Quick Disclaimer

The following is a transcript of recorded content. Please note, these transcripts are not always perfect and may contain typos. If you notice any major mistakes, please feel free to report them by opening a Technical Support ticket under the Help menu at the top of the screen.

Full Transcript

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:00] We live in an age of propaganda. I’m going to show you another example here today, and this one is from the New York Times, and it concerns the so-called natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Come on, let’s go take a look. Hello, hello, hello, everyone, Dr Chris Martenson here with another episode for you today, episode 53. And this one’s around Lying Media.

 

Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:31] Look, we live in an age of misinformation, disinformation. All of these things. And here’s what bothers me as a scientist, as a as an astute observer, as somebody who pays pretty close attention is somebody who uses common sense. What I see is the tools being used against people like myself to censor, to shadow ban, to slow down the message being used against all kinds of people are with this finger pointing around these things called misinformation, disinformation, mail information, each with a slightly different definition. But the point is that the people levying the charges are quite often the most significant purveyors of those same things.

 

So, the New York Times big believer in the trusted news initiative and making sure that things are fact checked and wanting to be the paper of record. But again, this is the newspaper that delivered the aluminum tubes fiasco that helped lie the United States into the Iraq War, causing lots and lots of destruction and death and things like that. And so I’m always a little bit suspicious when I, a New York Times has been on probation with me ever since that point in time. You lied to me once in a big way like that, and it’s very hard to get that trust all the way back without some sort of like full blown, really thoughtful mea culpa, which never came in that particular case.

 

But let’s go here now and take a look now at this which, dude. There it is. Got it. And. So let’s go there and take a look at this.

 

All right. Episode 53 as I mentioned lying media and the lies they tell us. Let’s get started. I’m talking about this. This is a case of really exceptionally shoddy journalism. I mean, really shoddy. This is an article in the New York Times came out February 26. A lot of you asked me to review it. Take a look at it. Made a big splash at the time. A bunch of other things happened that prevented me from getting right to, and I actually prepared this presentation a number of weeks ago. But here it is now.

 

And so, the two authors on this Carl Zimmer and Benjamin Mueller. Carl Zimmer let me get my drawing tool out here so we can talk with expression. And yeah, so Carl Zimmer here is science writer. And they say he is a popular science writer, blogger, columnist, journalist who specializes in the topics of evolution, parasites and heredity.

 

So, Carl should be a perfect guy to go at this particular story because the story of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is it’s a little bit of a science whodunit and there’s some sleuthing to be done there. But most importantly, scientific logic and the principles of deduction, things like that should come to play.

 

And then Benjamin Mueller, health and science reporter for The New York Times before that, being a correspondent in London covering global disorders of C-19 vaccines, evolution of coronavirus in Britain’s National Health Service.

 

So, these two teamed up and covered this thing. And here’s the headline, New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin”. That’s kind of a slightly if you read it carefull, they didn’t say that it’s the origin that the origin of the actual virus had been discovered. The pandemic origins is the kind of saying we think this is kind of where it started. So let’s go into the article. Take a look here. They wrote here “scientists released a pair of extensive studies over the weekend that point to a large food and live animal market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the coronavirus pandemic. Analyzing a wide range of data, including virus genes, maps of market stalls and the social media activity of early C19 patients across Wuhan. The scientists concluded that the coronavirus was very likely present in live mammals sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale market in late 2019 and suggested that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping there on two separate occasions. Now that all sounds very authoritative.”

 

I have a number of issues with it and we’ll take them one at a time. But first I want to let them lay out their case, and then we’re going to pick this apart. But there’s some major problems.

 

What they’re inferentially sort of pointing at here is actually nuts, not science at all. It’s really pretty poor. It’s the state’s strong opening paragraphs, but really, they’re kind of dumb. “the study’s” sounds like studies. Oh my god, there’s lots of studies out there which together span a hundred and fifty pages are a significant salvo in the debate over the beginnings of a pandemic that has killed nearly six million people across the world.

 

The question of whether the outbreak began with a spillover from wildlife sold at the market, a leak from a Wuhan virology lab or some other event, has given rise to pitch debates over how best to stop the next pandemic.

