Fauci, Covid and the Post-Truth Era

    It is hard to pin down the origin of the term "post-truth" or "post-truth era". But in 2004, Ralph Keyes published his book, The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life, in which he described "post-truth" as a state where people were less concerned with being honest. "At one time we had truth and lies. Now we have truth, lies, and statements that may not be true but we consider too benign to call false." That is, "post-truth" involved people casually lying. I'm not so sure that it is a new phenomena, but rather something that has always existed, but where the rise of the Internet has made it easier to catch people in the lies. 

    But whatever its origin, the meaning of it changed radically in 2016. That year, the Oxford Dictionary announced “post-truth” as the word of the year, defining the term as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief". Oxford's decision, as well as its definition, was the result of the spike in the use of the term by the propaganda news organizations:

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase post-truth politics.

The Cambridge Dictionary similarly defined the term as "relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts". Other dictionaries and authors have followed suit. 

    The term, as defined above, was the opening salvo against facts, truths, or viewpoints that ran counter to the narrative. Basically, "truths" are what the elites and their media declare it to be, and if the public subscribed to anything else it was "disinformation", "fabricated news", "falsehood", "science denial" and "lies"--i.e., "post-truth." 

    A perfect example of this take is an op-ed from Al Jazeera that I found when looking for definitions of "post-truth" entitled "The media in the post-truth era" and written by Ahmed Al Sheikh, a former chief editor of Al Jazeera. Even before I could read the piece, I was presented with a half-page pop-up asking for me to accept their cookies under a banner that read: "You rely on Al Jazeera for truth and transparency". And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. 

    The sub-heading to the op-ed much sums up the author's theme: "In the post-truth world, a far-right embrace of social media threatens the broadcasting of truth." Sheikh writes:

    It is the post-truth era, when the West goes backwards and gives up the values of liberalism, objectivity, integrity, human solidarity and globalisation, which had been praised by many of its intellectuals. Francis Fukuyama, being one of them, once said (though later retracted his stance) that history ended here at the borders of political and cultural liberalism.

    It is the post-truth era, when the West resorts to populism, which ushered in the likes of Donald Trump and will probably pave the way for rightist Francois Fillon, to win the elections in France, or perhaps even his rival the far-right leader Marine Le Pen.

    It is the post-truth era, when Britain exits the European Union because it rejects the policy of open borders between member countries and only wants to benefit from the EU, but refuses to pay back.

In other words, when the peasants disseminate information, it is post-truth; but when the elect do so, that is The Truth.

    And that brings me to the topic of this post, which is Dr. Anthony Fauci's coverup of the origins of Covid and the labelling of any position to the contrary as "fake news". My main sources are the following two articles:

• "When the virologists lied, science died" by Alex Berenson, Unreported Truths.
• "Can We Arrest Fauci Now?" by Matt Margolis, PJ Media. 

Both of the foregoing articles discuss testimony and documents provided to the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic showing that Fauci not only knew about the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan laboratory but also recognized the man-made nature of the virus.

    For instance, in a February 1, 2020, letter, Dr. Fauci wrote: "Scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments," and acknowledged that it likely was man-made. Specifically, as Margolis relates, Fauci wrote that "the viral sequence discovered in the coronavirus strain had 'mutations in the virus that would have been most unusual to have evolved naturally in bats,' and that there was 'suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.'" "This is significant," Margolis explains, "considering Fauci spent years insisting that COVID was created in nature." Worse, as Margolis points out, Fauci "also played a role in undermining the reputations of those who argued that the virus was man-made and leaked from the Wuhan lab."

    Berenson outlines, in his article, how Fauci engineered a coverup of this being a Chinese made virus. He reports:

    The [House Subcommittee] report also makes clear that three of the world’s most powerful and politically connected scientists were integrally involved with the early “Proximal Origins” paper. That paper did more to shape the debate around Covid’s origins than anything else after it was published in the journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020.

    Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, who as the head of the NIH was Fauci’s nominal boss, and Jeremy Farrar, a British infectious disease researcher who is now the chief scientist of the World Health Organization, saw drafts of the paper - though their names did not appear on it.

    Then again, the scientists writing the paper hardly needed Fauci, Collins, and Farrar to remind them of the stakes of the fight over the origins of Sars-Cov-2.

    As Andrew Rambaut, one of the scientists who wrote Proximal Origins, wrote to three others on Feb. 2, 2020, they had to consider “the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release.”

    In turn, Kristian Andersen, another author, replied that Rambaut’s concerns were “very reasonable.” He added, “I hate when politics is injected into science - but its impossible not to, especially given the circumstances.”

He continues:

    The report also offers two tantalizing hints that intelligence agencies were involved in searching for the origins of the coronavirus from the start.

    On Jan. 31, 2020, Andersen told Fauci he was worried that the coronavirus appeared to be oddly well-adapted to infecting humans because of its furin cleavage site, a very unusual feature in a bat coronavirus, Fauci emailed Farrar he planned to “alert my US. Government official colleagues of my conversation with you and Kristian and determine what further investigation they recommend.”

    Fauci, always careful about what he put in writing, did not specify whom he meant by “official colleagues.” But he apparently did not mean civilian law enforcement authorities at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because he refers to them separately in the note.

    

    Ten days later, the four initial authors of the Proximal Origins paper recruited Ian Lipkin, a prominent virologist at Columbia University who was probably best-known for consulting on the movie Contagion, as a fifth.

    In discussing Lipkin, Edward Holmes, one of the initial authors, emailed Andersen that "Ian Lipkin just called - very worried about the furin cleavage site and says that high ups are as well, inc. intel.” [emphasis added].

    Yet when they released the paper online on Feb. 16 - and published it in Nature Medicine a month later - the authors took a very different path. They flatly ruled out that Sars-CoV-2 could be “a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

     If you are wondering if you had read about the furin cleavage site before, you probably had. In 2021, Joel Zinberg, writing at City Journal, noted that "The Evidence Mounts: A new NIH letter reinforces the lab-leak hypothesis for the origins of Covid-19." He relates:

    A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Kentucky congressman James Comer confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans—the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.

Also:

    ... Despite intensive efforts over the past two years, no one has found a bat-source population, SARS-CoV-2 circulating in an intermediate species that functioned as a viral conduit between bats and humans, or evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was present anywhere else before it emerged in Wuhan.

    Consider, too, the unique furin cleavage site between the S1 and S2 subunits of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Furin is an enzyme expressed by human cells that separates the spike protein subunits at the cleavage site, enabling the virus to bind more efficiently to human cells and release its genetic material into them. It is an important reason that SARS-CoV-2 is so easily transmissible.

    The furin cleavage site is found nowhere else in the entire genus of SARS-related betacoronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is the only one that has it. This fact alone suggests that it did not arise naturally in SARS-CoV-2. In addition, while other, more distant coronaviruses do have furin cleavage sites, the protein components (amino acids) in the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site are coded for by a unique set of nucleotides in its RNA, not found in the other viruses, making natural recombination between the viruses unlikely.

And then there is this 2022 article,  "New Study Finds COVID-19 DNA Linked to Moderna Patent Filed in 2016, Sparks Discussion on Lab Leak Theory." 

    In the study, the team compared COVID-19's makeup to millions of sequenced proteins on an online database.

    The virus is made up of 30,000 letters of genetic code that carry the information it needs to spread, known as nucleotides.

    It is the only coronavirus of its type to carry 12 unique letters that allow its spike protein to be activated by a common enzyme called furin, allowing it to spread between human cells with ease.

    Analysis of the original COVID-19 genome found the virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna, which has a total of 3,300 nucleotides, the report said.

    The patented sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that affects how damaged cells repair themselves in the body.

    Scientists have highlighted this pathway as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

    Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of COVID-19's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome.

    The researchers suggest the virus may have mutated to have a furin cleavage site during experiments on human cells in a lab.

