Covid Origin Story Cover-up REVEALED - Part 1

In this blog post, we delve into the findings of the Congressional Oversight Committee findings on the controversial scientific paper, "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" authored by Dr. Andrew Rambaut and his co-authors, and published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. The paper concluded that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID-19) was not a lab construct or purposefully manipulated virus and dismissed any plausible laboratory-based scenario. The influence and impact of this paper have been significant, with millions of accesses and high-ranking attention across various journals and papers.

However, the findings and conclusions of "Proximal Origin" are now being challenged. The report you're about to read is the culmination of an extensive investigation by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, which includes over 8,000 pages of documents and nearly 25 hours of testimony. The goal of the investigation was to determine if any undue influence was exerted over the conclusions of the "Proximal Origin" paper by government officials, specifically Dr. Anthony Fauci or Dr. Francis Collins, to downplay the possibility that COVID-19 could be the result of a laboratory or research-related incident.

READ THE ENTIRE 55-page document here… or we summarize it below.

The report brings into focus the beginnings of "Proximal Origin" paper, tracing its roots back to January 31, 2020, one day before a conference call involving Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and nearly a dozen international scientists. It raises questions about what Dr. Fauci knew at the time, including the funding relationship between the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (EcoHealth), and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

In the following sections, we will dive deep into the contents of this investigative report, evaluating the arguments made against the conclusions of the "Proximal Origin" paper, and uncovering potential inconsistencies and assumptions made in the original research. Join us as we journey through what the report calls "the anatomy of a cover-up."

As the report notes:

This is the anatomy of a cover-up.

January 2020

In the early days of January 2020, whispers were already circling among the scientific community. Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, was one of the first to be involved in discussions about the emerging COVID-19 virus. The nature of these initial discussions remains shrouded in mystery, but it's known that they included Chinese officials and Dr. Francis Collins. However, what information was gathered during these talks, and who it was shared with, is still unknown

.

Toward the end of January, Farrar picked up on murmurs suggesting the virus looked almost engineered to infect human cells. The puzzle pieces started falling into place in his mind. Here was a brand-new virus, seemingly springing from nowhere, yet it had surfaced in Wuhan, a city home to a BSL-4 virology lab with an unrivaled collection of bat viruses. His thoughts immediately turned to "gain-of-function" (GOF) studies – a type of research that Farrar, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, believes to be ultimately useful.

Farrar's concerns weren't limited to the scientific domain. He was also worried about the geopolitical landscape, particularly US-Sino relations. This was unusual for a British scientist, but it set a tone for the prevailing narrative. As Farrar saw it, people were bound to look for a scapegoat for the unfolding global health disaster, and the US was already blaming China. This sense of international tension underpinned the scientists' hesitance to point the finger at China or suggest that COVID-19 might have resulted from Chinese negligence.

Farrar in testimony:

US-China politics were in a bad place in January 2020…It was obvious that people would soon begin hunting for a scapegoat for what was rapidly turning into a global health disaster. Trump was seeking to blame the virus on China and was calling it the ‘China virus’ and ‘kung flu.’ The security services in the US were on high alert for any hint that would prop up the accusations.

Meanwhile, Dr. Kristian Andersen shared his own concerns about the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a lab leak and that the virus might have been genetically modified or engineered. He was particularly worried about the furin cleavage site, a feature of the virus. Andersen found a paper written by Dr. Ralph Baric and Dr. Zhengli Shi that described how to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS. This paper, in Farrar's words, was a "how-to-manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory." The realization was a chilling one, prompting responses of "this is bad" and "oh my god" from Dr. Eddie Holmes, who Andersen had reached out to.

Finally, on January 30, 2020, Holmes relayed Andersen’s concerns to Farrar via a burner phone. From there, the conversations about the nature of COVID-19 went into overdrive. But the question remained: Where had this virus really come from?

January 31, 2020

As the clock struck midnight on January 31, 2020, the scientific community was quietly stirring. Dr. Kristian Andersen had just hung up the phone with Dr. Jeremy Farrar after discussing his concerns about the emerging COVID-19 virus. They'd decided to organize a conference call, a space for Andersen to lay out his concerns and for them to discuss their next steps.