 

Obviously, if it came from a lab, the way you stop another lab based pandemic is don’t do this stuff anymore, shut all those labs down. Now the problem is these studies that these people are referring to here are all run by people whose livelihoods would go away if their labs got shut down. These are all people who work with viruses in labs, so. Conflict of interest.

I

t’s always, always, always critically important whenever you’re giving a report from somebody that you understand or a piece of evidence from somebody that you understand, if they have motivations are not in the court of law. This is very well established. Conflicts of interest are a big deal. If you’re a contract writer, you definitely have to know who’s on the other side of the table and what their interests are, what their motivations are and whatever conflicts they might have.

 

Conflict of interest clauses are written into most contracts when you’re in sensitive positions and or corporate positions. New York Times kind of whiffed on that completely here, and I’ll show you how next.

 

Continuing in yellow at the bottom quote, “When you look at all the evidence together, it’s an extraordinarily clear picture that the pandemic started at the Huanan market,” said Michael Warby, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona and a coauthor of both new studies. Now kind of fascinating. We keep reading through this whole article here, and so we know what a breeze a coauthor on this thing, they write here. Another coauthor, Chris Newman, a wildlife biologist, University of Oxford, was part of a research team that documented a number of live wild mammals for sale at the Hunan market in November and December 2019, including raccoon dogs. Remember the raccoon dogs?

 

If you were following the story with me back in 2020, these were trotted out like old raccoon dogs. Here’s the problem. China tested over 80,000 animals, including every animal they could get their hands on in that market and elsewhere, desperately searching for any sort of a natural reservoir anywhere. You could show that there was an early progenitor version of this virus that was living in a host animal, and they couldn’t.

 

And these people don’t show that there was any. They don’t have any direct evidence to say, “Oh, and we found any animal with an earlier version of this virus before it jumped into humans. We found it. That’s your smoking gun poo.” They didn’t find that.

 

They just said this person had seen raccoon dogs earlier for sale. This is the worst kind of circumstantial evidence, right? This is really awful. That’s like saying, “I saw that man down in downtown New York City one day and later that night there was a crime committed New York City. It must have been him.” That’s not even that’s like, this is the weakest of circumstantial evidence I’ve ever heard.

 

Carrying on Christian Anderson. Oh, where have I heard that name before? Get back to that, too. A virologist at the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, and a coauthor of the new studies said, “It was important to figure out where the wild mammals for sale at one on came from and to look for evidence of past outbreaks in those places. It’s possible, for example, that villagers at the sources of that wildlife still carry antibodies from exposure to coronaviruses.”

 

You know, guess what? People did that, too. They’ve been desperately looking for any of these particular clues, the fact they’re still throwing it up like, “Hey, I have an idea,” says Christian. “Why don’t we think about maybe testing villagers for antibodies? And if they have antibodies, then could be that they’re the source or we’re closer to the source.”

 

These things have all been all been looked at and there’s nothing there, so they’re just throwing this out. This is literally it. Somebody, Christian, is throwing spaghetti against the wall in 2022 and hoping somebody will bite. You know who bit? Yeah, that’s right. These two jokes right here. They bit. So embarrassing for Carl and Benjamin, yeah, this is just it’s not a good luck, buddy. Sorry about that.

 

At any rate, when we think about the rest of this in the last box lower down there, says strikingly, five of the samples came from a single stall. That stall had been visited in 2014 by one of the coauthors. How many coauthors are there of the new studies? Edward Holmes. I’ve heard that name before to. A virologist at the University of Sydney on that trip, he had taken a photograph of a cage of raccoon dogs for sale at the time. You see how they’re trying to like sort of bump these facts near each other. Hey, there’s this virologist. He visited that very stall years ago, took a picture. There were raccoon dogs in that picture. Case closed. That’s not how it works.

 

All right. And then they have graphics, really cool graphics like check this out. Look, they’re showing you. Here’s where the human cases were that they found. And again, remember what they said, and you have to go look at the study to find out they got this study. They got social media data from China. Now, I wonder if China would have any conflicts of interest in this story, any potential that would make us possibly suspect. Or maybe discount anything we got from China.

 

Anyway, coronaviruses were found in these stalls, so again, these coronaviruses found on the walls, on the surfaces. Right. So, if somebody had coronavirus and sneezed or coughed and spewed the coronavirus around, that would show that the person brought it to the stall. Not that they got it from the stall, but they’re trying to flip that relationship around and go in the inverse of that whole thing. And so anyway, kind of a useless graphic to me. But there it is.

