WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt

When an investigation is led by individuals with financial and professional stakes in the outcome, what happens? Nothing. And that’s where we’re at with the World Health Organization’s investigative team1 tasked with getting to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.

The WHO’s investigative commission includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D.,2 the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that has a close working relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), having outsourced several gain-of-function research projects to it. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was actually funding the WIV to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.

Not only has Daszak gone on public record dismissing the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak,3 calling the notion “crackpot,” “preposterous” and “pure baloney,”4 he was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”5,6

This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.

WHO’s Investigative Team Dismisses Lab Origin Theory

Considering Daszak’s personal involvement with gain-of-function research in general, and research efforts at WIV in particular, he has plenty of motivation to make sure the blame for the COVID-19 pandemic is not laid at the feet of researchers such as himself, especially those at WIV.

So, it was no surprise whatsoever when the WHO, February 9, 2021, announced its investigators had concluded the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape theory would no longer be part of the team’s investigation.7,8,9

Interestingly, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, points out that SARS-related work has also been done in BSL2 and BSL3 labs, which were excluded from the investigation.10 The team also was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices.11 Rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.

According to the WHO team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, the officials at WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. However, that line of reasoning hardly passes the smell test.

As noted by GM Watch, it “defies common sense: Suspects in an investigation should clearly not be treated as ‘the best ones’ to dismiss any possible charges against them.”12 Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”13 Yet this is another entirely unconvincing argument.

According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,14,15 and a Beijing virology lab accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.16 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.17

Experts Condemn Conflicted WHO Inquiry

Many experts are now condemning the WHO’s inquiry as a sham and a political stunt to exonerate the Chinese government.18 And, at the front of this sham investigation is Daszak himself, who was hand selected by Chinese authorities to be on the WHO’s investigative team in the first place. As reported by GM Watch:19

“The lengths that China is going to in order to control the WHO’s narrative was highlighted in John Sudworth’s report20 on the press conference for the BBC. It showed Chinese officials preventing him from interviewing a WHO team member after the press conference.

Nobody tried to prevent him interviewing Peter Daszak, however. In fact, Daszak has given so many media interviews during the WHO team’s time in China that he has, in the words of one commentator, established himself as ‘the public voice of the WHO team.’”

Unherd also reported on the controversial WHO investigation:21

“The experts were adamant: there is no need for further inquiries into this concept since it is ‘extremely unlikely’ to be the cause of this global catastrophe. It was no surprise to hear such claims from Liang Wannian, the Chinese professor on the podium.

He is, after all, head of the Covid-19 panel at their National Health Commission who led Beijing’s response to the crisis. He has defended his government’s ‘decisive’ approach, despite the silencing of doctors trying to warn their fellow citizens, the denials of human transmission, the deletions of key data and the reluctance to share genetic sequencing22

Yet how shameful to see the WHO … diminish itself again by kowtowing to China’s dictatorial regime in such craven style. Beijing fiercely resisted this mission for months, even imposing sanctions on Australia after it called for such an inquiry.

It gave consent after considerable haggling in return for the right to vet the team of scientists. Lo and behold, those picked included … Daszak, who has worked with Wuhan scientists for years on their controversial experiments and led efforts to dismiss claims of any lab leak as ‘baseless.’ Now suddenly this is a ‘WHO-China Joint Study’ — and it seems the chosen experts see their task as selling China’s story to the planet.”

Indeed, China appears to be purposely hiding much of the scientific data the world needs if we are ever to get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from, which makes the WHO’s catering to China all the more suspicious.

As reported by OpIndia23 and others,24 a critical database in China that holds the genetic sequences of more than 22,000 samples, including more than 100 unpublished sequences of bat coronaviruses and all bat coronavirus gain-of-function research data from the WIV, was brought offline in September 2019. The WIV-affiliated database created by the National Virus Resource Center was also made inaccessible to the outside world.

According to OpIndia, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated there is “reason to believe” WIV researchers became ill in the fall of 2019 which, if true, would coincide with the takedown of these crucial databases.25 Below, I’ll also review additional evidence suggesting WIV staff may have gotten ill as early as August 2017.

WHO Sticks to Natural Origin Theory

According to the WHO team and its Chinese counterparts, one theory still in the running is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China, where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or even other countries.26,27 Australian beef was apparently offered up as one possible overseas source.28

In an interview with CNN, Daszak referred to finding SARS-CoV-2 on frozen animal foods as “a striking piece of evidence,” as the animal meats in question, including ferret badgers, have been identified as potential intermediate hosts.29

And that brings us to another promoted theory, which is that the virus mutated and jumped species naturally, going from bats to an intermediary host such as pangolin, cat or mink, before mutating into a virus capable of infecting a human host.

A third theory is that an infected individual brought the virus into the Wuhan market, although no details on who that might have been, or where they might have contracted the infection in the first place have been presented.

