I have been criticized by USAToday and 6 other fact-checking sites over the past few days (since Plandem!c 2: Indoctornation came out). In the film, I say I believe the coronavirus came from a lab. The fact-checkers:
a) claim scientific consensus that the virus had a natural origin. But there is no consensus. For example, a WHO spokesperson told USAT, “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin” and just last week Pro Publica wrote, “the origins of COVID-19, which has killed more than 775,000 people worldwide and infected 21.7 million others, continue to elude public health officials and other investigators.”
b) criticize me for not explaining the basis for my opinion.
The single scientific paper cited by the 7 fact-checkers to dispute me was a commentary written by 5 scientists with sketchy backgrounds whose argument I dissected in March. So did my colleague Ed Hooper here, and many others have, as well.
Below is a quick summary of my position regarding that paper, from an interview I did with Kevin Barrett, PhD in April. The argument is expanded in my interviews with Dr. Mercola and an AMA on Reddit regarding the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site and unique spike protein, which is highly adapted to humans but not to bats, suggesting passage through human cells before it entered the human population. Yuri Deigin has the best review I’ve seen of the origin subject here, and I recommend that everyone with interest in the question of the virus’ origin read it.
Here is a part of the Kevin Barrett-Meryl Nass interview:
Why are five dubious, germ-warfare-linked, cover-up specialist scientists telling us this could not possibly be a bioweapon, and yet obviously it could?
Meryl Nass: “Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? …The Cubans blame (the first author [of a Lancet letter that insisted questioning the virus’s origin would result in conspiracy theories that would damage the response to Covid]) who worked for a federal agency for their Dengue outbreak…I knew of several of the Nature Medicine authors…and they too were sort of biological defense, biological warfare people. Well, let me just say two of them I would call spooks with Ph.Ds, who have come out and done research on a whole very odd collection of subjects, all of which the US government has tried to cover up…And so these five scientists wrote a piece in Nature Medicine which claimed to have found the scientific linchpin to be able to make the argument that the new coronavirus is a natural occurrence. And the argument they made was that had it been constructed in the lab, it would have used the particular backbone that laboratorians know about. But because it didn’t have that backbone, it couldn’t possibly be a lab construct.
“The problem with that argument is basically it was a straw man argument. They said, well, if I were going to make the novel coronavirus, I would have made it this way, but because it isn’t made that way, it’s not a lab construct. Of course, you can make the novel coronavirus a lot of different ways. And I pointed out three different ways one might have come up with a novel coronavirus that weren’t using the method they suggested…my study of biological warfare, which has extended over decades, (shows) that the biological warfare warrior never chooses an (obvious) weapon. They always require plausible deniability…
“…It’s ridiculous to claim that only if you used an easily discoverable method of producing a biological weapon would it be successful; or you wouldn’t have done it any other way. I mean, it’s such a simplistic argument.
You wonder, couldn’t they have come up with a better argument? Is that all they’re left with? Because any scientist could see through it in a moment.”