by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 24, 2022
from
Mercola
Website
Italian
version
Story at-a-glance
-
In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released
National Institutes of Health emails that show Drs. Anthony Fauci
and Francis Collins led the effort to bury the lab leak theory, even
though the consensus in early February 2020 was that the virus
likely leaked from the Wuhan lab
-
Fauci and Collins appear to have participated in the creation of a
Nature Medicine article that denied the possibility of a lab leak in
Wuhan, arguing instead for a natural origin of the virus
-
The Nature Medicine article is a glaring example of propaganda being
promoted as science, and of science in turn being used for political
aims
-
Behavioral scientist Simon Ruda, cofounder of the British Behavioral
Insights Team, unofficially known as the "Nudge Unit," confirms that
the British government has been using propaganda tactics to scare
the public into complying with COVID rules
-
Using behavioral science to manipulate people to achieve political
goals is fundamentally anti-democratic
January 12, 2022, "Rising" cohost Ryan Grim reviewed the content of
the National Institutes of Health emails released by the House
Oversight Committee Republicans.
Watch related end page
video...
According to Grim, the emails:
"... paint a damning picture of U.S. government officials wrestling
with whether the novel coronavirus may have leaked out of a lab they
were funding, deciding that it may very well have, and then
actively suppressing those questions."
What this latest cache of emails reveal is that February 1, 2020,
Dr.
Anthony Fauci, director of the
National Institutes of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), his boss, then-NIH director Dr.
Francis Collins and at least 11 other scientists joined a conference
call, during which they were told the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have
leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, and
that it might have been genetically engineered.
What Was Said During the Secret Conference Call?
The next day, Dr.
Jeremy Farrar, director of the
Wellcome Trust,
circulated a set of notes, summarizing the discussion.
Mike Farzan,
the scientist who discovered the SARS receptor, had reportedly
stated that while the receptor binding domain (RBD) did not look
engineered to him, he was bothered by the furin site.
According to Farrar's note, Farzan,
"has a hard time explain[ing]
that as an event outside the lab."
Farrar's summary goes on to state
that:
"...the likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines (under BSL-2)
for an extended period of time, accidentally creating a virus that
would be primed for rapid transmission between humans via gain of
furin site (from tissue culture) and adoption to human ACE2 receptor
via repeated passage...
So, I think it becomes a question
of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this
series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how
much could be in nature - accidental release or natural event?
I am 70:30 or 60:40."
A note from professor and microbiologist Robert (Bob) Garry, Ph.D.,
1
reads:
"Before I left the office for the ball, I aligned the nCoV with the
96% bat CoV sequenced at WIV.
Except for the RBD the S proteins are
essential identical at the amino acid level - well all but the
perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds [sic] the furin site.
S2 is over its whole length essentially identical. I really can't
think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat
virus or one very similar to it to nCoV where you insert exactly 4
amino acids 12 nucleotide [sic] that all have to be added at the
exact same time to gain this function - that and you don't change
any other amino acids in S2?
I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the
alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level - its [sic]
stunning.
Of course, in the lab it would be easy to generate the
perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.
Another scenario is that the progenitor of nCoV was a bat virus with
the perfect furin cleavage site generated over evolutionary times.
In this scenario RaTG13 the WIV
virus was generated by a perfect deletion of 12 nucleotides
while essentially not changing any other S2 amino acid [sic].
Even more implausible
IMO.
That is the big if."
Politics Overrode Scientific Consensus
So, in the earliest days of February 2020, the general consensus was
that a WIV lab leak was a plausible scenario, and perhaps the most
likely.
However, politics rapidly entered the scene.
In a February 2, 2020, email, Collins stated that he was,
"coming
around to the view that a natural origin is more likely," and warned
that "voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate" lest they convene
a panel of experts to address the matter, and that such conspiracies
could do "great potential harm to science and international
harmony."
Two days later, Fauci and Collins received a draft of the article,
"The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,"
later published in Nature Medicine. 2
As noted by Grim, the actual draft is 'secret'...
All we have
is an email reply from Fauci, in which he appears to flag or object
to the inclusion of serial passage through humanized mice.
Serial passaging is only briefly touched upon in the published article,
which states:
"Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell
culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a
progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not
been described.
Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage
site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture
or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but
such work has also not previously been described."
If Fauci and Collins edited this article,
"this is where they put
the pressure of their pen the heaviest," Grim says.
Essentially, the
issue of animal passage is raised, but then immediately dismissed.
Overall, the Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that
the virus originated in a lab, proposing instead that, despite a
dearth of evidence, it must have evolved naturally.
The article
didn't stem the flow of questions, though.
In a mid-April 2020 email
to Fauci, Collins decried the continuation of the lab leak theory:
"Wondering if there is something NIH
can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy, with
what seems to be growing momentum...
I hoped the Nature
Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would
settle this. But probably didn't get much visibility.
Anything more we can
do? Ask the National Academy to weigh in?"
Fauci replied,
"I would not do anything about this right now. It is
a shiny object that will go away in times [sic]."
He was wrong, of
course, and the reason questions didn't go away was because emerging
evidence kept strengthening the lab leak theory, while there is
nothing with which to support 'natural evolution'...
The COVID Propaganda Wars
The Nature Medicine article is a glaring example of propaganda being
promoted as science, and of science in turn being used for political
aims.
There's really nothing scientific about dismissing a valid
origin hypothesis in order to maintain "international harmony"...
Of course, the entire COVID
'pandemic' has been plagued by propaganda.
Behavioral scientist Simon Ruda, cofounder of the British Behavioral
Insights Team, unofficially known as the "Nudge Unit," confirms that,
the British government has been using propaganda tactics
to scare
the public into complying with COVID 'rules'...
Nudging
made subtle state influence palatable,
but mixed with a
state of emergency,
have we inadvertently sanctioned
state
propaganda?
Simon Ruda
According to Ruda, fear tactics such as an overemphasis on flawed
models were initially deployed to secure compliance during the first
lockdown.
However, it then never ended.
"That fear seems to have
subsequently driven policy decisions in a worrying feed-back loop,"
he wrote in a January 13, 2022, Unherd article. 3
He goes on to
state:
"I remain a supporter of the use of behavioral science in public
policy, and of the Behavioral Insights Team, more commonly known as
the Nudge Unit.
However, witnessing how the UK and other governments
have responded to the 'pandemic', I can now appreciate the
vulnerabilities of well-intentioned, democratic regimes, and the
potential for behavioral science to be used inappropriately...
In 2010, the Nudge Unit was the first and only government
unit dedicated to behavioral science in public policy. By 2021,
there were over 400 globally...
We advocated two new dimensions to policy making:
I believe this contribution has
- and can - continue to serve
governments well.
But it must be used appropriately. For me, it
means seeing the bigger picture: recognizing what you can and can't
measure, and seeing the potential for unintended consequences...
[I]nvoking different emotions to convince people to stay at
home during the 'pandemic' 4 is less appropriate. It could have negative
consequences that are missed in the typical RCT evaluation.
This is because metrics will focus on proxies for behavior, but they
probably can't capture the potential longer-term effects of these
campaigns beyond what is immediately measurable - such as worse
inter-societal relations and reduced trust in institutions, the
consequences of which could be significant...
In my mind, the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in
responding to the 'pandemic' has been the level of fear willingly
conveyed on the public...
Though I don't think it's fair to blame behavioral scientists for
propagating fear (I suspect that this was more to do with Government
communicators and the incentives of news broadcasters), it may be
worth reflecting on where we need to draw the line between the
choice-maximizing nudges of libertarian paternalism, and the
creeping acceptance among policy makers that the state should use
its heft to influence our lives without the accountability of
legislative and parliamentary scrutiny.
Nudging made subtle
state influence palatable, but mixed with a state of emergency,
have we inadvertently sanctioned state propaganda?"
As noted by Ruda, it's become quite clear over the past two years
that we cannot rely on science or data alone in a
'pandemic'.
We also
need,
"reflection, reason and debate... multidisciplinary teams" and
"a strong culture of intellectual humility and designed-in
cognitive diversity."
Behavioral Science Has No Place in a Democracy
In his piece, Ruda acknowledges some of the criticism the Nudge Unit
has received since its inception in 2010.
But while Ruda still
believes there's a place for behavioral science in government,
others say no way. In a January 14, 2022, Spiked article, 5
Professor
Emeritus of sociology Frank Furedi insists that,
"government's use of
behavioral science violates our freedom to judge and act for
ourselves."
"Ruda's admission is... striking," Furedi writes, adding that Ruda
"even expressed concern about the state's willingness 'to use
its heft to influence our lives without the accountability of
legislative and parliamentary scrutiny'."
Furedi goes on to cite a March 2020 paper by the Scientific
'pandemic'
Influenza Behavior Advisory Committee, written on behalf of the U.K.
government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), in
which they stated that the people were,
"too relaxed about the
'pandemic'."
Furedi writes: 6
"'A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently
personally threatened,' it stated, adding that too many,
'are
reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group.'
It then urged the government to increase,
'the perceived level of
personal threat… among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting
emotional messaging.'
Some members of SAGE have since reported
feeling 'embarrassed' by the nature of SPI-B's advice.
As one
regular SAGE attendee put it last year:
'The British people have been subjected to an unevaluated
psychological experiment without being told that is what's
happening.'