WHO has now declared its China investigation completed, and is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus. Not surprisingly, Chinese state media are reporting that Wuhan has been “cleared of guilt” and is no longer a suspected origin of the pandemic. The Chinese Foreign Ministry is also calling for an investigation into American-based laboratories.30

New Evidence of Lab Origin Emerges


Meanwhile, just two weeks before the WHO officially dismissed the lab leak theory and took it off the table for future inquiries, a new study31 by Dr. Steven Quay — a highly respected and one of the most-cited scientists in the world32 — was published, claiming to show “beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived.”

In the short video above, Quay summarizes the findings of his Bayesian analysis. His 193-page paper goes into the full details and can be downloaded from zenodo.org33 for those who want to dive into the nitty gritty of this statistical analysis.

Bayesian analysis,34 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical tool used to answer questions about unknown parameters by using probability distributions for observable data. As reported by PR Newswire:35

“Beginning with a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic jump from nature with only a 1.2% probability it was a laboratory escape, 26 different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically. The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature.

‘Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how much this will impede an unbiased examination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ said Dr. Quay.

‘By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory.

The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions.’”

Well, we now know that the WHO team got no such answers, and have moved on to less fertile fields of inquiry. Ironically, Quay based the starting probabilities used for his analysis on the work of Daszak himself, among others.

Suspicious Activity at WIV in Fall of 2019

At the same time, more evidence of “suspicious activity” at the WIV just before the official announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak has also emerged. As mentioned, there are suspicions that WIV laboratory staff may have gotten sick as early as August 2019. According to a January 24, 2021, report by Australian Sky News,36 a January 16, 2021, fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department states:

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

The fact sheet further accuses the Chinese Communist Party of “systematically” preventing “a transparent and thorough investigation of the origin of the pandemic, instead choosing to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation,” while stressing that the U.S. government still does not know where, when or how SARS-CoV-2 initially infected humans.

They do not rule out a lab accident, however. The fact sheet also noted that China has a biological weapons program, and that the WIV has collaborated with the Chinese military on “secret projects.”

Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All

December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,37 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, published an editorial38 in the Journal of Human Security in which he reviews the history of pandemics from antiquity through COVID-19, along with evidence supporting the natural origin and lab escape theories respectively. As noted by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris may well be at the heart of our current problem. Why are certain scientists so reluctant to admit there’s evidence of human interference? Why do they try to shut down discussion? Could it be because they’re trying to ensure the continuation of gain-of-function research, despite the risks?

We’re often told that this kind of research is “necessary” in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses, and that the risks associated with such research are minimal due to stringent safety protocols.

Yet the evidence shows a very different picture. For the past decade, red flags have repeatedly been raised within the scientific community as biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency.39,40,41,42,43

As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.44 Asia Times45 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,46 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine47 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.48

Is Gain-of-Function Research Justifiable?

Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.49,50,51,52

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.

Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, as detailed in “Lab Just Made a More Dangerous COVID Virus,” having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before, and we shouldn’t allow the WHO’s dismissal of the lab origin theory dissuade us from such discussion.

Shameless Manipulation of Positive PCR Tests

Hospitalization rates1 associated with COVID have dropped from a high of 132,500 Americans on January 6, 2021, to 71,500 on February 12, 2021. The U.S. had 920,000 staffed hospital beds in 2019,2 of which 14.4% harbored a COVID case in January 2021, and 7.8% do so far in February 2021.

This tremendous drop was predicted. Every hospitalized patient is tested for COVID, often repeatedly, using PCR tests with high false positive rates. False positives are due in considerable part to exorbitant cycle thresholds. This refers to the maximum number of doublings that are allowed during the test.

The problem caused by excessive cycle thresholds was well described in an August 2020 New York Times article,3 but has otherwise been ignored by the mass media. Dr. Sin Hang Lee, director of Connecticut-based Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, challenged4 the FDA’s reliance on exorbitant cycle thresholds in its acceptance of efficacy claims for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in early December 2020. He and FDA remain engaged in this debate.

The WHO instructed PCR test users and manufacturers on December 14, 2020,5 and again on January 20, 2021,6 that PCR cycle thresholds needed to come down. The December 14 guidance stated WHO’s concern regarding “an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results” and pointed to “background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold value result being [incorrectly] interpreted as a positive result.”

The first instruction7 has been superseded by the second, which additionally advises on clinical use of the test:8 If the “test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested …”

While this implies that the test should only be performed in those with symptoms, and its results should be interpreted with the clinical context in mind, most PCR tests in the U.S. are used very differently: to screen asymptomatics at work, at colleges and universities and to permit border crossings.

No Caution Is Applied to the Results

One single positive test defines someone as a COVID case. Yet, it is well known,9 and was acknowledged in WHO’s January 2021 guidance, that screening in low COVID prevalence situations, such as in the screening of asymptomatics, increases the risk of false positives.

