2023-05-22 14:30:00
VIRUS – In the United States, a new revelation on the origins of Covid overwhelms Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH), a research center of the American Department of Health. According to a declassified Pentagon document, the article “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”, led by Professor Kristian Andersen and his team, “is not based on scientific analysis, but on unjustified assumptions”. Yet the chief health adviser to Presidents Trump and Biden leaned wholeheartedly on it, in order to support the idea of an origin”natural” of the virus responsible for Covid and to rule out that of a laboratory leak. The US Department of Defense appears to have been aware of Dr. Fauci’s move to impose his narrative and subsequent pandemic policy.
In March 2023, a Republican congressional committee went behind the scenes of the writing of the article “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2″. According to her, the data used by its authors to affirm that the origin of the virus was “natural” are not “not convincing” and lead to conclusions”distorted”.
Republican Brad Wenstrup, representing Ohio, revealed in his investigative work “On the origins of Covid-19 and government funding of gain-of-function research” (gain of function is an artificial attempt to artificially modify the characteristics of a virus, in order to increase its transmissibility, editor’s note) that an email from the director of the NIH would have “pushed” writing this article so as to “disprove the theory” of a laboratory leak of the virus.
“Unwarranted assumptions”
Now, a working document from the Pentagon, dated May 26, 2020, confirms the Republican representative and the conclusions of his investigation as a parliamentarian.
Entitled “Analyse critique de ‘The Proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2′” and unveiled to the public on May 15, 2023 by the DRASTIC research group (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19), it was written by Defense Department scientists: Jean-Paul Chrétien, a Navy doctor working at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Robert Cutlip, a researcher at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), one of the intelligence agencies of the United States linked to Defense.
The two authors of this analysis did not go through four paths to affirm that “the arguments that Andersen and other authors [de l’étude] use to support a naturally occurring scenario for SARS-CoV-2 are based not on scientific analysis but on unwarranted assumptions.”
Jean-Paul Chrétien and Robert Cutlip contradict the idea that the characteristics of Covid-19 could have been caused only by natural evolution, as asserted by Andersen’s article published in Nature Medicine, and strongly criticize the methodology used to reach this conclusion.
According to them, the elements to be considered can be “consistent with another scenario”, according to which “SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a lab using methods commonly used by leading coronavirus researchers to study how they infect cells and cause disease.”
The authors of the article “Proximal Origins” focused on the presence of key amino acids, “not found” in the various SARS-CoVs, i.e. all the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronaviruses that infect humans, bats and other mammals. “These amino acids did not appear after manipulation in a laboratory, but naturally”claimed Andersen and his colleagues.
Their argument to support this claim is that a human attempt to evolve a coronavirus that can infect a human via l’ACE2 (a key protein for SARS-CoV-2 to be able to “fix” itself in the body), would not have had the same effectiveness: it could not have resulted in SARS-Cov-2 with its observed specificities.
To reach this conclusion, which was later presented in a peremptory manner by most Western governments and the mainstream media, Professor Andersen’s team resorted to computer modelling. It is the latter which predicted a lesser capacity of ACE2 to be one of the key vectors for the transmission of Covid in the event of an “artificial” intervention on the virus, thus condemning such a line of research.
For Jean-Paul Chrétien and Robert Cutlip, this approach does not constitute “not a scientific argument”, but rather “a hypothesis” which comes from “an intention” and “a scientist’s hypothetical methodology”a source of potential bias.
The two Pentagon researchers explain “that instead of exclusively aiming to engineer a virus that binds with high affinity to ACE2″, i.e. a “perfect” strain that can affect the human, a researcher”may have chosen to study, empirically, the effect of one or more variants (…) on receptor binding (ACE2)” and thus to ascertain the actual capacity for infectivity. In summary, Andersen’s study would initially have addressed, by axiom, only a very small part of the problem.
Anthony Fauci “pushed” to write this article
More than 3,200 pages of emails implicating the director of the NIH since January 31, 2020 were revealed in June 2021 by several American media, including the Washington Post et Buzzfeed News.
The exchanges raise several issues related to the pandemic, such as wearing a mask, the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine or above all, the origin of Sars-CoV-2. The emails, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)revealed the interest of scientists and Anthony Fauci in the hypothesis of a leak of Sars-CoV-2 from a laboratory since the very beginning of the health crisis.
Fauci was repeatedly auditioned in the Senate about official anti-Covid policy after these revelations, including on the origins of the virus. One of the hearings, in January 2022, was also marked by a heated exchange between the US government adviser and Republican Senator Rand Paul. The latter accused the chief adviser of wanting “obfuscate the truth” about the origins of the coronavirus and the funding, by another government agency, through the NGO EcoHealth Alliance, of the work of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Despite claims by the NIH director that his institution did not fund “gain of function” research in Wuhan, Republican officials have come back with new evidence. These are nine other emails, which also implicate tropical medicine researcher Jeremy Farrar and geneticist Francis Collins. These emails show that scientists seriously raised, in a videoconference on February 1, 2020, the possibility that the virus was genetically manipulated in a laboratory.
However, several of these scientists co-authored the article in March 2020 “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2″. The parliamentary committee led by Representative Brad Wenstrup, which was precisely based on new emails, affirmed in its report in March that, three days after the videoconference of February 1, 2020, “four of its participants wrote the article and sent a draft to Fauci and Collins”.
More than two months later, the latter sent an email to Doctor Fauci to ask him if the NIH was able “to dismiss” the hypothesis of a laboratory leak.
Paradox about the advent of the “official” narrative
The commission continues that “Professor Kristian Andersen did not find the pangolin data convincing (…) Privately he did not believe that the pangolin data disproved a laboratory leak theory, although he said otherwise publicly“.
A paradoxical attitude which, according to the Republicans, can only be explained by a “intervention”that of Fauci, who would have “pushed” to write an article “refuting” the theory of leaks in the laboratory while he claimed, during his interventions, not to have been concerned by the realization of this “study”.
In short, according to these elements, the article “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2″ gave Anthony Fauci, who was also responsible for communicating on the virus, the authority to impose the story of a natural origin of the coronavirus.
Fauci legitimized his position by citing this text to contradict President Donald Trump, who expressed, as early as April 2020, the possibility of a link between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
The laboratory leak theory as the origin of Covid-19 is increasingly consensual in the United States. At the end of February 2023, the United States Department of Energy had announced that it now considered this hypothesis as “most likely”.
Two days later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) followed suit with the US Department of Energy. “The FBI has believed for some time now that the origin of the pandemic is most likely linked to a laboratory incident in Wuhan”said its director Christopher Wray on February 28, referring to Fox News “a potential leak from a laboratory controlled by the Chinese government”.
Last April, it was the United States Senate which affirmed, in the conclusions of a report released after 18 months of investigation, that SARS-CoV-2 “unintentionally” leaked from a Chinese laboratory, following a “bio-containment failure”. The available evidence clearly argues, at this time, for a lab leak. In contrast, none of the available evidence supports the natural origin theory.
#major #scientific #article #natural #origin #Covid #criticized #Pentagon #Anthony #Fauci #crosshairs