 

You can see others building their case, by the way. Mm-Hmm. This is kind of fun. So. This is from the New York Post, this is from, uh, that June of 2021 right there reading quote. “Meanwhile, China absolutely refuses, refuses to allow independent access to the lab, which or its records, which means it’s hiding something”

 

Jumps across species require time for a virus to adapt, and it would likely infect at least one intermediate species before transmission to humans. But tests of 80,000 animal samples in the first infected areas of China all came back negative for COVID 19, and the bat species most likely to carry coronaviruses dwells a thousand miles away from Wuhan and would have been in hibernation when the first cases appeared.

 

But didn’t the New York Times just spend a lot of time trying to implicate raccoon dogs. Why are they? Why raccoon dogs, like all of a sudden, it’s all about the raccoon dogs and Eddie Holmes took a picture of a stall with raccoon dogs.

 

In any rate, SARS-CoV-COVID has never been found in animals until after it had been found in humans. Now it’s in all kinds of animals. Apparently, the deer populations are endemically infected with it. It jumped into tigers in zoos. Apparently, house dogs and cats can both catch it. It’s kind of everywhere now. Isn’t that kind of weird? Isn’t that kind of weird scientists and science writers at the New York Times that this thing that’s so infective that it had to first come into a human and then boom, now it’s in animals everywhere, but you couldn’t find it in animals before it was found in humans.

 

Kind of militates against the whole concept that maybe it jumped from an animal into a human. I can guarantee you it did jump from humans into an animal. We do have that. That’s our data. All right. By the way, trying to find this, you know, I’m this kind of guy who remembered reading this article, and I remembered the 80,000 number. So, I went and I did my usual thing. I typed it into Google and I said, “China test 80,000 animals, all negative COVID.” That was my search term right there. Nothing came up.

 

Right, this is the first sets of search terms. I didn’t, you know, cut and paste. I didn’t do anything. This is just how this showed up. Then I went to DuckDuckGo and it was obviously the first thing that showed up. But as you know, now I can’t even trust DuckDuckGo because of course, now they’re doing the same thing as Google and nudge nudging us all and deciding for us which news articles they think we should see in this.

 

Just about around Russian disinformation around Ukraine. But you know that slippery slope starts right soon as you decide you need to know what information I should and shouldn’t see about one start topic. That topic becomes two, becomes five, becomes 10. The next thing you know you’re nudging me away from articles. I know I read about things like this.

 

So, DuckDuckGo gone for me. No more interest in using that. It’s like, “Listen, DuckDuckGo, if I ever want the cut cut off crusts, cut off my bread to make a sandwich, I’ll let you know. Right? Otherwise, I trust myself to read all kinds of information and come to my own conclusions. Like a big boy about what is information I’m willing to incorporate into my worldview in which I’m not. All right.”

 

Carrying on these are the people actually responsible for this origin propaganda. That would be the executive editor right there. Dean Baker and Joseph Kahn, Managing Editor. There’s their emails down there. You can also send the letters. I’ll show you an example of some things, some questions I think we all should send.

 

We should send in and say, “We’re watching it. We’re not impressed. This is really just bad stuff.” And why is it such bad stuff? Well. This is this is one of those two studies that they were talking about, by the way, these are preprints. This New York Times, you know, it’s like these are preprints. Remember all that time they’re bashing us around all that. That study around ivermectin as a preprint, you can’t trust those. Right? Well, here they just went all in on a preprint.

 

Big, beautiful graphics. You know, titles, headlines all to try and nudge us towards the conclusion using circumstantial inferential evidence, which is really, really weak, super-duper weak to nudge us towards the idea that maybe this thing came out of animals that are at a wet market. It’s all just so transparently bad at any rate.

 

Here’s one of the two studies, “SARS-CoV-2 emergence very likely resulted from at least two zoonotic events. Two, not one, two. They can’t even find one thread that goes back to an actual zoonosis moment, but now they’re postulating, too. Why? Because that’s what the data says. They would have to postulate to make their flimsy case hold together.

 

But then you look at the names on here. I got some in yellow. Robert, Garry, Edward Holmes. Andrew Rambo. Christian Anderson, you know, I’ve heard those names before. Well, that’s right. Remember, on Saturday, February 1st, when they were holding the emergency meetings to talk about where this thing might have come from, and they conspired to conclude this must have come from a natural origin before any of the data was actually in and gone through who were in those meetings. Hmm.

 

We got names on here like, oh, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambo, Christian Anderson, and then we got other ones on here you’re going to see later. Like Coop. Copeman here, Koopmans. Oh, same old cast of characters.

 

Now, obviously, these people have an extraordinary conflict of interest in this story. Obviously, these people have already been implicated in the potential of a cover up. Obviously, we don’t have all the data because the emails remain redacted. Right? And The York Times never mentioned in that article any of these potential conflicts of interest. They just presented it like scientists, like we all trust scientists, “Oh scientists, they would never lie.: Scientists right above reproach, white lab coats, strong ethics and morals. Right.

 

How did they not mention that? Come on, New York Times. How do you write an entire article about a couple of preprints that are written by the very same people who are implicated in the cover up? And so, let’s go down that path just a bit, because maybe you don’t remember. I sure do.

 

Like the Pepperidge Farms of Science reporting. Remember this? Yeah, this was written on January 31st from Christian Andersen, right? And it goes to Jeremy Farrar and who’s the head of the Wellcome Trust (WEF)? All of that, right? And he’s writing to Fauci saying, “Hey, Tony,” in yellow, “I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself, those are the names you just talked about. All find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” What inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. A mouthful, but what they’re saying really was this thing has a poly basic furin cleavage site in it. That’s the feature that is made out of four inserted amino acids known as PRK. Those are four amino acids proline, arginine, arginine, aspartic acid, and they are inserted courtesy of this 19-letter long nucleotide sequence, which, by the way, quite awkwardly only exists in the world of medicine patents in 2015 and onward. Oops.

 

And people are even beginning to ask the head, the CEO of Moderna, about that little thing. And he said, “Our scientists are looking into it.” There’s not a lot to look into.

 

Does that string of 19 letters exist in a modern patent? Yes. Does that string of letters exist in this SARS-CoV-2 virus? Yes. Is it that precise sequence of letters that gives it its Priore Poly basic furin cleavage site? Yes. Are those findings inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory? Yes.

 

But somehow Christian Anderson went from January 31st thinking that to February 1st, being in meetings like this to just three days later, having a draft of a paper saying it had to have come from nature without any data. It was just a set of conclusions seeking some data.

 

And now they’ve gone out and taken. We have pictures of raccoon dogs just lame. It’s really, it’s really that lame.

 

At any rate, that second year, that second study, the Hunan market was the epicenter was the epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Of course, this is all a little bit just in. There are some issues with this now because they’re starting to find, with blood bank work in Europe, they’re finding that actually antibodies to these things were somehow in their blood samples from, like early fall 2019 if not earlier.

 

So must have gotten away from the world a little bit earlier than even we thought, which would take their epicenter argument and blow it out of the water. They should have accounted for that. And I hope before this gets into actual print that the reviewers give this one a good, hard set of looks, and by the way, who is implicated in all this stuff.

 

Well, University of Arizona, we got the Scripps Research Institute. All sounds really, you know, just exceptionally gravitas. Very authoritative. We’ve got Johns Hopkins here. We got the University of California San Diego at La Hoya. We’ve got the Utah School of Medicine and we got some. I got Oxford in there. We got Saskatoon, Canada on there, another Oxford. And of course. The Netherlands.

 

At any rate, look who’s on this one. Steven Goldstein. Angela Rasmussen. Where have I heard those names before striking a bill? Marion Koopmans. Yeah. Marion was on those emails that were there flying around in January 31st, the 1st of 2020, talking about inconsistent evolutionary stuff.

 

Robert Garry, Eddie Holmes, interim beau, Christian Anderson. These are all the same people. They have extraordinary conflicts of interest in this particular story. So that’s Part One. Even without conflicts of interest, the New York Times science writers ought to know about biases. Does anybody have an ingrained bias towards a set of conclusions? Are they out with a theory in search of data and then cherry-picking data to support those conclusions? You’d want to watch out and see if people had pre-formed conclusions that would be part of the review process that I would think any New York Times ought to go through, as well as the reviewers of these particular papers. But they’re the same people on there again, by the way, all the way back there in June of 2021, there is Angela Rasmussen there, Steven Goldstein there, writing here in The Washington Post.

 

We may never know where the virus came from, but evidence still suggests nature. Strong bias. Right? And they say down there in yellow or like countless viruses throughout history, COVID arrived through zoonotic spillover jumping from animals to humans. That’s really bad, deductive reasoning.

 

We’ve had zoonotic before, therefore, it’s most likely it’s zoonotic this time. Well, we’ve also had cases where humans made viruses and it jumped out of labs. We have both of those examples you could say, you know, or like countless viruses throughout history or like many viruses throughout history that have that have accidentally escaped from labs da da da da da.

 

So that’s not compelling. That’s a really weak argument, super weak argument. I think at best, these people have a guilty conscience. And remember, this was back. October 2021 George Davey Smith writes down origins of COVID 19. They’re having a big summit with all these people is going to be amazing. Come register for this.

 

And so, I’m looking. There’s Marion Copeman. There’s Angie Rasmussen on there, and I wrote with that line up. We anxiously await the forthcoming expert conclusions that gain of function is a safe, necessary, already well-regulated, no way contributed to the accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. Surprisingly, that’s what this conference concluded.

 

Yeah. How did I know? Such a fortune teller, right? As well? Angela, she’s just been openly, openly, openly biased towards the natural origin story from the start casting shade every chance.

 

So, this comes from early mid-2021, she wrote here, “genetic manipulation of the sort routinely used by virologists to explore gain of function and spillover by adding a proteolytic cleavage site at the S1 S2 boundary would need to be done using a reverse genetic system, and it’s not related to any known virus backbone.” No, that’s not actually true.

 

In fact, Ralph Baric published a paper back in 2002 and patented what’s called a notion technology, which says basically they can construct anything they want, any virus they want without leaving any sort of genetic trace. Second of all, you don’t have to use a reverse genetic system. You could use another system. And oh, by the way, you could just do chimeric things where you take a binding domain from one, a backbone from another, glue them together, slot your little poly basic furin cleavage site, and you could do all this.

 

And so, she’s actually speaking about something here very authoritatively, but it’s actually not even remotely close to accurate. And on to quote, Dr. Anderson and colleagues directly, “the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus back.” Well, that that may be true, but it’s not a great argument. Again, because it’s any previously published virus backbone. We don’t know what the WIV was up to. We don’t know how many backbones they actually had. In fact, the one called RaTG13 wasn’t even put into the database until February of 2020. Ostensibly they’d found it years earlier, and that’s the closest one. So that’s a really bad argument right there.

 

Dr. Anderson and Rasmussen to say the genetic data is irrefutably show that this thing is not derived from any previously cataloged virus. Backbone is not an argument because, as we all know, not all viral backbones necessarily are cataloged. Hmm. Second of all, you could also take these backbones, and once you run them through enough serial passages and cells in mice, ferrets, whatever you’re doing, they can change enough through that process. That rapid evolutionary process that you might say haven’t seen that one before. Right.

 

Plus, there’s tons of other data in there without going too far down in the weeds. But these were just these were people very authoritatively throwing their weight around to say couldn’t possibly have been anything other than natural. And they’re just excluding everything else with a clear and heavy bias. I would think that would be important for a journalist to be aware of. But check this out. This is from the New York Times article, they say, “The researchers then mapped cases in January and February. They use data collected by Chinese researchers from Weibo, a social media app” that created channel for people with COVID to seek help. “The 737 case is drawn from Weibo, were concentrated away from the market and other parts of central Wuhan with high populations of elderly residents.”

 

So, what they’re saying was, “Well, yeah, this is this is the seafood market right here.” But when we see these concentrations right here. And say here, this is where high concentrations of elderly people were. So, the idea is that elderly people were more likely to transmit and catch and be infected by this thing. Not sure if that’s true, but it could be. But at any rate, this is just correlation. It’s just saying, “Hey, the cases were near this market, so therefore had to come from it.”

 

I want to know why correlation does not equal causation. Why isn’t that key phrase operative here? Because it’s used all the time, right? It’s used. Oh, it’s correlation doesn’t equal causation. Well, you know that ivermectin stuff did seem to stop the whole city from getting infected or dying. That doesn’t show anything. You can’t prove that it’s not causative.

