EcoHealth Alliance's CEO Peter Daszac has joined with the Lancet to investigate the origin of SARS-CoV-2, as the major part of a Lancet Covid Commission. But maybe the real reason for their investigation is to provide an acceptable origin narrative.
As reported by GM Watch,
"Daszak has promised to undertake the investigation “with an open mind”. But this is hard to imagine, given his previous dismissals of suggestions that SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from a lab as “preposterous,” “baseless,” “crackpot,”“conspiracy theories,” and “pure baloney."
Maybe it's not so surprising that the Lancet would provide its imprimatur to a sham investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 being conducted by the CEO of EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance, despite its crunchy green name, has been funded by the US defense department, and other federal agencies, to establish relationships with biodefense investigators throughout the word, and obtain the microorganisms they collect for use by other biodefense investigators.
If you are wondering what the difference is between biodefense and biowarfare research, well, there isn't any--at least, not since the moniker "gain of function" began being applied to biological defense research, so we could avoid using the terms biowarfare or offensive research, and thereby confuse the uninitiated public.
To be clear, "biodefense" researchers who perform "gain of function" research (which means gain of pathogenicity, such as giving a virus the ability to infect humans when it could only spread previously in bats, or gaining the ability to spread via air, or thwarting part of the immune system of humans, or producing a deadly toxin) are in truth biological warfare scientists.
EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) calls itself a public health organization with goals to enhance nature and biodiversity. It throws fancy benefits and looks like plenty of other 501c3 nonprofits, on paper. But EHA mixes a little conservation with a lot of surveillance and collection of dangerous pathogens. EcoHealth's funding and projects make clear the organization is a Pentagon "cut-out," an intermediary whose role is to transfer and superficially disguise funding from US government agencies to biodefense and biowarfare projects in 31 countries, saving both the USG and the international projects from taxpayer scrutiny. The Wuhan Institute of Virology's coronavirus research program under Dr. Zheng-li Shi received funds from, and had a longstanding relationship with, Peter Daszac and EHA.
The Lancet is (neck and neck with the NEJM) the most-read medical journal in the world. Its brand is very valuable. And yet, its owners and editors have not protected the brand as one would expect.
Two examples: The Lancet owner, Reed Elsevier, one of the world's major medical publishers, hosted an international arms fair in 2005:
Lancet criticises its owner for hosting international arms fair
Workers lift a dummy missile into place at this week's DSEi arms fair, which the Lancet said damaged Reed Elsevier's reputation
Second example: The Lancet published a vastly influential paper on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine use in Covid-19 patients on May 22, which reported much higher death rates in patients treated with either drug than in other hospitalized Covid patients. The paper led to the immediate suspension of many clinical trials and led to restrictions on the use of the drug in patients, in multiple countries. Reuters reported on the WHO urging the Indonesian Ministry of Health and a professional group of pulmonologists to stop the issuing of prescriptions of these drugs for Covid patients. Covid death rates rose in tandem, according to analyses published by France Soir. Yet many scientists immediately saw many problems with this paper, including myself. The paper was retracted 13 days after publication, after the author who controlled the dataset refused to permit an audit. The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, later told the NY Times the paper was a fabrication. But the Lancet has admitted no responsibility for publishing the paper.
How is it possible that such an experienced, respected medical journal could have missed so many red flags in this paper? The most logical conclusion is that either the Lancet or Reed Elsevier were paid to publish it. No evidence has emerged to back up this hypothesis so far.
The self-styled Lancet COVID-19 Commission sounds like a spinoff of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset, with a surprising focus beyond problems associated with Covid-19, to include restructuring public and private finances and taking on climate change:
Executive summary
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission was launched on July 9, 2020, to assist governments, civil society, and UN institutions in responding effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission aims to offer practical solutions to the four main global challenges posed by the pandemic: suppressing the pandemic by means of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; overcoming humanitarian emergencies, including poverty, hunger, and mental distress, caused by the pandemic; restructuring public and private finances in the wake of the pandemic; and rebuilding the world economy in an inclusive, resilient, and sustainable way that is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Many creative solutions are already being implemented, and a key aim of the Commission is to accelerate their adoption worldwide.
Daszac's agenda is obvious: to clear EcoHealth Alliance and its partner the Wuhan Institute of Virology of any responsibility for the Covid-19 pandemic, and maintain his organization's good name and funding. See this from the Telegraph:
The Lancet Commission notes in its mission statement that “the evidence to date supports the view that Sars-Cov-2 is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release”.
But it adds that investigators should examine the ‘possibility of laboratory involvement” in “a scientific and objective way that is unhindered by geopolitical agendas and misinformation”.
It is hoped a full investigation will, if nothing else, rule out “baseless and uninformed allegations and conspiracy theories that are unbacked by evidence”.
In fact, Daszac has managed to pivot the pandemic narrative in an extraordinary way. He has made the rounds of major media, telling them that this and other pandemics are the result of human incursions into nature, which, although it sounds logical, is unsupported by evidence. According to Daszac, human interactions with nature need to be managed better, and can be, with more funding and the help of his organization. Please, ignore the labs.
GM Watch has more on the EHA funding:
Commenting on an attempt to compile a fuller picture of the funding EcoHealth Alliance has received from US government agencies, Ebright noted that it totalled $99.8 million “for federal contract awards, contract subawards, grant awards, and grant subawards to EcoHealth”. Most of this money, he said, came from US defence, homeland security and intelligence agencies.
In fact, according to their most recently available financial report, over 90% of EcoHealth Alliance’s funding ultimately derives in this way from US taxpayers. Incidentally, Daszak’s salary and other compensation amounted in that same year to just over $400,000.
So, I don't give credence to any putative investigation run by either the Lancet or Peter Daszac and his EcoHealth Alliance spooky biowarfare NGO. Please do pay attention as this story develops, because Daszac is a master of narrative control, and it appears his storyline has melded with The Great Reset. The new narrative, which has been echoed by Tony Fauci and other influentials, is that the only way to prevent future pandemics is to restrict human activity in nature. I will write more on this subject in future.
UPDATE Nov. 18: A February 2020 letter to the Lancet by 27 prominent scientists insisted that those considering anything but a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 were conspiracy theorists who were jeopardizing public health. US Right to Know has just discovered that the letter was written and organized by Peter Daszac.
UPDATE Nov. 21: Peter Daszac coauthored an article in PLOS Pathogens in September that said, "The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the substantial public health, economic, and societal consequences of virus spillover from a wildlife reservoir." And he is going to investigate the pandemic's origin, yeah right.
The paper also claimed to be concerned about humans passing on SARS-CoV-2 to bats, in regions like North America where such infections are absent. The authors suggest "strategically managing interactions between people and potentially susceptible or at risk species can decrease the probability of cross-species virus spillover." No thanks, Peter, I don't want you strategically managing my potential interactions with anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment