Fauci and his cronies were out to disprove the lab-leak theory from the start…
According to a new report from The Intercept that examines unredacted National Institute of Health emails exposing early efforts to disprove a lab-leak origin of COVID-19, Fauci’s fellow scientists expressed concern that SARS-CoV-2 looked potentially “engineered.”
On Feb. 8, 2020, Scripps Research’s Kristian Andersen, who was investigating the virus origins with Fauci and others, wrote in an email that the group’s work was “focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory.”
But Andersen initially felt the lab-leak theory might have merit; he said as much in an email to Fauci.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in the email. “I should mention,” he added, “that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”
From The Daily Caller:
Andersen ultimately became the first author listed on the paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” the most influential paper published about the origins of COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic. The paper was cited by more than 2,000 media outlets and viewed nearly six million times online, according to The Intercept.
“Proximal Origin” promoted a natural origin theory of COVID-19 and was co-authored by several scientists who were in communication with Fauci in the weeks leading up to its publish date.
But Andersen wasn’t too keen on publishing the paper.
“As to publishing this document in a journal,” he said, “I am currently not in favor of doing so. I believe that publishing something that is open-ended could backfire at this stage.”
Andersen suggested that the scientists wait and collect more evidence so they could publish some “strong conclusive statements that are based on the best data we have access to. I don’t think we are there yet.”
But the paper was published the following month.
And the rest is pandemic history.