New York Times ADMITS It Lied in SHOCKING Reversal

(00:00.874)

New York Times coming clean on COVID. What is this, five years now? I did a podcast last week, talked about on the radio show last week, the rage that I still have. First and foremost, you know, even get the question, why aren’t more people angry and raged by what took place? My theory is this, is that so many people believed.

So many people, how many people do you know were avid, avid believers, mask wearers, followed the government rules and social distancing, everything the government had. know, people had spray bottles wiping down their packages delivered to their house, all over social media, stay home, stay safe, all making those stupid heart symbols with their hands. Again.

I’ll try to tone it down, but yeah, yeah.

(01:13.72)

they want to forget it too. They must feel pretty foolish. When you know what, when you’re wrong and you screw up, you should be the loudest voice in saying, I screwed up. I messed up. You should be angry.

Anyway, New York Times had a piece. We were badly misled about the event that changed our lives. I’m gonna go through this with you. 2020, people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the COVID-19 pandemic. They were treated like kooks and cranks. Yeah, I was a kook and a crank.

at the time and paid the price. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory. the virus came from animals at a seafood market in Wuhan, China. When a nonprofit called EcoHealth,

lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research and to bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology research that if conducted with lax safety standards could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world. No fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe. was safe. Pandemic was, it definitely natural. was consensus, scientific consensus.

(03:11.092)

that scientific consensus is an oxymoron. And we were pointing that out at the time. again, I’m thinking about kids that I knew from high school that are now science teachers. They were all in on this too. yeah, yeah, they know that they’re, I’m a science teacher, scientific, I you don’t know shit.

Anyway, we have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices, and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan Laboratories research,

The details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

(04:12.142)

Again, I remember pointing out at the time, wait a second, isn’t China where we’re supposed to be our adversary, right? China’s our adversary. We’re supposed to be spending all of this money, billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars on weapons and guns because China is a bad guy and we need to be scared of China. Yet.

We’re sending money over there to develop for all intents and purposes, bio weapons.

(04:47.582)

You want to explain that to me? Yeah, that’s about as stupid as Europe. You know, let’s completely rely on Russia for all of our energy needs, yet we’ll have, you know, America and NATO protect us against Russia.

(05:07.19)

Anyway, authorized five years after the onset of the COVID pandemic, it’s tempting to think of all of that as ancient history. We’ve learned our lesson about lab safety and about the need to be straight with the public. And now we can move on to new crisis, right? All measles, avian flu. Yeah. There was a recent paper in Cell, which is a scientific journal.

researchers, many of whom work or have worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology, described taking samples of viruses found in bats and experimenting to see if they could infect human cells and pose a pandemic risk.

(05:59.138)

Why? Why would you?

(06:04.03)

Why? Sounds like the kind of research that should be conducted, if at all, with the very highest safety protocols. If you look at the journal and you scroll down, you learn that the scientists did all this under what they call BSL-2 plus conditions.

A designation that isn’t standardized and that Barrick and Lipkin, these are people that discuss this, say is insufficient for work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses. If just one lab worker unwittingly inhaled the virus and got infected, there’s no telling what the impact could be on Wuhan, a city of millions or the world.

(06:56.844)

doing the same bullshit.

You’d think by now that we’d have learned that it’s not a good idea to test possible gas leaks by lighting a match, and you’d hope that prestigious scientific journals would have learned not to reward such risky research. Why haven’t we learned our lesson? Maybe because it’s hard to admit that this research is risky now and take the requisite steps to keep us safe without also admitting that it was always risky and that perhaps we were misled on purpose.

Do you understand how effed up these people are?

(07:38.843)

You understand how screwed up these people, mean, really are.

What was it saying? it too smart by half or something like that? It was some movie, I don’t know, was Alec Baldwin. Alec Baldwin played a, again, another perfect role for him, plays an a-hole. Some cardiac surgeon. He had like a God complex. These people.

Who do they think they are?

Anyway, take the case of EcoHealth, that nonprofit organization that many of the scientists leap to defend. When Wuhan experienced an outbreak of a novel coronavirus related to ones found in bats and researchers, soon noticed the pathogen had the same rare genetic feature that the EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan researchers had proposed inserting into bat coronaviruses. You would think EcoHealth would sound the alarm far and wide.

