“…The scientific paper “Proximal Origin of SARS-Cov-2,” which was commissioned by Anthony Fauci in order to debunk the lab leak theory of COVID’s origins, has been essentially debunked.
By that, I don’t mean its conclusions have been proven wrong–although by now we all have adequate reasons to believe that they are likely wrong–but rather that the paper itself is a bunch of propaganda written at the behest of the government by pliable scientists who depended upon Fauci for funding, and who clearly did not believe that what they were writing was true. They were engaged in self-conscious fraud.
We now have contemporaneous Slack messages and emails where the authors not only express doubts that what they were writing was true, but that prove they thought that the claim they were making–that COVID arose naturally without human interference and that it spread from an animal to a human being via natural processes–was likely not true.
For instance, the highest profile author of the paper Kristian Andersen wrote this to a colleague during the editing of the paper:
Andersen wrote that “the main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely—it’s not some fringe theory. I absolutely agree that we can’t prove one way or the other, but we never will be able to—however, that doesn’t mean that by default the data is currently much more suggestive of a natural origin as opposed to e.g. passage. It is not—the furin cleavage site is very hard to explain”—referring to a feature of the virus that concerned the scientists at the time.
Here are some of the things the scientists were saying to each other as they wrote a paper that purported to prove a lab leak was unlikely and gain-of-function had nothing to do with COVID’s origins.
It certainly looks like Fauci funded scientists adjusted their thinking at Fauci’s request to provide the basis for a preferred narrative. A narrative that protected Fauci and his cohorts from potential personal and professional liability. I suppose if Fauci was funding my research to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars in grants, I may be inclined to give his preferred narrative serious consideration. It was the censorship, the moral suasion (if you disagree with us you are morally below us), the coordination with garbage media, social media, etc. to censure that makes it so bad. Bad and really disgusting.
