Dr. Anthony Fauci secretly edited incriminating papers regarding bat-virus research in Wuhan in January 2020, according to a new investigation by the White Coat Waste Project.
Fauci has continually refused to answer questions about why the U.S. government funded viral research at a Chinese laboratory. It now appears that additional questions must be raised about the oversight of funding awarded to EcoHealth Alliance (EHA).
Redstate.com reports: From the White Coat Waste Project:
This, of course, comes on the heels of an August revelation that EHA was in violation of the terms of the grant used to fund research on bat coronaviruses. This violation earned the organization a termination of the funding for that grant.
From August 25, 2022:
My 84-year-old father taught me a lot of things, most notably that “non-disclosure of a material fact is a form of misrepresentation.” In other words, Fauci’s lack of mentioning anything regarding the editing of reports or papers on behalf of EcoHealth Alliance, was in fact, a misrepresentation. During Fauci’s now half-dozen or more congressional hearings on the origins of COVID-19, during which Fauci was under oath, never once did Fauci have the intellectual honesty to mention that he has been responsible for editing papers by the same organization and the same lab, which are under that same congressional microscope. Fauci never determined that he was under any moral or ethical requirement to disclose that he had approved funding on a grant on which he was also participating, a misrepresentation (see: lie) about funding research on bat viruses at the WIV.
Throughout the last two years of investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 outbreak, I have characterized Peter Daszak, the President of the EcoHealth Alliance as the “Bond Villain” in this story. It seemed that everywhere you turned in this story you found Daszak. Daszak organized the opposition to the lab-leak theory, later published in The Lancet scientific journal. Daszak later headed The Lancet‘s own COVID Origins committee, which was later disbanded because of Daszak’s conflict of interest. Daszak was used as a propaganda puppet by the CCP to discount the lab leak theory. Daszak also snaked his way onto the WHO’s investigation team, which later spent only four of the over three-hundred-page report considering the lab-leak theory. Daszak and EHA were also allowed by the NIH and NIAID to define their own research, which allowed the semantic side-step of the US Government bans on Gain-of-Function viral research. The White Coat Waste Project also pointed out, as has also been previously reported here at RedState, that Daszak heaped praise upon NIAID Director Anthony Fauci in the days after the initial outbreak of COVID-19, for denying the potential of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In this twisted drama that the COVID origins investigations have become, the same two names continue to appear, largely for their continued misinformation, lies, and lack of disclosure of massive conflicts of interest: Dr. Peter Daszak and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The men, who would both be taking credit for the creation of a universal bat-coronavirus vaccine, if only even tangentially connected to any funding in which they participated, have been lying and stonewalling legitimate investigations into COVID-19. Daszak has not only been the recipient of grant funding, in charge of his own oversight, and a participant in viral research, but his fingerprints have been found on virtually every organized effort to even consider the potential of a lab leak, the confirmation of which would likely land Daszak behind bars. If he were only suspected of doing anything, would we have put Osama bin Laden on the 9/11 Commission?
What has now become clear is that Fauci has not only long been aware of the potential of a lab-leak theory, but that Daszak’s roles in investigating those origins amounted to an insane conflict of interest. At any point during the last several years, Fauci could have pointed this out and demanded an independent and thorough investigation. He has chosen not to.
This leaves us with just one question for the not-so-good Doctor:
Leave a Reply