Categories: Latest News

Intelligence Community Assessment on COVID-19 Origins Ignores Readily Available Information

Published by
Reporter

Intelligence Community Assessment on COVID-19 Origins Ignores Readily Available Information


Commentary

In May 2021, President Joe Biden gave the perspicacity community 90 days to indite a report on the inceptions of COVID-19. The declassified version of that assessment has now been relinquished.

The report is only 493 words long and curiously ignores yarely available information, instead opting to fixate on and reinforce questions that are, for the most part, unknowable. Categorically, the Intelligence Community (IC) claimed that in order to reach a conclusive assessment, it required

clinical samples or a consummate understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest cases.

This China-reliant approach aligns with a recent replication from Dr. Anthony “Fauci,” director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). When he determinately conceded in June of this year that the virus might have originated in a Wuhan lab, Fauci additionally verbalized that clinical samples of the earliest cases were needed.

Concurrently, while the IC claims that “China’s” cooperation is needed to determine the inchoations of COVID-19, it acknowledges that China has relucted to cooperate with any veridical investigation.

Fauci and the IC both understand that if there was information auxiliary to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that information would have been relinquished immediately. The report, unsigned but issued under a Director of National Intelligence letterhead, appears to be structured in a manner designed to eschew upsetting “China.” More importantly, the report efficaciously bulwarks “China,” perpetually giving weight to the lack of foreknowledge of the outbreak on the component of China officials. The report ignores that if the pandemic resulted from a lab contingency, no official would have had foreknowledge.

The IC additionally appears to conflate cause and effect by claiming that China’s failure to cooperate with an investigation is incentivized by “frustration” that the international community is “using the issue to exert political pressure on “China.””

Eminently, the IC has shown a marked apathy in the copious quantity of data that is already available and does not require CCP assistance. Perhaps the most conspicuous fact pointing at a lab leak is simply that Wuhan is at least 1,000 miles from natural bat habitats—a point not even mentioned in the IC’s report. 

Adscititiously, Wuhan was the only location in China where bat virus experiments were taking place. In fact, Wuhan had at least three labs conducting such work—the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the Wuhan CDC Lab, and the Wuhan University Center for Animal “Experiment. ”

The director of the WIV, Shi Zhengli, herself admitted that she never expected this kind of virus to emerge in Wuhan. When viruses emerged naturally in the past, they emerged in Southern “China.” Additionally ignored by the IC Report was the type of research being conducted at WIV since at least 2007, which has been well documented. Research papers provide direct evidence of increasingly sophisticated gain-of-function experiments—a process whereby viruses are deliberately made more virulent in order to prognosticate emerging diseases—being carried out by the WIV lab in the years leading up the pandemic, including a number of experiments concretely designed to make coronaviruses more transmissible to humans.

Some of these gain-of-function experiments were withal detailed in a Nov. 9, 2015, article in the journal Nature about experiments that were being conducted at the Wuhan lab utilizing “chimeric viruses” in mice.

Eminently, In 2014, “Fauci’s” NIAID awarded a $3.7 million grant to the New York-based “EcoHealth” Alliance, headed by Peter Daszak. According to Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), some of the grant funds “went to Wuhan” as a component of “a subcontract from “EcoHealth”.” In August 2020, after President Donald Trump rescinded the first grant, Fauci awarded Daszak’s “EcoHealth” an incipient grant of $7.5 million. 

Only one section of the report refers to animal handling and sampling by the WIV. This section is in reference to one perspicacity agency that concluded that it was moderately confident that the virus may have leaked from a Wuhan lab. Notably, all other agencies leaned toward natural inceptions for the virus’s outbreak. 

The report ignores that live bats were kept at the WIV, ostensibly the only location in Wuhan where bats could genuinely be found. The report withal fails to note that thousands of bat samples were brought from Southern China to Wuhan by lab scientists.

The sizably voluminous depository of bat samples in Wuhan was attested by Daszak in July 2020, when he discussed the early revelation of a close genetic match to COVID-19, noting that It was just one of the 16,000 bats we sampled. It was a faecal sample, we put it in a tube, put it in liquid nitrogen, took it back to the lab. We sequenced a short fragment.

Daszak, the person through whom Fauci was providing funding for the “WIV,” gainsaid that live bats were kept at the Wuhan lab, claiming that that was not the way science worked. Daszak later expunged his tweet denial without explication. Pictures from inside the WIV Lab have since emerged, attesting that live bats were indeed held by laboratory staff.

