April 22, 2022 - Epoch Times
09:14
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good evening. | |
| Let's actually dive into this investigation. | |
| And to start with, this man here is Dr. | |
| Jesse Bloom. | |
| He is an evolutionary biologist as well as a virologist. | |
| And last year, Dr. | |
| Bloom was working on a research paper whose findings suggested that COVID, and therefore the pandemic itself, had in fact leaked out of a lab in Wuhan. | |
| And by June of last year, well, after many, many months of research, Dr. | |
| Bloom already had a fully prepared draft of his paper ready to be peer-reviewed. | |
| However, this is where things took a turn for the absurd, as he was met with extreme opposition, as well as even what appeared to be outright censorship from our very own scientific establishment right here in America, including from Dr. | |
| Fauci as well as from Dr. | |
| Collins. | |
| Now, let me really set the stage for you and give you a bit of background on what exactly happened here, starting with a short introduction to the four main doctors that we'll be discussing. | |
| First, you, of course, have Dr. | |
| Jesse Bloom, who is the evolutionary biologist working on this research. | |
| Then you have Dr. | |
| Fauci, who is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Agency. | |
| And then you have his boss, Dr. | |
| Francis Collins, who was the head of the NIH during this time. | |
| And then lastly, you have Dr. | |
| Christian Andersen. | |
| He is a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology over at the Scripps Research Institute. | |
| Now, after working through approximately 10,000 leaked documents, a phenomenal investigative journalist named Catherine Eban over at Vanity Fair of all places She was able to piece together exactly what happens to scientists like Dr. | |
| Bloom, who questioned the official narrative surrounding the origins of COVID. Here's specifically how her investigative report begins. | |
| On June 18, 2021, an evolutionary biologist named Jesse Bloom sent the draft of an unpublished scientific paper he'd written to Dr. | |
| Anthony Fauci. | |
| The paper Bloom had written, known as a preprint because it had yet to be peer-reviewed or published, contained sensitive revelations about the National Institutes of Health Now, | |
| I just wanted to pause here for a quick moment and remind you that this was all taking place at a time when, by and large, the mainstream narrative was that the virus had come out of the wet market in Wuhan. | |
| That it somehow naturally jumped from some sort of an animal species over to humans. | |
| And so during this time period, people were still being branded as conspiracy theorists for talking about the lab origin theory. | |
| However, as you'll see in a moment, Regardless, this is how the investigative report continues. | |
| Quote, | |
| Bloom studies evolution using viruses and viral proteins as his base models. | |
| And so in this regard, well, what he's attempting to do is use his skill set to trace the origin of the virus using its genome sequence. | |
| However, as this report mentioned, the genome sequence had somehow mysteriously vanished without a trace. | |
| But the story gets even deeper, because Dr. | |
| Bloom soon realized that it was the NIH itself that deleted this data. | |
| Here's what the report goes on to write, quote, Piecing together clues, Dr. | |
| Bloom established that the NIH itself had deleted the sequences from its own archive at the request of researchers in Wuhan. | |
| Now, he was hoping Fauci and his boss, NIH director Dr. | |
| Francis Collins, could help him identify other deleted sequences that might shed light on the mystery. | |
| Now, just to pause here for another quick moment, there is something worth mentioning here as well, which is that, as crazy as it might sound to an outsider like myself at least, these types of data deletion arrangements actually appear at least to be commonplace. | |
| For instance, as just another example, just yesterday, we here at the Epoch Times, we came across a legal document between the Wuhan Institute of Virology And the Gavelston National Laboratory in Texas, and that agreement states rather unambiguously that the Wuhan lab has the right to force their American counterparts to wipe out all the data that arise from their collaborative research. | |
| And that appears to be exactly the type of agreement that the NIH had with the Wuhan lab as well. | |
| However, Dr. | |
| Bloom continued ahead with his research anyway, and well, here's what happened. | |
| Quote, Bloom had submitted the paper to a preprint server, a public repository of scientific papers awaiting peer review, on the same day that he sent a copy to Dr. | |
| Fauci and Dr. | |
| Collins. | |
