NIH and Dr. Daszak and lab created Covid
This is an excellent article that pretty much proves, in my mind, that the gain of function research carried out in Wuhan labs and funded by the American NIH, created Covid 19. Dr. Dazak has been the most shrill proponent of the “nature did it” hypothesis. What a complete a****le. This article is written by a former science writer for New York Times and Nature.
Origin of Covid–Following the Evidence–Nicholas Wade
“On 9 December 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Dr. Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.
“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new sars-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Dr. Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….
“Interviewer: You say these are diverse coronaviruses and you can’t vaccinate against them, and no anti-virals — so what do we do?
“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can get more predictive when you find a sequence. You’ve got this diversity. Now the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s insert some of these other things and get a better vaccine.” The insertions he referred to perhaps included an element called the furin cleavage site, discussed below, which greatly increases viral infectivity for human cells.
In disjointed style, Dr. Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.
One can only imagine Dr. Daszak’s reaction when he heard of the outbreak of the epidemic in Wuhan a few days later. He would have known better than anyone the Wuhan Institute’s goal of making bat coronaviruses infectious to humans, as well as the weaknesses in the institute’s defense against their own researchers becoming infected.
But instead of providing public health authorities with the plentiful information at his disposal, he immediately launched a public relations campaign to persuade the world that the epidemic couldn’t possibly have been caused by one of the institute’s souped-up viruses. “The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. It’s simply not true,” he declared in an April 2020 interview.”
If covid19 hasn’t made you sick already, reading about how it was likely created will.
It looks like this Newsweek story from April, 2020, has aged pretty well.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.
Once again, last year’s “conspiracy theory” – that many of us here at the site had sorted out last March – ends up being this year’s “shocking expose” that everyone in the mainstream is now reading for the very first time.
Welcome to the party.
I’m sure they aren’t lying to us about “No Treatments For You”, either. There really are no treatments. For You, I mean.
The really amusing thing is that Pope Fauci has managed to dodge the “blame bullet” in the eyes of The Faithful, even though he was the funding source for the GOF research! How long will his immunity last?
That’s the question.
Trust broken is trust lost. Liars deserve neither trust nor respect. One who’s trust is built on lies is easily controlled. In Him there is no guile.
edit to say: In reading this post I realized it may be construed incorrectly. Imo there is little doubt Covid was created in a lab. Trusting those who have perpetrated this crime against humanity is lunacy. That would include the WHO, CDC, NIH, media, and all those that would further the lies. Trust these people? Not a chance.
Nicholas Wade does a good job of refraining from establishing some key points here, as absolute certainties. He follows a proper evidentiary trail, qualifies that his conjectures are just that. This is what I am looking for, in terms of education on any topic. He doesn’t appeal to knee jerk emotionalism. That’s the mark of a journalist who is trying his best to remain objective while providing a rationale for further study.
Mainstream media withholds too much and is under oligarchic control. Social media, even though there is consolidation and censorship has become a platform for people to hurl abuse and invective against those who don’t think just. like. they. do. There is just as much confirmation bias there, imo.
Nicholas Wade does a good job of refraining from establishing some key points here, as absolute certainties. He follows a proper evidentiary trail, qualifies that his conjectures are just that…
So Chris (and I, and others here too) got the lab-leak story right, 14 months ago, through our usual process. But because we didn’t put it in a format that was acceptable to you (or perhaps the story wasn’t blessed by some authority you respect), you ended up seeing the truth some 14 months later than you would have otherwise.
If you don’t mind getting your world-changing news long after the event – if you don’t mind waiting to hear the truth until it is delivered in exactly the manner you find acceptable (“a proper evidentiary trail” – whatever that means), then I think you should continue along your current path. You’ll always be the last to know the real story. You’ll be one of those who will imagine the Vietnam War is winnable – or that there really are WMD in Iraq, etc, right up until the last possible moment. You will be tricked again, again, and again by the Oligarchy.
Me, I prefer to know the truth as soon as possible. I think my attitude has a survival benefit. Say, about hydroxychloroquine, which this site got right 13 months ago. Guaranteed, HCQ/AZI/zinc will be accepted years down the line. “Wow, HCQ really did work. Who knew?” Well, we did. As did anyone who chose to actually follow the evidence wherever it led.
Same thing with Ivermectin. You go on, and on, and on – completely evidence-free – about all the reasons it won’t work. I predict: someday, you’ll see a lovely article written by someone who makes you feel good in exactly the right way (they follow a “proper evidentiary trail” – whatever that means), from a source you trust, where they tell you “gosh, this Ivermectin thing really does work.” No trials, no data – just assertions, but ones that make you feel good in just the right sort of way. And then – like magic – you will finally be convinced. “Ivermectin really did work! Who knew?”
