Unredacted NIH E-mails Show Efforts to Rule Out a Lab Origin of Covid

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Kokomojojo, Jan 19, 2023.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,726
    Likes Received:
    1,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DIRECT FROM FOIA: THIS IS FOIA OBTAINED UNREDACTED EMAILS, NOT A CONSPIRACY 'THEORY'!

    guess who?


    In early 2020, top scientists told Anthony Fauci they were concerned that SARS-CoV-2 appeared potentially “engineered.” Here’s a look at what happened next.

    snippets:
    After roughly a week of debate and data collection, one of the key figures involved in the deliberations characterized the focus of the group’s work as follows: “to disprove any type of lab theory.” Several of the scientists on the calls and e-mails then went on to write and publish “Proximal Origin.” It became one of the best-read papers in the history of science.

    The records presented here were made public by the NIH in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by this reporter. Their release in late November came as Fauci prepared to leave the agency after decades of service, and as Republicans in Congress, in anticipation of their imminent control of the House, geared up to launch oversight investigations into the origin of Covid-19.

    What were Andersen’s concerns? And why were they so dire they might merit a call to the FBI?

    Andersen laid them out plainly in an e-mail to Fauci that same evening. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in the e-mail. “I should mention,” he added, “that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”

    Farrar wrote, was particularly puzzled by the presence in the virus’s genome of a furin cleavage site, which is a feature that has not been found in other SARS-related coronaviruses. The furin cleavage site plays an important role in helping the virus infect human airway cells.

    “Hopefully we can get [the World Health Organization] to convene,” he added. Fauci, Farrar, and Collins had decided to alert top WHO brass to the concerns about the origin of the virus and ask the organization to convene a group to explore the matter. The WHO apparently declined to do so at the time.

    “Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn’t conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.”

    The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” was published on March 17

    The final version explicitly favored a natural origin: “Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, [<< that is what they officially published]

    Dr. David Relman, a professor of microbiology, immunology and medicine at Stanford University, also has critical words for the paper, arguing that it rests on “flawed assumptions and opinion” and doesn’t fairly contend with the possibility of a lab-associated origin, which he believes is as plausible as a natural origin.

    Several academic scientists who were asked to comment for this article expressed their gratitude that these documents are now public but declined to speak on the record given the rancor surrounding this subject.


    The FOIAs were served by the Nation and the Intercept!
    Good work!

    These are snippets. I highly recommend reading the whole artcile.

    Through FOIA, this is a great example imnsho of a genuine conspiracy (not theory) to defraud the public by coming to a predetermined conclusion and creating the facts afterward and publishing a false (unscientific) report.

    This also proves the opinions experts publish and peer review in all fields should be subject to extreme skepticism!

    We now know the lot them are in collusion since they received money from the NIH.

    Another nail in the coffin of the rights of the people to trust their government experts and officials!

    The problem as I see it, is that it did not end with "efforts" it ended by actually putting false information into the public domain that spawned a worldwide vax program that we now know did not work!

    sad.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2023
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,726
    Likes Received:
    1,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,801
    Likes Received:
    11,808
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those triggered by truth and facts will avoid posting about this.
     

Share This Page