(08:48.974)

Were it not for public records requests, leaks and subpoenas, the world might have never learned about the troubling similarities between what could have easily been going on inside the lab and what was spreading through the city. First was a March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists and declared that no,

laboratory-based scenario for the pandemic virus was plausible. But after the fact, we learned that while the scientists said the scenario was implausible, privately, many of its authors considered the scenario not just to be plausible, but likely. One of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Christian Anderson, wrote in the Slack messages,

The Lab Escape version of this is so freaking likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.

(09:56.622)

Spooked, authors reached out for advice to Jeremy Farrar, now the chief scientist at the World Health Organization. In his book, Farrar reveals he required a burner phone and arranged meetings for them with high-ranking officials including Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and the good Dr. Fauci. Documents obtained through public records request

by the nonprofit US Right to Know show that the scientists ultimately decided to move ahead with a paper on the topic. Farrer reviewed their draft behind the scenes and suggested to the authors that they rule out the lab leak even more directly. They complied.

Anderson later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that a lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained by Congress show the paper’s lead authors discussing how to mislead Donald G. McNeil, who was reporting on the pandemic’s origin for the New York Times, so as to throw him off track about the plausibility of a lab leak. Another one.

2020, the Lancet, the letter which described the idea as a conspiracy theory about the lab leak appeared to be the group of independent scientists. It was anything but thanks to public document requests. The public later learned that behind the scenes Peter Daszak, EcoHealth’s president, had drafted and circulated the letter while strategizing on how to hide his tracks and telling the signatories that it will not be

identifiable as coming from any one organization or person. The Lancet later published an addendum disclosing Dasik’s conflict of interest as a collaborator of the Wuhan lab, but the journal did not retract the letter. They had assistance. Thanks to more public records requests and congressional subpoenas, the public learned that David Morins, a senior advisor to Fauci at the NIH, wrote to Dasik that he learned how to make emails disappear.

(12:10.688)

especially emails about pandemic origins. We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns. And if we did, we wouldn’t have put them in emails. And if we found them, we delete them, he wrote.

Now, this is classic New York Times right now. We gotta find a way to excuse all of these evil doers.

It’s hard to imagine how the attempt to squelch legitimate debate might have started. Some of the loudest proponents of the lab leak theory weren’t just earnestly making inquiries, they were acting in terrible faith. Acting in terrible faith by asking questions? Using the debate over pandemic origins to attack legitimate.

beneficial science to inflame public opinion to get attention.

just wanted my kids to go back to school. I wanted them back playing ball. I wanted this nonsense to end. with half a brain knew this was a lie. Half a brain.

(13:30.658)

For scientists and public health officials circling the wagons and vilifying anyone who dared to dissent might’ve seemed like a reasonable defense strategy. Yes, all of us kooks out there.

(13:46.19)

And they’re saying, this might be tempting for those officials to avoid looking too closely at the mistakes they made because of all of us kooks and cranks. While trying to do such a hard job, they might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public. Such self-scrutiny is especially uncomfortable now. Again. They’re going into RFK Jr. and measles and all this other

crap. You know, past couple weeks, we found out that German intelligence, German intelligence, their secret service, I mean, they’re, they’re New, new with 95 % probability that this leaked from Wuhan. The former head of the UK’s foreign intelligence agency MI6

told Boris Johnson in early 2020 that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab. That means we knew, the UK knew, and Germany knew.

(15:00.398)

For some people out there, I don’t know what it is.

top men, government officials, masks, whatever it may be. It’s like a wubby, it’s like a safety blanket that a child might have. If they don’t have faith, that’s the religion. If they don’t have that, they don’t have faith in the bullshit that’s being put out by the government, they’ve got nothing.

They really do. And I’m sorry. OK.

(15:37.71)

I’m thinking of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill when she goes to get her samurai sword. It’s great film. Hattori Hanzo’s And tells him, you know, Hattori, I’m not making any more weapons that kill people anymore. And she explained that you have a serious responsibility because the bad guy…

He created, he helped create. You people that touted this, you have a responsibility.

You have to make this right.

You do. Okay, you have to, mean, this is all laid out and I didn’t make it right. You gotta get your mind right.

How you still have faith in these people that they’re gonna do the right thing, quite frankly, it’s beyond me. Watchdog on wallstreet.com.