Farrar, acting as the conductor of this scientific symphony, reached out to Dr. Anthony Fauci. Andersen recalls Farrar and Fauci discussing the concerns he and Dr. Eddie Holmes had raised. Following their call, Farrar prompted Fauci to get in touch with Andersen, name-dropping Holmes and Dr. Bob Garry. Fauci's assistant swiftly responded, "Will call shortly..."

Andersen found himself on the phone with Fauci for what he recalls as the first time, outside of potential interactions at conferences. It was during this call, on January 31, that Fauci suggested the possibility of a peer-reviewed paper about a potential lab leak. Andersen remembered Fauci saying, "If you think this came from a lab, you should write this up as a peer-reviewed paper, so it can be judged by the peer community."

As the world continued to spin oblivious, the scientific realm was quietly buzzing. Andersen was deeply worried about two distinct aspects of the virus: the receptor binding domain (RBD) and the furin cleavage site. He found a paper written by Dr. Ralph Baric and Dr. Zhengli Shi that described how to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS, sparking alarm.

Just as Andersen began to digest this, Fauci's Chief of Staff, Greg Folkers, forwarded an article titled "Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins." The article directly mentioned the same paper that had caused Andersen's alarm bells to ring and linked EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci forwarded the article to Farrar and Andersen, adding fuel to the fiery discussion.

Fauci prompted the entire thought of the paper:

He specifically suggested considering writing a peer-reviewed publication on it, and specifically I remember hearing him saying that if you think this came from a lab, you should write this up as a peer-reviewed paper,

The next day, February 1, 2020, a group of scientists, including Fauci, gathered via conference call. It was time for Andersen to lay his cards on the table and for them to decide their next move. The world was oblivious, but the scientific symphony was reaching its crescendo.

February 1, 2020

The first day of February 2020 was marked by an unprecedented conference call. Orchestrated by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the call saw a star-studded roster of scientists, including Dr. Kristian Andersen, Dr. Bob Garry, Dr. Christian Drosten, Dr. Tony Fauci, and others, brought together to discuss Andersen's concerns about the origins of COVID-19.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment gathering. Andersen and others were aware of the call prior to February 1st, having discussed the need for such a meeting. Notably, in addition to the official roster, the call was also attended by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Dr. Lawrence Tabak, the acting Director of NIH. It seemed that Fauci had personally invited Collins to the call.

During the conference, Andersen presented his findings about the unusual features in the viral genome of COVID-19, including the receptor binding domain, the furin cleavage site, and the research ongoing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He laid out the reasons for considering a potential lab leak as a scientific hypothesis.

While the scientific luminaries took the floor, Fauci and Collins remained largely silent, offering only points of clarification. However, it emerged later that Fauci had not only suggested a peer-reviewed paper about a potential lab leak but had also encouraged the scientific process, leading to peer-reviewed publications. These suggestions from Fauci "prompted" Andersen to start drafting the Proximal Origin paper.

As the conference call ended, it was clear that the echoes of this gathering would ripple through the scientific community. It was also apparent that Fauci and the NIH had exerted more influence over the conference call than initially disclosed. It marked the beginning of a concerted effort to investigate the origins of COVID-19, an effort that would lead to the drafting of the Proximal Origin paper.

Through its investigation, the Select Subcommittee has learned that Dr. Fauci and the NIH exerted more influence over the conference call than previously disclosed. Further, by the end of the February 1 conference call, Dr. Fauci had suggested the drafting of a paper regarding the potential of a lab leak to Dr. Andersen twice. This suggestion was what “prompted” Dr. Andersen to draft Proximal Origin.

Proximal Origin Origins

The drafting and editing of the report, "Proximal Origin," began only hours after the conference call on February 1, 2020. The paper was not meant to investigate the origin of COVID-19, but rather to disprove the theory that the virus originated from a laboratory. Dr. Kristian Andersen, one of the authors, clearly stated this aim on two occasions. As the report was being written, it seemed the intent was not only to debunk the lab leak theory but also to craft a "go-to scientific statement" for reference.

The motives behind this focus were twofold. The first was the desire to defend China and maintain diplomatic relations. Several participants in the conference call, including Dr. Farrar, Dr. Rambaut, Dr. Andersen, Dr. Fouchier, and Dr. Collins, expressed this sentiment. For instance, Dr. Rambaut suggested that accusing China of an accidental virus release would lead to a "shit show," and thus he felt content ascribing the virus to natural processes. Dr. Andersen agreed with him, lamenting the injection of politics into science.