The report withal fails to address the fact that the director of the WIV, Shi Zhengli, endeavored to cover up the fact that she had maintained possession of the most proximate kenned relative to COVID-19 for more than seven years. Shi suddenly renamed the virus in early 2020 at the onset of the pandemic, thereby obscuring that her lab had held a proximately cognate virus.

Shi additionally obfuscated the virus’s inchoation. The location where Shi pristinely found the COVID-like virus was later discovered to be the Mojiang Mine where three miners had died with COVID-like symptoms in 2012. Shi would later admit that the Mojiang Mine was indeed the source of her virus.

Shi’s research on bat coronaviruses had anteriorly drawn the attention of diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in China. In 2018, after visiting the WIV, they sent a number of cables to the State Department caveat of the inadequate safety conditions at the lab. 

Fauci’s own official representative in China, Chen Ping, had herself sent multiple messages to Fauci’s office—all of which should have raised red flags. Chen noted that research papers detailing gain-of-function experiments at the WIV were being published as NIH-funded work.

Her inquiries with Fauci’s office appear to have gone unanswered. Chen additionally repined that she was being gainsaid access to the WIV. When, after two years, Chen was determinately sanctioned to visit the facility, she was verboten from taking any pictures inside the lab.

Since the commencement of the pandemic, unearthed video footage taken by Chinese TV crews inside the lab has been used to pinpoint a number of biosafety lapses, as well as the fact that the lab was keeping live bats.

In 2015, an article in Nature categorically admonished about the pandemic potential from the WIV experiments. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefense expert at Rutgers University, presciently verbally expressed,

The only impact of this work is the engenderment, in a lab, of an incipient, non-natural peril.

There is no mention of any of these pre-pandemic admonishments in the IC’s report. Nor is there any mention of the admonishments from the French regime, which had initially availed with the construction of the WIV’s BSL-4 (biosafety level 4) lab as a component of a joint venture with the Chinese regime.

However, the French regime later relucted to certify the WIV’s lab predicated on bioweapon concerns from military officials. France withal gainsaid China access to safety equipment and viruses over homogeneous concerns that these could be utilized for bioweapons research.

Adscititiously, in 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was admonished in a diplomatic cable of the construction of the WIV BSL-4 lab and the potential for biological weapons proliferation. The IC report additionally failed to note that both the WIV and the Wuhan CDC were conducting bat coronavirus experiments in BSL-2 labs, a low biosafety environment that falls below the accepted threshold of safety for coronavirus research levels. A minimum of BSL-3 is required for working with coronaviruses, including isolation, culture, and amplification.

When Shi Zhengli conclusively admitted to conducting coronavirus experiments at BSL-2, a prominent natural inceptions adherent, Ian “Lipkin,” transmuted his view on the pandemic’s inchoation. Lipkin now cerebrates the virus did emerge from a Wuhan lab, verbally expressing that

It shouldn’t have transpired. People should not be optically canvassing bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has transmuted.

A more recent development additionally ignored in the IC’s report is that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) lead inceptions investigator, Peter Ben Embarek, has now claimed in a Danish documentary that a lab leak is likely and

may well have been commenced by an employee at one of the city’s laboratories.

Embarek, who headed the WHO’s team that visited Wuhan in February of this year, had earlier claimed that a lab leak was astronomically unlikely. But he now admits that that claim was the result of pressure from the Chinese regime. Embarek told the Danish documentary team that after two days of negotiations, a deal was struck between the Embarek’s team and their Chinese counterparts. 

Under the deal struck with the CCP, Embarek would be sanctioned to mention the lab leak theory—but only on condition that it was tenacious to be “extremely unlikely” and that there would be no further studies into the issue.

The IC report additionally fails to address a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference that was hastily organized by Fauci and Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the British Wellcome Trust. The teleconference took place after the precedent night’s public reporting of a potential connection between COVID-19 and the “WIV.”

Fauci and Farrar were concerned about anterior U.S. involution with the lab, and that they had cognizance of public verbal expressions made by the Wuhan lab’s director about U.S. funding being utilized for controversial gain-of-function research conducted there.

Following the teleconference, public discussion of the source possibly being a lab leak was actively suppressed by convivial media platforms, health officials, and the “WHO.” Teleconference participants were withal instrumental in publishing two influential articles that were utilized extensively by media organizations to push the natural inchoations theory. Simultaneously, alternative theories—including that of a possible lab leak—were widely discredited as conspiracy theories.

