Today In Faucigate

Or should it be Sciencegate--since that's what Fauci claims it's really all about?

Fauci is flailing. He's attempting scare tactics, invoking the Dread Variants--which turn out to be most threatening to ... those who got vaxxed. Go figure, except that knowledgeable people in the field--immunologists and virologists, not amateurs like Fauci--actually DID figure that out. And tried to tell us about it.

His other tactic is to double down on wearing the mantle of science--woops, Science. With a capital "S", so it'll seem as big as Fauci's ego. Here's the money quote, but you can indulge yourselves with more at Red State (Fauci Loses It Big Time, Rants Attacking Him Is 'Attacking Science'). Here's Fauci whining to the utterly fatuous Chuck Todd:

“It’s very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science….If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science. And anybody that looks at what’s going on, clearly sees that. You have to be asleep not to see that. That is what’s going on. Science and the truth are being attacked.”

Yes, that's losing it big time, and it's an embarrassment to any real scientist who are left out there. If it's down to this, I have to suspect he may be a short timer now.

Beyond this silliness, however, there were two items at ZeroHedge that are worth considering. Someone dug up a video of Peter Daszak from 2016 explaining how gain of function research works--and he's explicitly talking about how his "Chinese colleagues" do it. Here's the transcript--I've added the beginning and ending sentences to what appears at the link: Fauci Pal Daszak Admits "Chinese Colleagues" Developing "Killer" Coronaviruses. Note that what Daszak is describing is supposedly how GOF research is used to develop vaccines:

As an example. First of all, we're only looking at viral families that include those that have gone into people from animals. So we narrow it down straightaway.

Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. 

Then we ... well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to: this virus could really become pathogenic in people.

So you narrow down the field. You reduce the costs, and you end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers.

Then you look in people and you say: The people who live in the region where this animal lives, that are exposed to that virus, do we see antibodies specific ...

Here's the problem with that when you come to SARS Cov 2--Covid. What Daszak's Chinese "colleagues" actually did with virus "backbone" from the "viral family" of coronaviruses is, they inserted four amino acids in a row into the genomic sequence--a process something like forcing magnets to touch. That's what he means by referring to "pseudo-particles." In other words, they created a virus that would never have developed in nature on its own--but which, as other virologists have stated, was "exquisitely" suited to binding exceptionally strongly to human cells. 

In Daszak's words: They create a virus that "could really become pathogenic in people." Please note--this really pathogenic virus could only ever be a lab creation, not a natural development. That's why, when Nobel winning virologist David Baltimore saw the genomic sequence, he called it a "smoking gun." That also means that you will never find in nature antibodies specific to lab creations--only to the viral family.

Did Daszak know back in 2016 that that was what his Chinese "colleagues" were doing, creating viruses that really had no relevance at all to legit vaccine development? We don't know, but what we do know is that when this was pointed out in January, 2020, he and Fauci immediately launched into coverup mode--rather than calling out the reckless lab work in Wuhan.

The next ZeroHedge piece is a republication from Epoch Times by two redoubtable veterans of the Russian Hoax, Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke:

Emails Reveal How Influential Articles That Established COVID-19 Natural Origins Theory Were Formed

This is an important article because it pulls together much of what has been coming out over the past week regarding the machinations of Fauci and Daszak at the very beginning of the Covid Panic. Kristian Andersen also emerges as a key player in the coverup of the Wuhan lab origins of Covid--or perhaps it would be more accurate to describe what happened as the suppression of the entire question of the relation of Covid to the Wuhan labs.

The article is carefully and soberly written, providing a wealth of detail. The two authors don't offer much in the way of speculation, sticking to just the facts, so to speak. That being the case, I refer readers to the article for the details and will indulge in a bit of speculation on my own.

What we see from the article is that the entire coverup of Covid origins took shape from about January 31, 2020 to February 6, 2020. In actual fact, it's likely that the operative narrative was agreed upon over a longish weekend: Friday Jan 31 to Monday Feb 3. It was during this time period that someone got to Andersen. Whereas on Jan 31 Andersen was insisting to Fauci in an email that 

SARS-CoV-2 has “unusual features” that “potentially look engineered” and that

the genome of SARS-CoV-2 appears “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.

by Feb 4 Andersen was writing 

“I do wonder if we need to be more firm on the question of engineering. The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case. Engineering can mean many things and could be done for either basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done.”

Note the wording. "Engineered with intent." Andersen appears to be initially suggesting that the tack to take is to argue that Covid was not released intentionally, but in reality there were plenty of reputable scientists to say that there might have been and accidental release. In other words, set up a bit of a straw man. But Andersen understands that, too, and so he concludes by maintaining that "the data conclusively show" NO ENGINEERING WHATSOEVER, NO WAY, NO HOW. That is a complete 180 turn from what he was committing to writing to Fauci just days before.

Interestingly, another coverup participant, Trevor Bedford, sees the difficulties and is quoted with a more cautious suggested wording than Andersen's:

The NASEM response was also shaped by Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist who suggested: 

“1. I wouldn’t mention binding sites here. If you start weighing the evidence there’s a lot to consider for both scenarios. 

2. I would say ‘no evidence of genetic engineering’ full stop.”

"Data conclusively show" means you looked at both sides and came to a conclusion that you're willing to defend come what may. "No evidence" means, well, I didn't see any but, who knows?

The article leaves no doubt at all regarding the rather creepy Daszaks manipulations and pressure tactics. Daszak is shown enlisting support for the anti-science no-engineering narrative from people who, basically, owe him--and who then turn around and say, Hey, I've got no conflicts.

What interests me, however is Kristian Andersen's role. Obviously, the fact that he deleted his entire twitter account suggests that he's had some conversations with a lawyer and is taking steps to try to limit his legal liability. However, the big question to me is, How did Andersen get involved in this coverup to begin with? Consider: If Andersen was ready to stand up to Fauci on Jan 31, that strongly suggests that he doesn't think he has anything to hide. So, then, why did he change his tune so quickly?

We know that Fauci and Daszak had plenty to hide. However, I don't see why anyone would go out on a limb for them, with so much at stake--a pandemic that could potentially kill millions. I would argue that Fauci and Daszak must have had the backing of influential players--people in the Intel Community (including DoD) and politicians. To get Andersen to change his story, to lie for them and to attack and impugn people whom Andersen knew to be honorable scientists, Fauci and Daszak must have had some stronger argument than, 'Hey, fall on your sword for us, we're your friends.'

Next question: What's the state of the coverup in DC? What, in particular, is DoJ and the FBI doing? I have no reason to be optimistic in that regard. The only hope I have there is the possibility that Merrick Garland will be alarmed at all the information that's coming out and will feel he needs to do something to save himself.

If I'm somebody like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Mitch McConnell, my move would probably be to try to get Fauci, Daszak, and Andersen in front of a Senate committee and ask them questions that would force them to take the 5th. I think that at this point--especially after all the yacking Fauci has done--that's a very real possibility. Or they might induce them to refuse to testify at all. It's political theater and that's fine--it could prove to be quite effective.

Public opinion is now against the coverup. I don't see that changing. That's the state of play for now.