The second motive was to avoid stricter biosafety and laboratory regulations. Dr. Fouchier, in an email, argued that the manuscript would be stronger if it focused on the likelihood of the first two scenarios (natural origins) instead of intentional or accidental release from a lab. This, he believed, would "limit the chance of new biosafety discussion that would unnecessarily obstruct future attempts of virus culturing for research and diagnostic purposes."

Thus, the drafting of "Proximal Origin" was propelled not only by scientific inquiry but also by political and regulatory considerations. While the paper aimed to shed light on the origins of COVID-19, it was also crafted with the explicit intent of discrediting the lab leak theory and avoiding potential diplomatic and regulatory repercussions.

Enter the Bethesda Boys

During the drafting process of the "Proximal Origin" report, the authors were acutely aware of the influence of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Farrar. The draft report didn't leave the authorship group until around February 4 or 5, and it was then circulated among these influential figures. Both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins expressed concerns about the inclusion of serial passage in a lab as a plausible origin scenario.

Throughout the process, the authors were keen to accommodate the feedback of Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins, referring to them colloquially as the "Bethesda Boys". Dr. Farrar played a crucial role in this process, liaising between the authors and the "Bethesda Boys". He even forwarded the draft to the same participants of the original February 1 conference call, creating a clear link between the call and the conception of the "Proximal Origin" report.

Concerns were raised about the possibility of the virus having been serially passed through animals in a lab, suggesting fears about a potential lab leak. The authors were cognizant of these concerns and tried to address them in the report.

Interestingly, Dr. Farrar appeared to have led the drafting process and made at least one direct edit to "Proximal Origin". However, he is not credited with any involvement in the drafting and publication of the report. Evidence shows that he was more involved than previously known, and he potentially should have been acknowledged for his role in shaping the "Proximal Origin" report.

Dr. Lipkin

Dr. Ian Lipkin was the only author of the "Proximal Origin" report who was not part of the original February 1 conference call, and he was not even aware of the call when it took place. He was not sent a draft of the report until February 10, nine days after the first draft was completed.

Despite his late inclusion, Dr. Lipkin made significant contributions to the report, including expressing concerns about the furin cleavage site and suggesting that high-ranking individuals, including those in intelligence, were also worried about this feature. At one point, Dr. Holmes mentioned that Dr. Lipkin might believe the virus came from a lab.

While Dr. Lipkin believed he was added to the authorship of "Proximal Origin" due to his expertise, the other authors apparently had a different perspective. According to Dr. Holmes, Dr. Lipkin was added for "safety in numbers" and because he brought a lot of "gravitas." His involvement in gain-of-function (GOF) research was also seen as adding weight to the report. This perspective was generally shared by the other authors, Dr. Garry and Dr. Andersen, who agreed that Dr. Lipkin's addition to the authorship helped increase the weight of the paper and its credibility in the field of emerging infectious diseases.

A Flawed Scientific Analysis

The report asserts that the conclusions of the "Proximal Origin" are based on three main arguments: (1) the presence of a non-optimal receptor-binding domain (RBD) that appears in other viral sequences—particularly pangolins, (2) the presence of furin cleavage sites in other coronaviruses, and (3) the concept that any laboratory manipulation would have used an already published viral backbone. The report challenges each of these arguments, claiming they are flawed and based on unsupported assumptions.

1. The Receptor Binding Domain (RBD): The report questions the argument that the high-affinity binding of SARS-CoV-2 to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection. It states that the argument is based on assumptions rather than facts and implies the possibility of a lab leak.

2. The Furin Cleavage Site: The report disputes the argument that the discovery of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs provides a strong explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation. It also questions the argument that the acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans argues against culture-based scenarios. The report points out that this argument is based on the assumption that all research is published, which is not always the case.

In conclusion, the report suggests that the arguments put forth in the "Proximal Origin" study do not conclusively rule out the possibility of a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2.

Through the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, we discovered that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins were intimately involved in the day-to-day creation of Proximal Origin that the authors were so comfortable with their involvement they coined the term “Bethesda Boys” to describe the nation’s leading health officials, dubbed Dr. Farrar Proximal Origin’s “father figure,” added Dr. Lipkin as an author mid-draft to give “gravitas” to the paper, and each of the primary scientific points in Proximal Origin are fatally flawed.

Tomorrow - I’ll publish details on the actual publication of the Proximal Origin story.