The Proximal Origins hearing today.
I missed the first hour as I was interviewed about the subject by Michael Kane for CHD-TV. I believe I gave an explosive interview. It can be found here:
Below are five of my early articles on this subject. I just screenshot the beginning of each one, to show I was in fact the #2 person (after Dan Sirotkin) to publicly criticize the COVID Proximal Origins paper as bunk. (I was not aware of Dan’s work at the time) and I think JJ Couey told me about Dan.
You can watch today’s hearing at CHD-TV or the House of Representatives site:
https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/investigating-the-proximal-origin-of-a-cover-up/
Some comments on the hearing: How did the 5 authors manage to change their minds from lab origin to natural origin in 4-5 days? They had a draft of the Origins paper ready 3 days after their meeting with Fauci, Farrar and Collins.
Garry and Andersen claimed their Feb.4 piece was not the original draft. But their Feb 5 version contained verbatim material that was in the final version, putting their assertion into question.
Farrar was named as the person who shepherded the Proximal Origins paper. He was the ‘father’ of the paper according to Andersen. Yet Andersen then tries to say he had almost nothing to do with it. But he suggests that Eddie Holmes asked Farrar if he wanted his name on the paper. Farrar apparently knew better than to put his fingerprints on this false narrative so his name is not mentioned in the published paper. We know from emails that Farrar made at least one edit to the paper, and his edit was designed to make the narrative stronger.
Final statements:
Dr. Ruiz (ranking member) —we need to “prevent and prepare” for the next pandemic. He then claims that most agencies (4) deny the lab leak theory, though with low confidence, while two federal agencies suggest with low to moderate confidence that COVID came from a lab. He then claims there is no smoking gun lab leak. Then he says it could be either, but we need to DO SOMETHING about it. We must better “prevent and prepare” (2nd time he used that phrase). And this hearing will only cost more American lives. yada yada.
Podiatric doctor Brad Wenstrup’s (Select Subcommittee chairman) rejoinder: this is an after action review to provide a path forward and learn the lessons of COVID. We have to do better going forward. We are exploring a possible coverup and we have the responsibility of oversight. It’s our job and I take it seriously. We have discovered that Dr. Morens (Fauci’s deputy) told people to send email to his gmail account and he “will delete what he does not want the NYT to see.” Wenstrup is against politically motivated science, and emphasizes that Andersen said he hates to politicize science, but he ‘had to go down that route.’ I want to know why Fauci said it came from nature. Dr. Garry’s quote about pangolins makes sense, but there were no pangolins at the wet market! Yet the WIV had pangolin samples! Fauci was asked in 2014 about GOF function and its risk, and Fauci said the benefits out weighed the risks. Well, Dr. Wenstrup certainly doesn’t see how the benefits outweighed the risks. He wants a scientific debate. And when Dr. Collins suggests to Dr. Fauci to squash one view in the debate, why did he do that? And we pay their salaries. He would feel a whole lot better if it did come from nature than if it came from a lab. He does care if science is tainted by politics. He sits on the intel committee and his impression is that the FBI did more of an investigation than the other agencies. The DOE has more scientists than any other agency. These two agencies believe it came from a lab.
In some ways it seems the intel committee has done more digging than the intel communitee. ODNI’s report violated the law. I expected hundreds of pages, I expected a list of witnesses, but didn’t get it. Transparency and honesty are nonnegotiable. Calling those who believe in a lab leak theory conspiracy theorists does not produce confidence. We know the Feb 5 draft was used [Andersen and Garry denied they had a draft of the paper on Feb 4 in this hearing] because parts of it were published verbatim in the Nature Medicine paper. Andersen asked Fauci and Collins if they had any questions about the paper. Are we supposed to believe this was not an invitation to edit a paper they (Fauci and Collins) had prompted?
There will be five days in which members can submit additional questions for the witnesses which will be sent to the witnesses. Adjourned.
I found the hearing annoying. I’d like to know how many tens of millions each author received in grant money. It appears that all of Congress is willing to dog and pony us until we stop wanting ALL of the truth. Again, more lying under oath with no consequences.
Can we just agree that covid19 was a complete scam, that the pharmaceutical industrial exec's need to be held to account? Let's get a huge team of scientists, uncompromised by pharma/government/DARPA/InQTel money, coupled with top notch lawyers, DA's, and investigators on the case and move to the next aberration: SAI.
SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) is responsible for the so called environmental calamities the globe iS experiencing. It is an Extinction Level Aberration. The weasels in charge of this global poisoning are failing to come clean on the filth they are spreading to every corner of earth.
You think the 'vaccine' was insidious? Toxins sprayed in the air to kill us is way worse, since it affects the entire ecosystem negatively.