A person who can be “convinced by data” (vs a person who must wait for another to provide a “proper evidentiary trail” – whatever that means) receives a survival benefit in times like these. Substance over form. It is just as simple as that.
We know that:
* there were no WMD in Iraq
* Tonkin Gulf never happened
* there were no Babies in Incubators
* They knew all along that the Vietnam War was unwinnable
* Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself
* There really are Treatments for You
* and finally: that virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, funded by Fauci, and sent there via Daszak’s Eco Health Alliance.
The last three we here knew in real time, because: evidence, and common sense.
There is a survival benefit in being able to figure out Truth in real time, especially in times like these. The only question you have to ask is: do you want this survival benefit or not?
Haven’t read your entire post but did listen to Chris’s comments about the topic, 14 months ago and held them in high regard — and passed them on to others. As a matter of fact, one guy I mentioned this idea to deleted me from his list of contacts for a year. (Not that I mind)
This article fleshes the evidence out in a more thorough way than Chris did. Unlike you, Dave, I am always looking for supportive evidence, even if I have been persuaded, for the most part.
It just means my mind isn’t entirely shut and I am open to being wrong. As far as ivermectin goes, what is my point of view on that Dave? You seem to be more sure of what I am thinking than I am. Oh wait, if I tilt my head a certain way and tune my frequencies I can access YOU remotely, so I can get a fix on what I am thinking. LOL!
I have high hopes for ivermectin. I also had questions. Is that okay with you? If I come upon something outside of what you would view as the mainstream media, that looks like it contradicts the theory, I am going to pay attention and ask questions. It’s what I do.
Put me in the same category as some rube who still believes in the magic bullet theory of Kennedy’s death, Gulf of Tonkin…etc…and I can think of a choice one to stick you into as well. It might bear a superficial resemblance to who you are and where you are at, ideologically but it wouldn’t necessarily be true.
In summation. Have some respect. You treat people who deviate even a few degrees from your own approximation of truth like sh*t.
You missed my central point.
Figuring out truth is about sifting through evidence. Not narrative. Narrative is largely useless.
You seldom, if ever, bring evidence. Why is this? I have no idea. But that’s what I’ve observed. Evidence takes work – to find, to review, to understand the implications thereof.
I get the sense that our worlds are very different, and that’s the underlying problem here.
In engineering – my world – results matter most. Literally, results are the most important thing we have to do. We have to build stuff that works. No amount of “clever narrative” can cover for a computer that seizes up and issues Blue Screens of Death on a daily basis. That’s the world I come from. The phrase: “cranky engineers” is an oxymoron. Of course they are cranky. Making stuff work is hard. Its a messy process. That’s my world. Getting things right is – more or less – the only thing that matters. Computer doesn’t run on nice words, good narrative, sweet talk. It only runs when the code is correct.
My understanding is that sales runs almost entirely on narrative. Were you in sales, by any chance? That would explain everything.
You are into creating narratives by framing anyone who deviates from your specific narrative–and that is what it is—as someone who creates narratives. You then go on to describe what you think it is they believe in with point by point fabrications.
I could go further and say that if someone creates graphs using data that may or may not be trustworthy they are simply creating numerical dreamscapes and nothing more. You don’t seem to get that questioning the underlying data is not necessarily an attempt to negate it. It is drawing attention to what looks like contradictory information.
Your attempts to debate with somebody who is agreeing with you about lab origins of this virus indicates you derive some kind of emotional sustenance from drawing people into arguments or that you can’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.
It’s weird, Dave.
I’ll take that as a “yes, I worked in sales.”
Ok, not sales. Engineering?
This is not about the specifics of the Lab Leak. I’m trying to sort out why it was a conspiracy theory when we said it, but when the fancy writer said the same exact thing, you suddenly see the light. 14 months later.
This whole cycle comes up every time we talk about something where you “have questions.” It isn’t that you have specific questions that can actually be answered – it appears to me that no answer we can possibly provide will ever satisfy. At least, it has never happened to date.
Now I am starting to realize, based on your comments, this is because we are not an “approved” source, nor do we write in an “approved” style. You require an answer from “on high” before you will be convinced.
That’s sure how it looks anyway.
I worked in sales? Huh? I retired in my thirties and my late husband in his forties. He went on to write about govt propaganda, with my help. We were also very involved with the 911 Truth movement– which has devolved into a bit of a paranoid free-for-all nowadays.
So no, not in sales. Any more questions or are you satisfied you also know my previous occupation as well. I guess I have to take your evidence based word for it and I am sure you will find a way to plot it on a graph