It is to be welcomed
that at least some behavioral scientists are now questioning the
political use of their discipline.
But the problem goes
deeper than fear-mongering during the 'pandemic'.
We need to address
the corrosive influence of behavioral science on public life in
general."
Furedi stresses that the principal problem with "nudging" is that
this kind of behavioral science is "fundamentally anti-democratic."
It's based on the assumption that people,
"cannot be trusted to make
rational choices," and therefore must be subject to management by
bureaucrats.
"They treat people's emotional lives, lifestyles and relationships
as legitimate objects of policymaking and professional
intervention," Furedi writes.
"This politics of
behavior has given rise to a new form of technocratic
governance."
Indeed, over the past two years, subliminal psychological
manipulation has near-universally replaced debate and discussion.
The problem is that you cannot have a democracy without open debate.
What we have now is, in fact, a technocratic form of governance,
whether people realize it or not, and unless we pull the plug, there
soon won't be such a thing as democracy anywhere in the world.
'Nudging' is Fundamentally Anti-Democratic
"When Britain's then
deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, casually remarked in 2010
that the Nudge Unit could change the way citizens think, he
spoke like a totalitarian ruler.
Since when was it
within a democratic government's mandate to try to manipulate
and change its citizens' thoughts?" Furedi asks.
He points to a report called "Mindspace - Influencing Behavior
Through Public Policy," 7 written by the U.K. Cabinet Office and the
Institute for Government and published in 2010, in which they reveal
and basically admit that the use of behavioral psychology in
policymaking,
"deprives people of
the power to democratically determine their future," Furedi says.
The report actually presents this kind of government activity as a
form of "surrogate willpower," which on its face shows that
individual freedom is not honored or even taken seriously.
Instead,
government is actively trying to make our decisions for us, in large
part by indoctrinating us with certain "values" and ideas that we
might not naturally share or agree with.
At the end of the day, whether behavioral psychologists get things
"right" or "wrong," they are violating people's freedom to make
their own decisions all the same, and as noted by Furedi: 8
"This threatens the very pre-condition for a flourishing, democratic
public life - namely, the existence of morally autonomous
individuals.
After all, it is only through the making of choices
that people develop a sense of responsibility for themselves and for
others in society.
As our experience of the 'pandemic' shows,
we need to respect the common sense of citizens and allow them
to make choices in line with their circumstances...
Our minds must be a
no-go area for these self-appointed high priests of the soul."
Weaponizing Behavioral Science
The danger of behavioral science is also in full display when we
look at how it's being weaponized against the very public it claims
to serve.
It started with people who refused to buy into the
propaganda being labeled as,
"anti-science conspiracy theorists" and
"anti-vaxxers."
Now, those same people are being labeled as
terrorists and targeted by national security agencies.
"Concern for U.K. Security as Anti-Vaxxer Groups Evolve Toward
U.S.-Style Militias," a headline in The Guardian 9 declared in
mid-January 2022.
"Counter-terrorism
officials are monitoring movement amid military-style training
and lurch towards violent extremism."
According to this report, such individuals might,
"undermine national
health security."
In other words, "health" itself has now been
weaponized...
The
national vaccination program equates to "national security," and
sharing information that might cause vaccine hesitancy equates to an
act of domestic terrorism.
It's ridiculous, of course, but that
doesn't make it any less serious.
The Davos Agenda
Between January 17 and 21, 2022, the
World Economic Forum hosted its
annual meeting
in Davos, where the top technocrats in the world meet
to hatch and share the next steps in the technocratic takeover of
the world.
WEF founder
Klaus Schwab opened the Forum's virtual Davos agenda by
introducing Chinese dictator
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the
Chinese Communist Party since 2012 and president of the People's
Republic of China since 2013.
Schwab's short introduction makes it clear that this dictatorship is
being looked to for inspiration and leadership as
The Great Reset
moves forward.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that
Fauci and
Collins were more concerned about "international harmony" than
getting to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from.
Using the Chinese model of behavior modification and social
engineering through technological surveillance and coercion, the WEF
and its global allies aim to:
-
Continue the building of a global biosecurity state in the name of
fighting the COVID 'pandemic'
-
"Revitalize the
global economy and accelerate its transition to net zero"
-
"Preserve
biodiversity by deploying nature-based solutions"
-
"Narrow the gap
between the rich and the poor to achieve more sustainable
global development"
Anyone familiar with
technocracy will recognize what a pile of
manure this is.
Without understanding what these goals entail, they
might sound good, but in reality, this agenda is a call to war
against humanity as we know it.
Video
The 'New Fauci Emails'
...are even More Damning than you Think - Ryan Grim
Sources and
References
|