origin question tend to be more generalized, as the top 6 mostly are. As a result, the origin topic was neatly curated with a minimal amount of effort, especially because the bat signal was sent out in early February that anyone interested in researching the lab-leak hypothesis could look forward to NO grant funding and NO publication in any journal of note.
That’s how you reach a 13% consensus.
Pile on misleading, decisive titles like this, and broad media censorship to include social media, and the rest is [manufactured] history:
Who was willing to go to such lengths? And why? Tomorrow’s part III will fully answer the former and partially address the latter.
Just know that this isn’t conjecture - these charts are the result of a year’s worth of research into censorship and narrative construction. This isn’t even the worst part - all I’ve provided here is evidence of the tools & methods employed.
Imagine if the defendant in a court case could pick & choose which evidence-of yours-went before the court at all. That is LITERALLY what’s been happening with the NIH’s intransigence regarding Congressional requests for records. The NIH would only show certain emails to members of Congress in an ‘in camera’ review [in person, basically], even though by their own admission none of their experiments are classified. The NIH, as part of H&HS, doesn’t have the authority or ability to lawfully reject requests for information from Congress, but Fauci has been given free reign anyway.
The NIH’s GOF research ties with EcoHealth Alliance & the Wuhan Institute of Virology were even kept hidden from the President of the United States [the subject of another article coming this week]. The narrative building and censorship aren’t just still taking place - they’re consolidating and accelerating.
It’s time for the real consensus to speak.
Please consider supporting Prometheus Shrugged via Subscription, or via Paypal @SARSCoVRix.
As this blog approaches its first anniversary, the accumulation of evidence I’ve endeavored to lay out and narrate has only strengthened what my initial intuition had been - that Prometheus brought a flame to mankind, dropped it, and then blamed us for the fire he started.
SARS-CoV-2 Origin Reference Research Project
13% + media amplifier to “manufacture” majority consent = SPAM. Partial truth + Logical Fallacies = New Normal Research Realities.