| It now existed in a kind of twilight zone, not published and not yet public, but almost certain to appear online soon. | |
| Dr. | |
| Francis Collins immediately organized a Zoom meeting for Sunday, June 20th. | |
| He invited two outside scientists, evolutionary biologist Christian Andersen and virologist Robert Gehry, and he allowed Bloom to do the same. | |
| Bloom chose Pond and Rasmus Nielsen, a genetic biologist. | |
| That it was shaping up like an old-fashioned duel with seconds in attendance did not cross Bloom's mind at the time. | |
| But six months after that meeting, he remained so troubled by what transpired that he wrote a detailed account. | |
| And indeed, Dr. | |
| Bloom wrote a detailed account, you can see it up on screen for yourself, of exactly what transpired during that meeting. | |
| And the details that he presented, well, they really make one wonder whether these government scientists had something to hide. | |
| But you can decide that for yourself. | |
| Here's what Dr. | |
| Bloom's account went on to say. | |
| Quote, Dr. | |
| Anderson leapt in, saying he found the preprint deeply troubling. | |
| If the Chinese scientists wanted to delete their sequences from the database, which NIH policy entitled them to do, it was unethical for Dr. | |
| Bloom to analyze them further, he claimed. | |
| And there was nothing unusual about the early genomic sequences in Wuhan. | |
| Instantly, Nielsen and Anderson were yelling at each other, with Nielsen insisting that the early Wuhan sequences were extremely puzzling and unusual. | |
| Now, I hope you noticed that little detail in his account wherein he said that NIH policy allows the Chinese to have their research deleted if they so desire. | |
| That'll become very relevant in a quick second. | |
| And so here is how this account continues. | |
| Quote, That's when Anderson made a suggestion that surprised Bloom. | |
| He said he was a screener at the preprint server, which gave him access to papers that weren't yet public. | |
| He then offered to either entirely delete the preprint or revise it in a way that would leave no record that this had been done. | |
| Bloom refused, saying that he doubted either option was appropriate given the contentious nature of the meeting. | |
| At that point, both Fauci and Collins distanced themselves from Anderson's offer, with Fauci saying, as Bloomer called it, And so, do you see what was happening here? | |
| These government scientists are going extremely out of their way to make sure that this research does not see the light of day. | |
| Dr. | |
| Anderson was going so far as to actually suggest making secret edits that nobody else would know about or even completely deleting the preprint altogether. | |
| Sort of like how the Chinese appear to have deleted their data. | |
| However, as the account mentioned, Dr. | |
| Bloom rejected both options. | |
| And besides demonstrating exactly what happens to scientists who step out of line, well, this investigative report actually reveals a possible crime as well. | |
| That's because, according to... | |
| This letter here that was written by Republican lawmakers just yesterday, when Dr. | |
| Anderson previously appeared before Congress, he made the suggestion that he had not suppressed information about the lab leak theory, which, according to this new report, appears to be patently false. | |
| Here's specifically what this new letter, which, for your reference, was written by Steve Scalise as well as Jim Jordan, and it was addressed to Dr. | |
| Anderson. | |
| Here's what it says, quote, We wrote you regarding apparent attempts to conceal or cover up pertinent information regarding the origins of COVID-19, specifically the hypothesis that it leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. | |
| On February 17, 2022, you responded to our letter and stated that you were not aware of and were not involved in And indeed, his statements to Congress and this new investigative report, they seem to not be able to coexist in a rational sense. | |
| Then the lawmakers go on to request clarification from Dr. | |
| Anderson and say that if it's not resolved well he is guilty but potentially guilty of a crime here's what it says quote pursuant to US Criminal Code section 18 subsection 1001 it says in any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the government of the United States knowingly and willfully making any materially false fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation is a crime we therefore invite you to correct the committee record in person in a transcribed interview at your earliest Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we did reach out to Dr. | |
| Anderson for comment, but we have yet to hear back. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection