Fauci and other public health officials scrambled to conceal any notion that SARS-CoV-2 was laboratory made
The first study that caught the attention of Fauci and the NIH was a study from India showing that HIV-like insertions were included in SARS-CoV-2. The study explored unique inserts on the spike protein and found the virus had no relation to other coronaviruses because it had properties of HIV. The researchers performed a multiple sequence alignment of the spike glycoprotein amino acid sequence of all available coronaviruses and found four insertions that were unique to SARS-CoV-2. Each of the four inserts aligned with short segments of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) proteins. The study faced intense pressure from the mainstream and was eventually targeted, censored and retracted.
Dr. Luc Montagnier, the scientist who discovered HIV, carefully analyzed the description of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. He also claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was a manipulated virus. British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian virologist Dr. Birger Sørensen analyzed the samples and discovered “unique fingerprints” that reveal “six inserts” were created via gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. They concluded that "SARS-Coronavirus-2 has "no credible natural ancestor" and was created "beyond reasonable doubt" via "laboratory manipulation."
Independent news media, including Zero Hedge and Natural News, reported on the Indian study and revealed the HIV connection. At the time, the NIH was aware of this report and actively discussed ways to handle the information. On January 31, a science journalist with Agence France-Presse asks NIH immunologist, Dr. Barney Graham, to comment on the study. "I was told by a contact you may be willing to give an opinion of this paper that has just gone live. It suggests the new Coronavirus has four inserts similar to HIV-1 and this is not a coincidence," reads the email. Graham forwarded the correspondence to the Office of Communications and Government Relations (OCGR), saying "This is one we don't want to answer without high-level input, but wanted you to know about the rising controversy." Jennifer Routh of the News and Science Branch of the NIAID responded two days later, telling Graham to decline comment, nothing that the paper is not peer reviewed. She wrote: “Please let us know if you receive similar requests.”
NIH director Francis Collins wrote to Fauci, warning him. “In case you haven’t seen, attached is the Indian paper claiming HIV sequences have been inserted into 2019-nCoV, which has been roundly debunked. I found Jon Cohen’s piece in Science to be pretty useful summary.” Fauci wrote back to Francis Collins: "The Indian paper is really outlandish. Agree about Jon Cohen's nice summary."
NIH and WHO collude to deceive the public on the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2
Despite the NIAID doing everything they can to push away studies that reveal the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Fauci and Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, seemed concerned about the news getting out. In an email, Jeremy Farrar let Dr. Fauci know that the word was getting out. He even forwarded Zero Hedge's article to Fauci. Farrar wrote to Fauci and said World Health Organization’s Director General, Tedros Adhanom, and Chinese rep, Dr. Bernhard Schwartländer, have “gone into conclave” and “need to decide today.” A conclave is a private meeting.
Farrar continued, “If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow to think how we might take forward.” To prevaricate is to deviate from the truth or speak and act in an evasive way. Why would WHO and NIH officials collude with one another and coordinate their messaging in a deceitful and evasive way? Why would the world’s top public health leaders try to conceal or deceive the public about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab-engineered virus? Why wouldn’t they want to investigate the matter further? Are many of these “leaders” directly involved in the development of these engineered coronaviruses? Will they soon be prosecuted in a modern-day Doctor’s Trial, so the public can learn more?
Sources include:
WHO.int [PDF]
Please contact us for more information.