    "The matching code may have originally been introduced to the COVID-19 genome through infected human cells expressing the MSH3 gene," wrote Dr Balamurali Ambati, from the University of Oregon, in the study.

    At the same time, the team also claimed that there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna's sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.

And this interview of Prof. Jeffrey Sachs in Current Affairs: "Why the Chair of the Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission Thinks The US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation Into the Pandemic," in which Sachs states:

    We have enormous reason to believe that it was [the result of gain-of-function reasearch]. And clearly, we haven’t even asked that question. But we have a lot of reason to believe that it was, because the scientists that were doing that research loved that research. And they explained to us publicly why it’s so important. And they wrote editorials about why this research must continue. And they made grant proposals saying that it should continue. And for those of us in the business of writing grant proposals, the fact that a particular grant proposal that’s deeply troubling was turned down doesn’t mean that it wasn’t carried out afterwards. But where is NIH saying, “Yeah, that’s an interesting question. Why  don’t we get the evidence?” It doesn’t even ask that question. 

    And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don’t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It’s like sleight of hand art. Don’t look over there. Look over here. But we know that there was a tremendous amount of this research underway. We have interviews by the lead scientists. We have these research proposals. I know the intention of doing this research from discussions. I’ve read so many studies of the importance of this research claimed by the scientists. And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. “Oh, no, nothing here to look at.” And then I see the scientists. “Oh, nothing here to look at. We know it’s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No. We don’t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn’t quite look right. Oh, but don’t look over there, because there’s nothing there,” they keep telling us. Well, that’s a little silly. 

    So my point is, there is a huge amount of reason to believe that that research was underway. Because there are published papers on this. There are interviews on this. There are research proposals. But NIH isn’t talking. It’s not asking. And these scientists have never asked either. From the very first day, they have kept hidden from view the alternative. And when they discuss the alternative, they don’t discuss the research program. They discuss complete straw men about the lab, not the actual kind of research that was underway, which was to stick furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses in a way that could have created SARS-Cov-2. 

 

    Of course, you might wonder, like Hillary did about Benghazi, what difference does it make? As Matt Walsh explained a couple years ago: 

    Without the phantom menace of COVID, they could never have changed election laws, mandated arbitrary and capricious punishment of their enemies, destroyed the Trump administration, wrecked the economy, harmed our national defense, crippled our police department, suborned our legal system, destroyed childhood, instilled fear and obedience, encouraged neighbors to rat each other out, scapegoated those they despise, eliminated the southern border, and moved the nation steadily away from sovereignty and toward the New World Order of the Great Reset, whose motto is: you’ll own nothing and you’ll like it.

But Walsh is just pussy-footing around the issue compared to Cardinal Vigano had to say in a letter published by Inside The Vatican in 2021 ("Letter #100, 2021, Tuesday, August 31: Viganò"). Cardinal Vigano began by critiquing the response to Covid as the formation of a new religion with its priests (and wizards), believers, and heretics. But then he goes into what is behind all of this:

    As I said earlier, we are faced with a colossal deception, based on lies and fraud.

    This deception starts from the premise that the justifications put forward by the authorities in support of their actions are sincere.

    More simply, the mistake consists in believing that the rulers are honest and in assuming that they do not lie to us.

    So we persist in finding more or less plausible justifications, with the sole purpose of not recognizing that we are the object of a conspiracy planned to the smallest detail.

    And while we try to rationally explain irrational behavior, while we attribute logic to the illogical actions of those who govern us, cognitive dissonance leads us to close our eyes to reality and to believe the most shameless lies.

    We should have understood — I wrote it some time ago — that the Great Reset plan was not the result of the ravings of some “conspiracy theorist” but the crude evidence of a criminal plan, conceived for decades and aimed at establishing a universal dictatorship in which a minority of immeasurably rich and powerful people intends to enslave and subjugate the whole of humanity to the globalist ideology.

    The accusation of “conspiracy theory” could perhaps have made sense when the conspiracy was not yet evident, but today denying what the elite has planned since the 1950s is unjustifiable.