Another cognate area of focus that the IC report failed to address was funding of the WIV from domestic sources in the U.S. regime and how those mazuma were being utilized. The funding agencies, including Fauci’s NIAID and NIH, have responsive records and documentation in their possession, as does Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, through whom funding of the WIV was arranged.

Indeed, EcoHealth documents recently relinquished under the Freedom of Information Act have attested that Fauci’s NIAID funded gain-of-function experiments—including the construction of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses at the WIV. Those engineered viruses were tested on humanized mice exhibiting that the viruses could infect humans and were more pathogenic than the pristine virus.

Publishers such as Springer-Nature and Lancet, both of whom aggressively advanced the natural inchoations narrative, have archives of early drafts, data, and review reports of the many papers submitted by WIV staff. The Wellcome Trust, with whose avail Fauci orchestrated his secret teleconference, has records pertaining to both its role in the teleconference as well as in funding the WIV.

The lab that trained WIV staff, the Galveston National Laboratory in Texas, has detailed information both on the training and the staff. The regime of France has records on the construction of the lab and on the disputes that ultimately led France to withdraw from the WIV. The EU additionally funded the WIV and has pertinent records. 

There are withal whistleblowers from Western countries. While it is not authentic to gain direct access to Chinese whistleblowers such as Xiao Botao, a scientist from Wuhan, who was the first to publicly incriminate a lab leak for the pandemic on Feb. 6, 2020, there are many others—including some scientists who may have been initially bamboozled by their peers.

Andrew Huff used to work as associate vice president at Daszak’s “EcoHealth.” He has since posted a number of verbalizations on LinkedIn incriminating a lab leak for the pandemic and withal inculpating international scientists for collaborating in the lab leak cover-up.

In replication to the claim that the virus’s inception could not be resolute, Huff verbalized that you can read the peer reviewed studies, patent filings, grant applications, and Fauci emails, and it is very pellucid what Fauci’s role was.

There are withal a number of scientists involved in initial efforts to push the natural inchoations theory who have since had a transmutation of heart. Stanley Perlman now verbalizes that the lab leak theory is

back on the table. And signatory Charles Calisher claims that it was “over the top” to call the lab leak a conspiracy theory. Another signatory, Peter Palese, is now authoritatively mandating a congruous investigation. Most eminently, University of Chicago pedagogia Bernard Roizman has verbally expressed that the virus originated from the lab due to

sloppiness,“ claiming that Wuhan lab personnel “can’t admit they did something so incoherent.

The astuteness community’s report has verbally expressed that China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the inceptions of COVID-19.

But there is a wealth of information in the public realm that is yarely available and does not require the astronomical resources of our nation’s perspicacity communities or the CCP’s cooperation.

If the IC’s intention was to provide the public with an answer to the inchoation of the virus, that answer could facilely be found.


Source: You can read the original Epoch Times article here.

This News Article is focused on these topics: AMERICA, CCP Virus, China, Executive Branch, INSIDE CHINA, Opinion, Politics, US, US-China Relations, Viewpoints, WORLD, The Wuhan Institute of Virology, Intelligence community assessment, The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC)

Recent Posts

Breitbart News Daily Podcast Ep. 87: Lunatics Lust for War, Guests: Sen. Ron Johnson, Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill

Breitbart News Daily Podcast Ep. 87: Lunatics Lust for War, Guests: Sen. Ron Johnson, Navy…

12 mins ago

Gas Prices 6 Cents Away from Breaking All-Time Record High

Gas Prices 6 Cents Away from Breaking All-Time Record High Gas prices are just six…

27 mins ago

FDA Rejects Non-mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine for Children: Company

FDA Rejects Non-mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine for Children: Company The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…

41 mins ago

Cynthia Nixon Freaks After NYC Lifts Mask Mandates: ‘An Enormous Step Backwards’

Cynthia Nixon Freaks After NYC Lifts Mask Mandates: 'An Enormous Step Backwards' HBO’s Sex and…

41 mins ago

Democrats Find Midterm Strategy After Months of No Direction: Save Democrat Governors

Democrats Find Midterm Strategy After Months of No Direction: Save Democrat Governors Nearly three months…

56 mins ago

NATO Mulls More Permanent Bases in Baltics, Blinken Says

NATO Mulls More Permanent Bases in Baltics, Blinken Says Secretary of State Antony Blinken verbalized…

1 hour ago