Fauci Emails Reveal Coverup and the Lab Creation of COVID-19 - Chris Martenson

Video Transcript:

Fauci lied and people died. I'm Dr. Chris Martins and today we're going into Fauci's emails We're going to be looking at a very specific date where I think we see strong evidence of a lab leak cover up. Let's go take a look All right, welcome everybody. It's June 4th 2021. We're going to look at the emails here Remember you show me the incentive. I will show you the outcome. I believe there were strong incentives to cover up a Lab leak by a number of players and it starts here on January 31st through February 1st Those the two days in question January 31st. This is 2020. Remember Wall Street Journal New York Times Washington Post are all denigrating the coronavirus as the flu is just the flu, bro Remember all of that well It wasn't the flu and of course it was huge concern inside the appropriate bodies as you would expect of course And then Fauci deeply concerned but it begins here with an email from a Christian G Anderson here sent Friday January 31st at 10 32 pm. So this is Friday evening and it's a high Tony so they're on a first name basis here of course I don't know how Christian knows Tony that well, but I'm sure there's a story there and He's responding to something that Tony had sent him saying he says thanks for sharing. Yeah, I saw this earlier today Both Eddie and myself. I'll tell you who Eddie isn't just a minute or actually quote in it It's a great article so they're looking at this article that was written about the Putative origin of where did this virus come from the highlighted yellow parts I want to draw your attention to you've probably already seen this elsewhere if you've been following the email story But Christian wrote the unusual features of the virus. That's the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Makeup a really small part of the genome just less than 0.1 percent So one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features potentially look engineered Continuing he says Eddie Bob Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent With expectations from evolutionary theory So this is early on saying hey some stuff looks really weird that less than 0.1 percent I know which that refers to that's that PRRA polybasic urine inserted cleavage site in there That's the thing that makes this thing really sing as a As a virus and enables it to really attack the cells So even though they say oh, it's just less than 0.1 percent That's irrelevant all you would need is just Just those 12 nucleotides or those four amino acids to be inserted in And you've got an engineered virus at that point. So that's what that's what being said Friday night 1032 So let's carry on with this story just a little further by the way This is Christian Anderson right here very prolific on Twitter and we'll show you some more of his writings there on Twitter and just a bit But here's the smoking gun this comes from Fauci himself Saturday Look at the time there 1229 that's in the morning. So this is a I consider this 1229 at night if you well on Friday night So 1032 he gets that email from Christian Anderson next thing you know he's going to a Hugh arcan Arcan cloths there Alchem cloths, I guess Hugh it is essential that we speak this morning keep your cell phone on You continues to read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you now You will have tasks today That must be done The paper barrack she at all nature medicine SARS gain a function PDF. So this has been I saw On uh Tucker Carlson he talked about this paper. I'm pretty sure I found that paper. So I want to cover that with you I'm pretty sure um That this paper oh before we go there Hugh Alchem cloths who is this guy look at this he uh overseas an extensive portfolio of basic clinical and Applied research. So um he's the uh yeah, he's the deputy director of of the And iid so so this is the this is the guy who'd be really responsible for this but he's overseeing Research it'd be really important from a cYA standpoint if you were overseeing research that potentially Looked like gain a function research that could be really embarrassing So I think there was a little rally the rally the troop cYA moment here But let's let's take a peek here um All right, what is this paper barrack she at all nature medicine SARS gain a function um, we'll just take a peek at that real quick here Uh before we get there let's just be really clear about what the timeline is Christian Anderson sends an email to Fauci on friday at 10.32 pm Fauci sends an email to alchem class at 12.29 a.m. Saturday That is that friday night all right Um, this probably this paper they're talking about because it includes ralph barrack here as the Last author which is the place that that means that's the lab it happened and that's the the last author Two places in a science paper that matter the most first author last author The first is usually the person who did the most work the last is a person who gets a lot of the credit because it happened in their lab But look who second from last year She hey, that's the bat lady This is from november of 2015 obviously it's in nature medicine very important and says it's the title is a SARS-like cluster Of circulating bat corona viruses shows potential for human emergence um, this is really a fairly important paper and by the way Just so we have a beat on everything. This is Ralph barrack on the lower right down here This is the bat lady shingling g Why did this paper jump out? Why would it be so important to talk about a couple reasons? Let's dive right in first the methods from this particular paper What do they do here viruses cells in vitro that's in glass Infection and plaque assays wild type SARS they used wild type SARS Coronavirus they use a mouse adapted SARS-CoV The ma15 virus and Chimeric SARS-like coves so this is talking about gain of function style research where you're taking a more effective spike protein and welding it onto another Coronavirus so you do those chimeras chimera meaning pieces from two separate things All right, so they did that and look as well from their methods It says in the second piece growth curves in vero e6 DBT Calu32b4 and primary human airway epithelial cells so that's what they were doing all sort to run in these different types of of infected assays on all sorts of different models including actual human lung tissue Says down here further down in yellow human lungs for HAE that's um That's talking about the human airway epithelial cells that's HAE Cultures were procured under University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill institutional view board approved protocols HAE cultures represent highly Differentiated human airway epithelium containing ciliated and non-silinated epithelial cells as well as goblet cells so so this is the lining of the The trachea and the bronchi have those kinds of cells right in there. So they're actually taking human tissue that Who knows where they got it from um, but this actual human lung tissue and They're running these SARS-CoV experiments on them using Chimerized SARS viruses That's that's that's pretty as close to gain a function as you can get right there And in fact right in the paper at the bottom. This is probably why I would want to talk about it If I was out to you now can close is uh they talked about it in the disclosure in this paper linked down below right there Bio safety and biosecurity there's a whole paragraph found out. I love this part. It says these studies We're initiated before the US government deliberative process research funding pause on selected gain of function research involving influenza murs and SARS viruses So they had a funding pause that's known as a moratorium. It was a ban on selected gain of function research They said well this one this one continued because it was started before the the the ban went in so they continued it and finished it That's fine. I guess I think that was part of the rule set says this paper has been reviewed by the funding agency the NIH Continuation of these studies was requested and this has been approved by the NIH That's the money shot right here continuation of these studies was requested and this has been approved by the NIH we saw earlier in Tucker Carlson's reporting that Somebody else in the NIH who's responsible for what's called the P3 protocols said that this research had never come across their desk So somebody in the NIH Approved these continued gain of function studies now. Why is that such a critical thing at this point in time because It was in October 2014 that that ban went in and as I just told you this paper came out in 2015 in November so the ban was on and the ban wasn't lifted until So this paper and its continuation of this research Was approved by the NIH. This is gain of function research. So when Fauci sat before the senate committee told ran Paul we don't do gain of function research We haven't we didn't not during that time. He was absolutely lying and he knows this and by the way He sent forward a paper a PDF that was this paper to his deputy director saying hey We got to talk you got tasks. Who knows what those tasks are you know probably called cleanup CYA, but this is this these emails absolutely show that this kind of research was being done It had been approved by the NIH. It didn't go through the normal approval processes because we don't have record of that according to somebody inside the NIH And Fauci knew about all this and so did Alconcloss so the two of them together By the way, just so you understand what the 3p framework is says here development of review mechanisms for potential pandemic pathogen ppp 3p Care and oversight. That's the p3co. That's the framework for um Spells out how pandemic potential pathogens should be regulated funded stored and research so as to minimize threats to the public Health and safety that is how do we experiment on these wildly dangerous things that like So you're an escape, you know cause worldwide pandemic kill a few million people totally trash the world economy It's kind of embarrassing if that happens under your watch and it comes out. Wouldn't you think So again, you show me do you think in your mind? Can you imagine is there an incentive if you were in any way feeling potentially that you might have been responsible Obliquely for this thing that you might I don't know have an incentive to want to Cover that up or not investigate it too carefully or Misdirect the investigation. This is where the story gets fascinating. All right um, so Hey, Steve meeting is called let's look here. Um, this is Saturday, February 1st. So This is actually from a man named Jeremy Farah Now, who's Jeremy Farah and why is he Emailing all these people look who's on on the email list that he's he's talking to here. He sent this to Fauci Send it to Patrick valence who's um a very high-level government official inside the NIH there uh You got this guy from a high-level German ministry over here. Uh, you've got um Marion Koopman's there who is from Scientific senior scientific advisor at the WHO and also uh ahead of a Dutch virology Center uh, which is same places r a m uh, Fleischer there is same thing Uh, all these people are Pretty interesting high-level people, but Jeremy Farah he's a director of the welcome trust This isn't a government agency theoretically This is the welcome trust. It's it's it's welcome was a very wealthy pharmaceutical executive once upon a time and donated a lot of money left. I don't know 20 30 billion dollars into a trust and that trust goes out and does things that all sound very interesting and holistic but um In fact Uh, you'd have to ask how this trust is so powerful that you have Jeremy Farah who's the director of it Suddenly calling a meeting and being in on these meetings that were triggered by this whole gain of function fiasco Why why would a noble non-profit sort of um Trust like this that cares so much about World in human health suddenly be on the inside of this particular meeting set right here Uh, and so this is the teleconference. It's about the teleconference. So um Yeah, Christian and Eddie have shared this and we'll talk through all this on the con call. Okay. Thank you All right, uh, let's carry on with us just a little bit more because this gets even more fascinating who else is on this uh call So Patrick van Uyling's here um, yeah Oh, sorry got got him wrong in the earlier party. Yeah, that's right. He's president uh of R&D of Glaxo Smith kind And he was to become a UK government's chief scientific advisor. So Patrick valance is um actually a UK government advisor in this story uh carrying on there's a Paul Shryer on here who's oh Well, he's the chief operating officer at the welcome trust. That's a little weird um They're worried about how they're gonna cover up the whole idea of a lab leak situation. They're they're pulling in Uh, they're pulling in all these guys here um Well, let's see who else is on here uh Oh Yeah, this guy um Mike this is the mic we heard about before uh Mike Ferguson uh who's he Uh, well, you'd be the deputy chair at the welcome trust um, so That's kind of who we have on on this particular uh Sinnery of of things so got a few other names on here But here's kind of the whole list This is uh at the bottom of that email from Jeremy for our calling for this urgent meeting there was uh, you know The calls only started to come out The emails flew around early on the morning of uh February 1st and then by two o'clock they said Hey, here's what we're gonna do um February 1st or second February for Eddie Information and discussion that is shared here is gonna be in total confidence Not to be shared until agreement on next steps Um, they got the dial in details all of this. It's a one-hour meeting if he begins here at two PM EST they're saying two PM Eastern And look who's on here um Hmm Christian Anderson's on here and Bob Gary, but they couldn't reach him for this thing uh Christian drosten You got Tony Fauci on there uh, you got your mic Ferguson Uh, you got your round round fuchet fuchet. I guess uh, you got your Eddie homes on there Don't worry. We're gonna go through all these names in a bit. You got your Mary and kutmans on there you got your stephan um Pullman there you got uh Andy Andy um I'm about to take a look at him in just a second you got your paul shriar as we mentioned Patrick valance So these this is all it's actually a pretty important um set of list of people on here But let's just make sure we got the timeline remember christian Anderson kicks this off sends that email out 1032 on january 31st then Fauci sends that email to alchenglosset Later that evening or early morning saturday emails fly around from one PM to two PM EST saturday and then and then boom There's gonna be this meeting at two PM lots of people were copied in on that But you notice who's on there you got a lot of people from the welcome trust you got people from the NIH from the who And some friendly I'm calling them here Researchers and we'll find out why they're friendly in just a second So they're having this meeting and remember I said up here uh it says here I will by be on email throughout the meeting email paul or i um At paul if any problems While the things going on an email flies out from jeremy for our to anthony fauci you can see here It's two fifty six p.m. So the conference has been going on this telecon has been going on 56 minutes Private email sent just to frances collins the director of the NIH Patrick valance who's the uh uk guy Mike Ferguson who is Well, he's a welcome trust individual So jeremy says hey can I suggest we shut down the call and then re dial in so he just wants to talk privately or more privately with just patrick in frances and then having mike on there in anthony So that I think this is the core core group right here concern people But your first question ought to be how is it that somebody who runs a A benevolent trust has this much power that they're directing things around like this since and um Clearly scripting what's going to come out of these meetings and all that interesting question Anyway, uh here's all we know the con calls arranged at two p.m. EST at last for at least those 56 minutes till that email We just covered went out and the key leadership of welcome the n.h. And the n.a. ad presumably stay on afterwards To discuss something What we don't know but if I was a true investigative journalist or and or I was a part of a senate committee There's somebody with some peanut power. I'd be uh I'd be honing in on that little after-call session right there. That would be um You'd think there'd be some pretty interesting info uh in there so we can see what happens all right carrying on Hey, we got some really tasty post-meeting follow-ups from this email dump. It was just fantastic. So look at this marion uh Coupsman here. It's sent it to all the people who were on that particular call and that's all great out the whole thing's great out The whole thing so again just to be really clear who is marion coupsman um coupmans She is here she serves on the scientific advisory group of the wh. Oh also head of the arasmas Department of virus science. So that's a big um Teaching center hospital in the in uh it's in dutch in dutch territory there So that's who marion coupsman is and she said look at this look at that Here my thoughts um, you know ray dancing and it's uh actually there's one more thing we should look at really closely there Which is that um oh yeah There's a foya these the grayed-out stuff have different letters next to them So after everybody's names up top can you see that up top? So there's the gray part and then it says b slash six So b6 is is very typical be a b Six exemption from foya is there's personally identifying information in there and they're not comfortable releasing it So they don't so that's why you would see somebody's name, but then their email is b6 so the b6 is all about Protecting personal privacy, but b5 is different so this whole part down here is grayed out under foya exemption b5 What's exemption b5? I'm so glad you asked that is a great question Here's exemption five exemption five of the federal foya fo freedom of information that covers Multiple privileges including those that protect an attorney's work product attorney client communications and The deliberative process. So it's really there to protect something that's already in some form of legal proceeding It exempts from mandatory disclosure Interagency or intraagency Memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation With the agency But it only possibly exempts the only way you can actually claim a b5 Is if it's already in litigation or or about to go into litigation or because the information was shared Intra or interagency and there's the possibility of that litigation or the reality of litigation going on So the first thing you might want to ask is well wait a minute if it only applies to enter intraagency memorandums How is it possible that something sent from a non-agency person because Mirion is absolutely in coups coupments is absolutely not In part of the US government. She's not part of the agency. How did this whole Reflection from her even from her time at the meeting Gather a foya b5 exemption again If I was one of those Investigative journalists and or I was on a subpoena thing. I'd be I'd be I'd be saying I'm gonna I'd dispute that b5 right there. I don't think this deserves a b5 But I'm no foya expert, but I will say doesn't really make sense to me that um it would apply that way so Scope of exemptions down here The US Supreme Court has ruled that to qualify for exemption five protection a document must satisfy two conditions First its source must be a government agency Mirion is not a government agency. She wasn't the source of that Second the document must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery Recognized on their exemption five So all I can figure is that that's uh that whatever she wrote there is already subject to litigation somehow I guess I don't I don't know I don't know but I hope the justice department is on this because there's a really interesting story or not least of which is Somebody was monkeying around with a virus potentially if we find out that out and we find out that it was coming from a lab that And through work that was funded in part or whole by the US agencies and by people who were sort of vaguely Scirting gain a function research laws that existed at that point in time There ought to be some pretty massive penalties for that. I mean really big massive massive penalties I don't just mean lose your job and walk off with your golden parachute not that kind of awful bureaucratic nightmare I mean actual penalties like jail time and uh and things like that. So at any rate I don't know why Mirion got a B5 but she wasn't the only one in that story so um Who else got a B5 hey professor R.A.M. or Ron Fushie of Erasmus as well wrote in Here this is this is R.A.M. Fushie wrote dear Jeremy and others This was a very useful teleconference B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 B5 Hey, thanks for organizing this on such short notice All right, and thanks for my FOIA information. That's great, but Ron also took extensive notes during this uh three pages of of emails were actually Ron's notes Here's I've reproduced one of the pages for you uh here. They are Ron's notes very helpfully described here in the FOIA release Uh a little B5 Here's the notes All of Ron's notes are B5 I would remind the FOIA people inside the NIA idea or whoever was satisfying this particular uh email dump That Ron's not part of a US government agency and as a quick reminder again I'm no FOIA expert, but I can replay in language remember the US Supreme Court is ruled that you have to satisfy two conditions to get that Category five exemption first the source must be a government agency It's not real clear to me that Ron uh a professor at the Erasmus MC is a government agency But I could be wrong about that now you know I get wrong about these government things all the time so um there there is that Uh, okay, so continuing on um, let's see what else we got uh oh Well, Jeremy Farah who's not a government agency? Uh who is the director of the welcome trust respondant said thanks Ron B5 he was responding to Ron's notes Thoughts and this are welcome. I just I think they're just taunting us. This is a taunt right here That's just that's just somebody taunting us like now you can't see that but by the way the B5 exemption is used more on the emails around this two day period I'm isolating here January 29th February 1st and February 2nd. There was another couple emails coming in um And that's where this one came in on February 2nd. There's a lot of B5 action going on and this is some very heavily redacted Series of emails here, okay Uh mr. Farah came out with some key actions. So this is Sunday on February 2nd again all the usual cast of characters up on here Just one extra a josey golden also works at welcome is an author uh at at welcome. So what they brought an author and he says Oh, this is a very complex issue. I will B5 B5 B5 B5 so there there are the key action items mr. Farah he will we don't know what Uh and carrying on uh Jeremy Farah uh wrote in here. This is on um on Saturday the 1st of February Says thanks to everyone for joining this is clear. There is clearly much to understand um in this this call was very helpful Uh to hear some of our current understanding and the many gaps in our knowledge B5 B5 B5 Um and so again, we don't know exactly what was said there uh Yeah, here's some thoughts from others sent from Jeremy Farah. This just went to Francis Collins Fouchy and Lawrence Tabak here So this just went from Jeremy Farah to chairman of the welcome trust private thing again government agency to Various heads of of very big departments and of course this is all B5 as well. So we don't have any insight into that And continuing on Sunday on the second um from Francis Collins director of the na said hey Jeremy Thanks for forwarding these additional reflections from Mike and Bob Uh all redacted so we don't know what those reflections might be But despite all of that maybe just don't have a lot of insight. We know it was important enough that it all got redacted But concerns were mounting anyway. This is from Jeremy Farah. This went out to Anthony Fouchy Francis Collins and again copying in Lawrence Tabak here says Tadros that'd be the director of the wh oh and Bernhard have apparently gone into conclave they need to decide today We don't know what in my view if they do pervericate i would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow To think how we might go forward meanwhile. Ooh a zero edge. He dropped in a zero hedge link Which we can read in the title coronavirus contains HIV insertion stoking fears over artificially created bioweapon So they're clearly a worried about This narrative getting away from them at this point in time and what's that narrative? Well the narrative is The idea around where this thing actually came from and um, you know whether it was Was it a bio weapon who knows but they just wanted to get on top of it. Um, it's pretty clear that that's what happened there All right, so um, where am I here? Let me sing Into that Yeah, um by the way they got all these b5 exemptions again I just just need to continue to point out that Jeremy should not be granted a b5 exemption It's just he's he's not part of the US government So to have all of these b5 exemptions just doesn't doesn't really make sense all right So it's kind of interesting There was this big article that came out was called the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 was used as the main thing is still used as the main thing that debunks completely The idea of a lab leak it conclusively showed according to a lot of people the lab The non-lab origin of the natural origin of this thing it did nothing of the sort and by the way But I got to get the timing on this by the way remember this is the list of people over here. That's that down there That's the list of people who are on that original emergency phone call and teleconference And that included Christian Anderson Bob Jerry Um and Gary I mean and Eddie Holmes and Andrew Rembo on bolt so um Rembo I don't know how to pronounce that but who are the authors on this proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 the debunked the Lab origin Christian Anderson Andrew Rembo Edward Eddie Holmes and Robert Gary what are the gods what are the odds at the four guys who are in on that first phone call were the same ones who wrote oh and look at this they did it by the ninth of February It was already loaded as a preprint that means they went from that meeting on that Saturday To just seven days total elapsed time they were able to turn out an entire Research paper that proved something how much new dated you think they actually had between that moment when Christian Anderson was saying oh that looks like there's some weird engineered stuff in here too Oh, we're absolutely positive that this couldn't have come from a lab How much new data do you think they actually had in those eight days Including the writing of this thing it's a big long thing when you write a manuscript I'll tell you that you have to spend a little time actually doing the writing as well as the research Let's split that in half They had four days to gather new data what new data possibly arose in that amount of time None. I'll cut the I'll give you the answer there was no new data that actually came up in that amount of time So I can tell you that this whole article Came out as as an output from that particular meeting. That's my best guess Listen again if I hit subpoena power or I was going to do a proper investigation I would see if I could get those b5s excluded I want to see what's in those emails and I would actually go further I think there's missing emails in the string based on what I saw But that's sort of supposition and so it showed up in nature medicine had a huge impact And this is Eddie over here. This is the Bob that he was talking about before Andrew Rambo is a is a is a proper is a proper researcher same thing for Bob Robert Gary proper researcher Tulane these people are You know christian Anderson proper researcher all proper researchers everybody on here Ian Lipkin all of them But all of them would stand to lose enormously If it turned out that this thing came out of a lab Why because there would probably be a lot of oversight because It would probably be very hard to get grants to do the kind of research that they've been doing because the entire field of Virology would get a big black eye So you want to talk about the thin blue line. This is call this the thin white line for the white lab coat It's not a racial thing The thin white line because of the lab coat So here's the whole cover up timeline that I as I see it had that first email from christian Anderson that's on January 31st on the February 1st There's this emergency email to alkencloth from fauchi next thing you know There's all these emails flying around about 2 pm that Saturday They had a huge who of people on there including all these people from the welcome trust I still don't know why they would be wrapped into this whole thing this tightly unless I get conspiratorial and think about what other things They might be up to I don't know you got the na h you got the wh. Oh in there represented you got all these friendly Birole researchers that con call last at least 56 minutes and eight days later a full manuscript proving the natural origin is published by Four of the five authors were actually on those original sets of calls Um, hey science. Let's go to the but science edition So this came out just recently June 2nd. That's this year Christian Anderson is responding this thing sherry Marxon here was going through these particular emails as well said Scientist Christian Anderson told fauchi SARS-CoV-2 has unusual features that potentially look engineered Not long after this email the scientist authored a piece insisting the virus was natural And fauchi said the same thing publicly This is a massive cover up in Christian Very very prolific tweet twitter and and very unforgiving to people he doesn't he thinks are Uh in any way challenging him says Hey, I know it's super mundane, but it isn't actually a massive cover up sherry. It's just science boring I know but it's quite helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty. I guess he means an open mind Wasn't a massive cover up he's just saying this science works. I thought these these things we got new data And then I thought other things and by the way, he's not wrong. That is how science works um But I just kind of just Let's talk about this real quick because remember uh Christian science on the his January 31st email He said the unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome So one has to look really closely all the sequences to see that some of the features potentially look engineered that's January 31st Oh look on Tuesday the 4th of 2020 that would be uh by my count four days later He's writing um the down here in yellow The main crackpot theories going around at the moment Relate to this virus being somehow engineered within 10 and that is demonstrably not the case Continuing he says the data conclusively show that neither thing was was done. It was um as engineering can mean many things can be done for basic research or an a Furious reasons, but the data shows That neither was done the data. So it was only four days That's the all the time he actually had to go from hey, I see some unusual features to this is demonstrably not the case Well the data shows What data would that be Christian? We're all kind of eager could you share it with us because that's really that's really rapid turnaround That's amazing at a time. We're in the beginning of an urgent massive global pandemic and nobody had that data at that time to go from Unusual features to were absolutely positive. This is a case not of science This is a case of somebody having a conclusion and then working backwards towards it and by the way That's the part I objected to that was the reason I got on this case in the first place was people like Christian Andersen coming forward and saying Declaratively couldn't to come from a lab had to be natural when they should have said here's how they go to gotten me off that scent So a future tip for you People who want to do these sorts of things Just just be honest and say look I'm 99% sure this came from nature. Here's why but it could have come from a lab Can't positively rule that out but here you see them ruling it out But it's the emotional content of the language in here right crack pot theories that tells me the emotional state of the person who's up against this as nothing to a science Has nothing to a logic. There's a predetermined conclusion that they're now going to back fit and work from But the thing that's really troubling and puzzling about this is how much of the media went along with this including all sorts of emails Going back and forth from Zuckerberg to Fauci asking how Facebook can help and we know of Facebook help they shut down every possible discussion around a lab origin no matter how legit No matter if there was science in there. By the way, I've got a ton of science that does support the idea that this could have come from a lab Loved a debate Christian if you're listening if you wanted to debate I'm all up for this and I'm no I'm no evolutionary biologist or even bioreologists, but I got some interesting data By the way, I'll give you a pre-tip the non synonymous mutations in Rat RATG 13 so just take a piece at that peek at that. Okay, really fascinating and as well We'll talk about the PRA polybasic fear and cleavage site But none of this hand wavy. Oh, but sometimes these things arise naturally We'd have to look at close relatives. We're gonna. We'll run that test too So anyway, that's what I got for you today looks bad smells bad is bad This looks like a massive cover up tastes like one is one all that b5 stuff in there the exemption those need to be torn out We need to have a view at those this My friends was a massive cover up and they had a predetermined conclusion which they were going to steer people away from the idea That this came from a lab potentially and it potentially did in fact by my estimation the odds strongly favorite the fact that this came from a lab including not least of which is We know that this virus binds more tightly to human ace two than any other animal species out there Which really argues very strongly and conclusively against the idea that a Rosen another species because typically It has tighter binding and stronger affinity for the species that are Rosen the jump to the secondary species Ehhhh, it's a weaker jump. It's like taking a key that almost fits You know that fits your door perfectly and going to another door where the key is really close and you got to rattle it It almost works and it sort of works and you can get in but after a lot of a lot of trouble So that's the story I have for you today By the way, there will be more to this at my website at peak prosperity. There's things I wanted to say here I couldn't say here for obvious reasons. I hope I haven't crossed the line here today Who knows? But if I do cross the line you can always come and find us at peak prosperity and I'm gonna ask you if you step one down there at the bottom Come and register by email. You can come to the peak prosperity and if you registered our site Hey, you we're not gonna spam you or any of that stuff, but we will be able to reach you if You want to be reached in case this channel is no longer able to reach you by this platform Those we're up against really dark forces here. We're up against a machine that has a bunch of predetermined conclusions In many of them are they really would like you to stay in the dark I'm trying to help you get illuminated over here with the real story I think there's a huge huge Thing that needs to be talked about with these emails that I'm glad to see that many people are picking that up I hate to see that it's turned into a left-right issue because it shouldn't be I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican or a libertarian you ought to care a lot About where this virus came from because we don't want it to happen again in it Disturbed your life enormously. So that ought to be a really open legitimate wide-ranging question By the way, I think the b5 exemption mostly is applying to Yourocratic embarrassment has nothing to do with national security. There are no larger issues here If these are some bureaucrats who did some things they probably shouldn't have they overplayed their hand Things got away from them and now they really rather not be embarrassed That's no reason to invoke exemptions. It's no reason to invoke national security We deserve to know exactly what happened here so that we can potentially prevent it from happening again only next time Worse potentially so that's all I have for you today by the way with I love and all the new people have come by peak prosperity and join the conversation That's fantastic in the way you can support me at peak prosperity two things one send this Eat this video around to five people people who should know the real story and I think people should Second way is become an enrolled member at my website pay it forward by enrolling there at you help support me and my team so that we can do more Reporting like this and by the way you'll find a lot of credible content there that will really help you Make better decisions and be more resilient for what we think it's going to be a really turbulent future All right, that's all I have for today. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. We'll be back next week