 

But here they’re pretending as if this map in somehow provides some sort of level of causation to this whole thing now. What’s interesting is Alina Chan in her book, she said, quote, “I’m still working through these preprints. But another problem is that their maps don’t point out the location of the Wuhan CDC, which was doing virology work and their main Wuhan hospitals. One could easily argue that these were the epicenter of the outbreak, as opposed to the one known market.” So, here’s the market, oh, here’s the CDC wants CDC. Hmm. And here’s a hospital right here. Oh, here’s another hospital right here. Oh, the Wuhan Institute of Virology campus is right there. Um hmm.

 

So, if you see here in this map this big river, see this fork. We’re going to just take a quick peek. I’m going to show you how to compare these two maps, and this is the Big East Lake here, this big sort of inkblot shaped thing right here.

 

So, let’s put these map side by side. Take a quick peek here. They’re saying, well, because the Hunan market is here, the only thing they put on their map and you can see the cases right here. Therefore, it must have come from there. Ta da. Case closed. Not so fast.

 

So again, if you take a quick peek here and see this, this is the block inkblot lake here. Here it is here. There are different scales, so this one here is larger, more blown up. So here you can see that little fork in the river right here, and that’s the fork in the river right up there. So roughly speaking, we would say that the tip of this starts right around that fork.

 

So, this would be kind of the area they’re saying right here, all the way around to the far side of this lake and up. This is the area where they’re saying shows because the cases are clustered here. There must have been the Huanan seafood market.

 

So, anything else fallen in there in that map anywhere? Hospitals, the ivy, the Center for Disease Control, there’s a number of other objects in there that could potentially also be of interest in this study if we at all had open minds and a true spirit of inquiry.

 

So, at any rate, their conclusions here, they said. Quote “more clues emerged when the researchers created an evolutionary family tree of the coronavirus sampled during the first few weeks of the pandemic. The tree is split into two major branches, known as A and B, examining the mutations in each branch. The researchers concluded that they must have originated from animals separately, each adapting to humans on their own.”

 

So, this miraculous backdrop didn’t happen once it happened twice. It had to have happened in two separate paths and then both just magically jumped out at the same time. This is just this is like a full on there be miracles, right? This is silly. Come on, come on. Yet it hasn’t happened since. I mean, it’s just. This is really dumb. This is really dumb.

 

All right. Their logic for the wet market origins like this will because the Chinese gave the researchers here some social media data showing that the earliest reported cases happened somewhere around a wet market out of literally hundreds of other buildings under the same umbrella. It must have arisen in the wet market, too, because there were two distinct lineages that arose at the same time the most likely conclusion? Is that each strain must have arisen in animals separately?

 

How could it have been that there was a lab running multiple experiments is nonsense. That’s not likely. It must have arisen in two separate lineages simultaneously. And then once it did jump to humans, disappeared entirely from all those animals that jump from only to explode violently into minks, deer, tigers and cats. A mere weeks later. Three

 

Finally, the conclusion is all of us experts agree, and you’re not one of us, but the New York Times is on our side, so you have to believe us. Case closed. It’s literally that silly. By the way, I like to know these things who did fund these studies. Hmm.

 

Let’s see funding. This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. You mean that place that Anthony Fauci works? I mean, the guy who was busy working with these same authors to cover up the natural the lab origin of this thing and make it be absolutely only a natural origin? You mean that guy? That’s where this funding came from? OK, who else, the Wellcome Trust, Jeremy Farrar’s organization, and oh, Gilliad. Good thing. Yeah, good.

 

It’s the world you live in right now. You’re supposed to believe all this stuff, and they just presented as if you’re the nut for doing your own research anyway. Farrar of the Wellcome Trust on these studies, he tweeted here on February 26, right after these, the New York Times article came out, he wrote “painstaking work, multiple complex data sources, critical understanding through collaboration, open mind and willing to follow the science and ensure a great risk.” I don’t even know what that means, but anyway, he’s basically saying big support. I support this. No mention of hey, big support for the studies I’ve funded or helped my organization help fund. And by the way, this is the same Jeremy Farrar that that wrote in his autobiography, he said quote “by the second week of January, I was beginning to realize the scale of what was happening. Second week of January 2020, I was also getting the uncomfortable feeling that some of the information needed by scientists all around the world to detect and fight this new disease was not being disclosed as fast as it could be. I did not know it then, but a fraught few weeks lay ahead. In those weeks, I became exhausted and scared. I felt as if I was living a different person’s life. During that period, I would do things I had never done before. Acquire a burner phone, hold clandestine meetings. Keep difficult secrets.”

