The Forbidden COVID-19 Chronicles June 14 2021
There Really IS a Conspiracy: We are Not Conspiracy Theorists!
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health
Emails sent and received by Fauci and other government officials which have been obtained by several organizations show that even before the pandemic was declared, the criminals behind this worldwide debacle were working hard to make sure that citizens of the world would not learn the truth about COVID-19. Here is a presentation and analysis of just a few of the emails; this newsletter will feature many more articles like this in the months ahead.
On January 31 2020 Fauci received an email from Greg Folkers of the National Institutes of Health. The email included no text, but an article published in Science was attached. This article reported that scientists were sharing and reviewing a growing number of genetic sequences of the virus obtained from infected patients. These had been posted in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data database. The author reported that there was some doubt as to whether or not the virus originated in the wet market, which was the story promoted by U.S. and Chinese authorities at the time. The author also reported that many scientists had been expressing concerns for many years about experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute and cited the gain-of-function research fully described in an article in Nature Medicine in 2015. This article included a disclosure that the research was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), the division of the NIH headed by Fauci.
Within minutes, Fauci forwarded the Science article to Jeremy Farrar, the head of Wellcome Trust, a UK non-profit, and Kristian Andersen with Scripps Research Institute. He later sent the article to Robert Kadlec at the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
On the same day, Kristian Anderson wrote in an email to Fauci: “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
The next day on February 1 2020, Fauci sent an email to Hugh Auchincloss, deputy director of NIAID. The subject line was IMPORTANT (in all caps) and read: “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on…Read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done.” Attached to the second email was a document titled “Baric, Shi et al – Nature Medicine – SARS Gain of Function.pdf.” This is particularly important since Fauci denied under oath in front of a Senate hearing that Ralph Baric was conducting gain-of-function research at the University of North Carolina. Within a few seconds, Fauci forwarded the article from Science to Auchincloss as well. He then forwarded the Nature Medicine article to Lawrence Tabak at the National Institutes of Health with “IMPORTANT” in the memo.
It seems that Fauci was concerned and was alerting his colleagues that disclosure of this information might be a problem.
The others seemed equally concerned. Farrar sent an email at 10:34AM announcing that he had scheduled a conference call and wrote that his expectation was that “information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.”
Auchincloss then wrote to Fauci, “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.” Fauci replied, “OK. Stay tuned.”
During the conference call, Farrar sent an email to four of the people on the call, including Fauci, that read, “Can I suggest we shut down the call and then redial in? Just for 5-10 minutes?”
There are several follow-up emails between the parties but the most important are those that discuss the need to talk to World Health Organization Director-General Tedros. An email of particular interest is from Farrar to Fauci and NIH Director Collins, which was shared with others: “Tedros and Bernhard have apparently gone into conclave … they need to decide today in my view. If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow to think how we might take forward [sic].” In this email, Farrar expressed concern about an article published by ZeroHedge which discussed the potential lab release as the origin of the virus. Subsequently ZeroHedge was banned from Twitter.
On February 3 2021, Tedros delivered a Report of the Director-General, 146th Meeting of the Executive Board, during which he emphasized the importance of controlling the spread of misinformation and announced that WHO was working with Google “to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus see WHO information at the top of their search results. Social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Tencent and Tiktok have also taken steps to limit the spread of misinformation.” I think the proper term to describe this might be “censorship.”
On February 19 2020, a statement of support for the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted from an animal to a human was published in the Lancet. It was signed by many people including Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance and Christian Drosten. This is where things start to get very interesting.
EcoHealth Alliance is the organization that received money from NIAID and distributed it to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and Shi Zhengli, a virologist referred to as the “bat lady” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The money was earmarked for gain-of-function research. Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that the “statement of solidarity” that appeared in the Lancet was actually drafted by Peter Daszak.
Apparently Ralph Baric was shown drafts of Daszak’s letter but was informed by Daszak that he did not need to sign the statement. Baric agreed, stating that doing so would appear to be self-serving. Daszak wrote that other key people would be looking at the letter and that it would be “…put out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.” Daszak also wrote, “Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person, the idea is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues.” This shows deliberate intent to hide the relationships between the parties. Indeed, five of the signers of this “solidarity statement” were directly affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance and two were partners of EcoHealth.
Christian Drosten is another signer of the solidary statement. He also has an interesting background. Drosten and his colleagues had published an article in Eurosurveillance on Jan 23 2020 in which they claimed to have developed a RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. There were several problems with this paper, including the fact that that this group did not have SARS-CoV-2 viral material at the time that the article was published. The researchers acknowledged this, writing: “We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” Instead, the group relied on theoretical sequences which were provided by a lab in China. In spite of this, the test was immediately endorsed by World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom. A large group of scientists has called for this paper to be retracted for many reasons, including undisclosed conflicts of interest for some of the authors and lack of peer review.
The bottom line: both Daszak and Drosten had significant motivation to keep the actual origin of the virus, their knowledge about it, and other details a secret; as did Fauci and other employees of the NIH and NIAID.
Kristian Andersen, who had, in late January, written to Fauci expressing his concerns that SARS-Co-V-2 included sequences that appeared to be manmade, led a group that published an article in Nature on March 17 2020 in support of the theory that the virus was transmitted from animals to humans. After this, Andersen received a nice grant from the National Institutes of Health. At this time we have no way of knowing if this was a form of quid pro quo, but it does not pass the “smell test” Both Andersen and three other researchers recently deleted their entire Twitter accounts.
What to make of all of this? More information will be needed before definitive conclusions can be reached. But it does appear that this entire debacle started with some dishonest people covering up inconvenient information.
 Jon Cohen. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins. Science Jan 31 2020
 Menachery VD, Yount BL, Debbink K et al. “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows great potential for human emergence.” Nature Medicine 2015 Nov;21:1508-1513
 Jon Cohen. Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins. Science Jan 31 2020
 Tyler Durden. Coronavirus Contains “HIV Insertions”, Stoking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon. ZeroHedge Feb 1 2020
 Report of the Director-General, 146th Meeting of the Executive Board. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/report-of-the-director-general-146th-meeting-of-the-executive-board
 Calisher C, Carroll D, Colwell R et al. “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.” Lancet 2020 Mar;395(10226):E42-E43
 Sainath Suryanarayanan. EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated key scientists statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2. USRTK Nov 18 2020
 Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M et al. “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.” Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan;25(3):
 Borger P, Malhotra BR, Yeadon M et al. “External peer review of the RTPCR test t detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.” Corman-Drosten Review Report. November 27 2020 https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ accessed 2.16.2021
 Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Nature Medicine 2020 Mar;26:450-452