    What Kalergi, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Klaus Schwab, Jacques Attali and Bill Gates have been saying since World War II has been published in books and newspapers, commented on and taken up by international bodies and foundations, made up precisely by parties and government majorities.

    The United States of Europe, uncontrolled immigration, the reduction of wages, the cancellation of trade union guarantees, the renunciation of national sovereignty, the single currency, the control of citizens under the pretext of a pandemic, and the reduction of the population through the use of vaccines with new technologies are not recent inventions, but the result of a planned, organized and coordinated action — an action that clearly shows itself perfectly adhering to a single script under a single direction.

    The criminal mens [“mind,” in Latin]

    Once it is understood that the present events have been intended in order to obtain certain results — and consequently to pursue certain interests on behalf of a minority part of humanity, with incalculable harm for the majority — we must also have the honesty to recognize the criminal mens [mind] of the authors of this plan.

    This criminal design also makes us understand the fraud perpetrated by civil authority in presenting certain measures as an unavoidable response to unpredictable events, when the events have been artfully created and magnified with the sole purpose of legitimizing a revolution — which Schwab identifies as the fourth industrial revolution — intended by the elite to the detriment of all humanity.

    The enslavement of authority is on the other hand the result of a process that began even earlier, with the French Revolution, and which made the political class the servant not of God (whose Lordship it disdainfully disregards) nor of the sovereign people (which it despises and uses only to legitimize itself), but of the economic and financial potentates, of the international oligarchy of bankers and usurers, of multinationals and pharmaceutical companies.

    In reality, on closer inspection, all these subjects belong to a small number of well-known very rich families.

    Equal enslavement is also evident in the media: journalists have accepted — without any scruple of conscience — prostituting themselves to the powerful, going so far as to censor the truth and spread shameless lies without even trying to give them the appearance of credibility.

    Up until last year journalists counted the numbers of the “victims” of Covid by presenting anyone who tested positive as terminally ill; today those who die after being vaccinated are always and only taken by a vague “illness,” and even before the post mortem examinations they officially decide that there is no correlation between a person’s death and the administration of the gene serum.

    They twist the truth with impunity when it does not confirm their narrative, bending it to fit their purposes.

    What has been happening for a year and a half had been widely announced, down to the smallest detail, by the creators of the Great Reset themselves; just as we were told the measures that would be adopted.

    On February 17, 1950, testifying before the United States Senate, the well-known banker James Warburg said, “We will have a world government, whether you like it or not. The only question that arises is whether this world government will be established by consensus or by force.”

    Four years later, the Bilderberg Group was born, which has counted among its members characters such as [Italian businessman Gianni] Agnelli, Henry Kissinger, Mario Monti, and the current Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi.

    In 1991, David Rockefeller wrote: “The world is ready for a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is certainly preferable to the national self-determination practiced in past centuries.” And he added: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the ‘right’ global crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

    Today we can affirm that this “right crisis” coincides with the pandemic emergency and with the “lockstep” outlined since 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation document “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” in which the events we are now witnessing are all anticipated (here).

    In short, they have created a false problem in order to be able to impose population control measures as an apparent solution, cancel small and medium-sized businesses with lockdowns and the green pass to the benefit of a few international groups, demolish education by imposing distance learning, lower the cost of manpower and employees with “smart working,” privatize public health for the benefit of BigPharma, and allow governments to use the state of emergency to legislate in derogation of the law and impose so-called vaccines on the entire population, making citizens traceable in all their movements and either chronically ill or sterile.

    Everything the elite wanted to do, they have done. And what is incomprehensible is that in the face of the evidence of the premeditation of this terrible crime against humanity, which sees the leaders of almost the whole world as accomplices and traitors, there is not a single magistrate who opens a file against them to ascertain the truth and condemn the guilty and complicit.

    Those who disagree are not only censored but pointed out as public enemies, as infectors, as non-persons for whom no rights are recognized.

This is the actual definition of the "Post-Truth Era".