 

Sounds totally legit. Burner phone, clandestine meetings around what exactly? Hmm.

 

Anyway, the New York Times, you know, is busy helping to spin things all the time. They nudge you the part of the nudge units. They want you to believe things in a certain way here. Look at this headline just recently came out. Pfizer reaps hundreds of millions in profits from COVID vaccine, and then they, right under there, it says, generated $3.5 billion in revenue. Hmm. Well, I know revenues aren’t necessarily profits, but 35 hundred of millions in revenues to be exact in the first quarter. I mean, it’s just this is an immensely, immensely profitable business. They are raking in hundreds, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions, billions, billions in profits, obviously. All right.

 

So, I’m going to say that this was a case of really, really shoddy journalism going to say that if I was either of these students right here, I would be deeply embarrassed by this particular putting that much time into an article. With this, many holes in it, deeply embarrassed to have forgotten, to notice the conflict of interest or to talk about it, or to interview or talk to anybody who might have a different view, who could have said, I think you need to understand who these participants are that you’re talking to. But it’s just weird to me that we have this virology community.

 

This clearly feels to me like they’re hiding something and they’re not very forthcoming in there, and they circle the wagons and they try and, you know, abuse you with appeals to authority and shout you down and tell you don’t know what you’re talking about and just throw out wild claims all the time and then pretend like you can’t even have a single hypothesis that varies from there. It’s like this little club. It’s like a club, a mean girls club at school, right? They’re just very sort of cliquish.

 

But why do you need to know where this virus came from? If it came from a lab, we need to know that and we need to prevent that from happening again. That’s the job of journalism is to go out there and not help, defend. And, you know, because these people work for big corporations and they work for big governments. And, you know, it would be politically embarrassing to certain political parties or whatever the story is, that’s complete crap.

 

What we should have is nothing but the truth, and that’s the job of the journalists is to go out and get the truth. Well, instead of doing that, they want to censor us now. They want to shut down channels. They want to shout us down. They want to sort of minimize, marginalize, call people who dare to ask questions or want democracy or freedom to call them all kinds of things. Horrible things, racists and misogynists and anti-vaxxers, or whatever the pejorative terms are. But they’re basically saying, “Look, you’re either in this big club in helping to support it, no matter what or you’re on the outside.” And so. This really is shouldn’t be part of that dynamic. We deserve to know where this virus came from. To me, there’s very large and compelling evidence to say this thing didn’t jump randomly a couple of times in a wet market into humans and then disappear from all the animals, only to jump back into animals again a couple of weeks later. That’s dumb. All right.

 

So, I expect more from senior science writers. Again, if you want to, you can let how you feel about this. Be known by getting contact with these folks right here and maybe asking some questions like this. Some polite questions would be on the top. I’m curious why the role of several of the key authors in participating in meetings with Fauci and Collins in January 2020, where they discussed promoting the natural origin story, were not mentioned. Hmm.

 

How about is it usual for New York Times pieces to completely ignore conflicts of interest like this? Hmm. The study cited are preprints, and the evidence is entirely circumstantial and largely drawn from Chinese supplied data. I expected senior New York Times science writers to be well-versed in the principle of correlation does not equal causation. Why was that not the case here? Is this really the best New York Times can do?

 

We suspect that people’s loss of faith in the Times is very well placed. Those would be some of the questions that I think we could be asking at this particular point in time. All right. So. Oh, before I get to conclusions on Part Two of this over at Peak Prosperity, the “Beginning of the End”, some stuff just happened on the petrodollar, so we’re just talking natural lab origin. I’m going to talk about the petrodollar. Some really big stuff happened these past couple of weeks. I think it’s Earth changing.

 

Maybe not. I might be wrong, but I’m not confused. There’s some really cool stuff going on. So, if you want to come on over, we’ve got some great memberships over there now. I’ve got a whole new business model, really affordable. So come on, check it out if you want. Super tribe of people asking questions and talking about stuff like this with an open mind so important these days. So important. So valuable.

 

All right. Let me move this over a tiny bit so we can see the whole thing. Yeah. All right.

 

Conclusions first, the study’s concluding a natural origin from the Huanan wet market are seriously flawed. First, they require us to believe Chinese source data. Two years after the fact, after China already blocked legit inquiry. No, but here’s some data. There’s no sequence data. They didn’t sequence anything. They didn’t show that any of this actually came from an animal. No animal, sources identified. It’s all circumstantial and flimsy at best. This is the best they could come up with. After two years of trying desperately to make it seem like anything other than their precious careers and line of work might be implicated. Huh?

 

Who knew these studies were authored by the very same people already implicated in the Fauci cover up meetings, and we still don’t have full information. Nobody’s been subpoenaed. Nobody sat in front of a court under oath. We don’t even have the content of those emails at this point in time, so we don’t know what happened. But man, it sure looks suspicious. Of course, it always does when people hide things.

 

Finally, here every author of these studies, which I investigated, already had an exceptionally strong bias for the natural origin hypothesis. This looks like bad science to me. This is what happens when you go out and you’re trying desperately to gather data to support a point of view, rather than gathering the data, letting it speak to you, formulating the strongest hypothesis. And maybe you could have two or three hypotheses, but the just reject one when you don’t have the data to do that in favor of another hypothesis. Any science? It’s propaganda. All right.

 

This was yet another piece of shamefully obvious propaganda from The York Times getting a lot of that lately.

 

So, at any rate, that’s all I have for you here today, and we are going to come back to you next time. I don’t even know we’re going to talk about next time, and we’ll find out if this channel, you know, can persist for a bit longer. We just had a huge purge on YouTube just a couple of days ago, where they took out a number of channels for reasons. And that’s just the world we live in, right? So, hey, it’s part of the deal.

 

That’s why if you want to be sure that you’re following me and you like this kind of work, hey. Click the like button clicks. Subscribe, do that. People get unsubscribed by YouTube from this channel all the time, and it’s just it’s anyway dynamic, something I have to put up with. But if you want to be sure to follow my work, come on over to Peak Prosperity.com.

 

We’ve got pretty good deals right now for anybody who wants to join us, and we got a great tribe of people growing all the time. Curious people, people who understand that we’re in a world of extraordinary change. Why do I spend so much time trying to break out the propaganda? Can we just let these silly, little trite propaganda fluff pieces float past us without paying attention? Yeah, we could. But no, because what we really have to do is understand the degree to which we’re being manipulated and lied to all the time. And once you have that awareness, you can then begin to separate from it and be free from the influence of it so that you’re not making bad decisions.

 

What’s a bad decision? It’s a decision, no matter how good that’s predicated on faulty data. So right now? You know, people are saying, well, you know, what are you going to do? We can’t possibly avoid a thing like this again. We should just get rid of wet markets. Sure, I’m all in favor of getting rid of wet markets for other reasons, but not because they were the source of anything in this particular case. This virus was made in a lab. No question about that in my mind.

 

And we have tons of data, genetic data. We’ve got evolutionary data. We’ve got the really weird case of the Omicron variants that came out. One in value are as different from each other. In fact, more different from each other than they are from the original Alpha Beta Delta strains. And these are so different from each other that it’s not like you can track from Alpha the beta. You can see the changes that happen from beta to gamma gamma delta, all that you can see, the changes that happen. And there’s lots of accumulated things that also variants just popping out of nowhere. I’m really glad they came along because as predicted on this show many months ago, Omicron spells the end of COVID, so COVID is over.

 

As far as I’m concerned, Omicron is a cold, sometimes a nasty cold for people, but ultimately not that bad. Not nearly as bad as the alpha original variant that came out of China way back when in January 2020 across the world.

 

So, with that, I think we ought to know. I think we deserve to know. And we really ought to demand to know where this virus came from, and I’m a little curious why the New York Times and these virologists are so interested in covering it up. It makes me question a lot of things. And they’re not being open. They’re not being honest. They’re not being fair or balanced. They clearly have a strong bias that always makes me a little concerned. All right. That is all I have for you today. Thank you so much for listening. We will see you next time.