Stunning! Scientists of The Lancet letter are compromised or backtracking


In February 2020, the preeminent medical journal The Lancet published a letter signed by several scientists condemning “conspiracy theories” that the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus did not have a “natural origin.”

This was before anyone could possibly have known it if was natural or not. Many knew it was an obvious fraud and cover-up but everyone was banned from suggesting that.

The Lancet letter was meant to silence everyone and it did.

The threatening tone of the letter, published early on during the COVID-19 pandemic, should have alerted people as to motives but it was quickly being repeated everywhere, the CCP was taking an aggressive stance, and the media came out like vipers.

The article reads in part:

“The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.”

They claimed it was settled science and Dr. Fauci backed it up or instigated it.

An investigation by Alexandros Marinos tracked the signatories’ positions on the SARS-CoV-2 virus origins after the Lancet letter’s publication in February 2020.

It should be no surprise that several of the scientists have since changed their position, the report shows.

Additionally several of the signers are connected to EcoHealth, the controversial scientific group that funneled millions in U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan laboratory.

“The Lancet letter of Feb 18, 2020, sent a message to scientists the world over: Investigate a lab leak, and you will be tarred as conspiracy theorist,” Marinos wrote. “Was it a honest outpouring of support? Or astroturfing?”

“To start, of the 27 signatories, 7 were affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance: Peter Daszak (President), Rita Colwell & James Hughes (BoD members), William Karesh(EVP for Health and Policy), Hume FieldJuan LubrothJohn MacKenzie (Science and Policy Advisors),” he points out.

“The fact that a quarter of the signatories were affiliated with EHA was hidden,” he noted.

Marinos continued: “3 signatories worked directly for the Wellcome TrustSir Jeremy Farrar (Director, also instrumental in the Feb 1 meeting between Kristian Andersen, Eddie Holmes, Anthony Fauci, and others), Josie Golding (Epidemics Lead), Mike Turner (Director of Science). In addition, Larry Madoff is the editor of ProMED, which receives “ongoing operational support” from Wellcome, Gerald Keusch reports having served in multiple committees for the Wellcome Trust. Leo Poon is in a leadership position in Hong Kong University, and given the situation on the ground, we wouldn’t expect him to be able to share any thoughts. Finally, Dennis Carroll and Jonna Mazet are in Leadership of the Global Virome Project, alongside Peter Daszak.”

A total of 15 of the 27 signatories had major conflicts. Marinos notes. “To dare write ‘We declare no competing interests in the letter, was a mockery of science and taxpayers everywhere.”

“Of the remaining 12, 4 are close collaborators of Ralph Baric and have stayed relatively quiet, especially since he signed on to a statement asking for an independent investigation: Linda SaifLuis EnjuanesAlexander Gorbalenya(Sasha), Bart Haagmans. As a reminder, Ralph Baric, one of the fathers of Gain-of-Function methods, was intending to sign, but was asked by Peter Daszak to refrain, as apparently did Linfa Wang, to prevent attention to their collaboration and ‘maximize an independent voice.’”

Marinos then produces an email that ties EcoHealth Alliance and the letter signatories.

Of the 8 remaining, 5 have modified or reversed their positions with regard to a lab leak,” Marinos adds. “Considering they started by signing a statement that called it a ‘conspiracy theory’, this is truly remarkable. We have: First author Charles Calisher considers the use of “conspiracy theory” to have been “over the top”. He now tells people he needs more information before he can opine,” Marinos notes, linking a March 2021 “Technology Review” article on the subject.

“Charles Calisher, an emeritus professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology at Colorado State University, is also listed as a coauthor,” the article states. “He says the conspiracy-theory phrase was, in his opinion, over the top. ‘Unfortunately for me, [Daszak] listed everyone alphabetically, and I was first,’ he says. With his phone constantly ringing, Calisher says, he told people he couldn’t say much until more information is available.”

“Christian Drosten considers a lab leak within the realm of possibility, though extremely unlikely,” Marinos points out. “He now has his own hypothesis, to do with serial passage through the fur farming practice. This is the first I’ve heard of this one, but this is why we need an open conversation.”

“Stanley Perlman believes that the ‘lab leak’ is now ‘on the table’, due to our failure to find the intermediate host thus far,” the report continues, citing a“Technology Review” article.

Dr. Peter Palese, a microbiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, signed the letter in the Lancet in February last year claiming the virus could only have been natural in origin and to suggest otherwise would create ‘fear, rumors, and prejudice,’” the Daily Mail reported.

He now says the origins need to be investigated since a lot of “disturbing information” has come out.

“Even Daszak now concedes he can’t disprove the lab leak hypothesis. This may sound obvious, or mundane, but the letter sang a different tune,” Marinos adds. However, he still calls it a conspiracy theory.

He’s compromised and too close to the CCP.

Watch Dr. Atlas discuss the situation these disgusting people caused:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments