Jul 11Liked by Paul D. Thacker

I posted this on another Substack but it applies here as well.

In December 2019, when I first saw an article on Yahoo news about a new virus in Wuhan China, I did about 4 hours of online research. In that four hours I found a few articles written by scientists from the Wuhan lab in some prestigious journals, not behind a paywall. Anyone could read them. The articles discussed, even boasted about manipulating bat coronaviruses and creating chimeric viruses. Then I looked up maps of China and it's provinces. It turned out that the Wuhan lab is the only BSL4 lab in all of China, whereas wet markets are all over China and number in the millions. I also found out that the source of bats that carry the original unmodified coronavirus was in Yunon and other provinces, not Wuhan. The Wuhan lab got their bats from hundreds of miles away. I asked myself a simple question, which is more likely of these two scenarios?

1. A scientist working on chimeric coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab got infected, and went to lunch at the nearby wet market spreading the infection.


2. A chimeric bat coronavirus spontaneously arose in the one in a million wet market across the street from the lab where they were making such viruses, hundreds of miles away from where the bats lived.

I concluded that number 1 was FAR more likely.

Any scientist who concluded otherwise is either lying (to cover up involvement in gain of function research) or is a political apparatchik masquerading as a scientist.

Expand full comment
Jul 11·edited Jul 11Liked by Paul D. Thacker

Super article. Battacharya was engaged in a great conversation with Glen Loury on a recent installment of the latter's podcast where they discussed the need to hold these people, starting with Fauci, to account. I was surprised/ disappointed with Battacharya's soft-shoe approach to the topic, in which he basically said that seriously pursuing these people/ prosecuting them, is maybe a bad idea in re: unity/ reconcilliation/ moving forward as a society. I'm guessing we are all tired of the continuous pursuit and impeachments of one political party after the other for all of the egregious actions both have engaged in while in power over whatever agenda (Russiagate, Schiff, Russiagate, etc.), but this gain of function/ resultant global COVID death count tragedy is clearly different and an order of magnitude worse. Obama as president shut down gain of function, but Fauci and co. pursued it anyway in a Reagan/ CIA/ Oliver North Contra Scandal manner, redirecting funds under the radar to continue programs otherwise outlawed. These people need to be prosecuted and, if found guilty, stripped of all career benefit and jailed. As the recent shot out of the blue from the Fed Judge in the MO/ LA censorship case shutting down all communication between government censors and social media outlets shows, our only effective resort as citizens in controlling these self serving institutional criminals is the courts. Mere acknowledgement of the "mistakes were made" kind will get us nowhere.

Expand full comment
Jul 11Liked by Paul D. Thacker

Paul Thacker is the real deal. This stuff is invaluable.

Expand full comment

What an indictment on the supposed "scientists" who partook in this mess. Great to have such a summary in one place. Nice work Paul.

Expand full comment

We know from the Princess Cruise cases the virus was never deadly to most people & many had natural immunity and never became ill even in the confines space of a cruise ship. The bigger fraud is the idea that any coronavirus or RNA has the fidelity to circle the globe causing a pandemic it's the invisible enemy that can be used to impose draconian lockdowns not the virus that's deadly.

Listen to biologist Jay Couey explain the bigger fraud & detail how DNA clones differ from what happens in the wild and even the chimeric variants made in vats cannot make a pandemic. Mother Nature can be hijacked in very limited ways but basic biology rules.


Expand full comment

Bet Anderson will have memory issues just like Fauci.

Expand full comment

Excellent article as usual thanks!

Expand full comment

I listened to Andersons testimony today and I was incredulous when he was asked why serial-passaging was left out as a third likely scenario.

His answer was "serial passaging was not possible" after he examined available evidence.

From his paper:

"Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would

have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described."

It hasn't been described by whom? The data base has been culled, of course "it hasn't been described", very few experiments are published.

Further: "Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work

has also not previously been described. "

You mean by passaging in humanized mice? That was part of their protocol so I don't know how the above statement can be taken seriously on the face of it.

I'm sure Anderson doesn't go home and beat his kid's twice a day and is generally a fine fellow but......there would be no way I would ever let him explain any experiment I have ever carried out.

Expand full comment