And, the risk increases as the prevalence of disease drops, such that in situations of low disease prevalence, it is common to find that most positives are actually false positives. For example, see this [referenced] BMJ chart and then the real-life example in the comment below it.10

Everyone in the field knew that the PCR test results were bogus. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted11 in July 2020 that cycle thresholds above 35 were not measuring virus, and furthermore that virus could not be cultured from samples that required a high number of cycles to show positivity.

But the drumbeat from the Coronavirus Task Force12 and some academics13 and others14 was “test all, test often” — despite the inordinate numbers of false positives and negatives. Congress repeatedly15 allocated16 many billions of dollars for testing (often free for the person being tested) and so testing quickly mushroomed.

Nearly 2 million COVID tests a day17 were recorded in the U.S. between November 20, 2020, and January 19, 2021. Most of these have been PCR tests that, despite their problems, are still considered the most accurate. Most of the remaining tests performed were rapid antigen tests. These tests too suffer from high false positive rates, as the FDA warned in November 2020.18

While daily deaths have only dropped about 15% since January 12, 2021, there have been dramatic drops during the month in new cases19 (down 60% from 250,000 new cases a day to 100,000) and, as noted, in hospitalizations20 (down 46%). Reports claim more than 486,000 Americans have died from COVID as of February 16, 2021.21

However, none of these numbers is reliable. In addition to inaccurate PCR results, a variety of other measures have skewed the reported number of deaths from COVID. While CDC electronically codes other causes of death, it has chosen to hand code every COVID death,22 and explains:

“It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded by a person, which takes an average of 7 days.”

CDC Treating COVID Deaths Differently

I am waiting for CDC to answer my Freedom of Information Act query, which requested the protocol CDC’s coders use for coding COVID-19 as a cause of death. Why is CDC treating COVID deaths differently from deaths due to other conditions?

CDC changed the way it coded death certificates for a COVID-caused death in March 2020, to include everyone for whom COVID is in any way contributory to the death. By placing different parts of the instructions about coding on different web pages, CDC successfully hid what it was doing.

On one page, the guidance23 states, “If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate.” On a different webpage, CDC states: “When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19.”24

CDC has encouraged providers to be generous with COVID designations.25 And the COVID death definition appears to be a moving target,26 variable across states. CDC attempts to explain27 why its mortality numbers do not add up, and includes this excuse: “Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.” But it is CDC that chose not to issue uniform guidelines.

COVID Diagnosis Liberally Applied

Anyone with a positive COVID test who dies within 30 days of the test is counted as a death due to COVID, even if COVID is not mentioned on the death certificate in Nevada.28 Colorado coroners are being forced to list gunshot wound deaths as due to COVID29,30 if the victim had a positive recent test. Oregon’s health agency reported in August 2020:31

“We consider COVID-19 deaths to be: Deaths in which a patient hospitalized for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 test result dies in the hospital or within the 60 days following discharge. Deaths in which COVID-19 is listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate.”

CDC guesstimates that many deaths, perhaps half, which list generic pneumonia as the cause of death are actually COVID deaths, and redesignates them as COVID-caused deaths.

CDC created a new statistical category for deaths, titled “Pneumonia, Influenza and COVID-19,” or PIC,32,33 to facilitate this redesignation.

CDC admitted:34

“Weekly mortality surveillance data include a combination of machine coded and manually coded causes of death collected from death certificates. Prior to week 4 (the week ending January 30, 2021), the percentages of deaths due to PIC were higher among manually coded records than more rapidly available machine coded records.

Improvements have been made to the machine coding process that allow for more COVID-19 related deaths to be machine coded, and going forward, the percentage of PIC deaths among machine coded and manually coded data are expected to be more similar.

The data presented are preliminary and expected to change as more data are received and processed, but the amount of change in the percentage of deaths due to PIC should be lower going forward. Weeks for which the largest changes in the percentage of deaths due to PIC may occur are highlighted in gray in the figure below and should be interpreted with caution.”

Percentage of PIC deaths

CDC applies several statistical techniques to deal with anomalous data before publishing its cause of death results. The raw death data are not made available to the public.

If COVID is listed as one contributor to a death on the death certificate, even if the death is caused by cancer or heart attack, CDC relabels it a death caused by COVID.

Because hospitals are paid several times more by Medicare for patients who have been given a COVID diagnosis, and a positive COVID test is not required, it is assumed that the diagnosis of COVID is applied liberally in hospitalized patients.

By changing the methods by which it performs its calculations, CDC has made it impossible to compare prior year statistics with the period since the onset of COVID.

Physician and former Minnesota state legislator Scott Jensen described an audit35 of death certificates attributed to COVID in Minnesota. The death certificates listing COVID as the underlying cause of death totaled 2,715, but the deaths attributed to COVID included an extra 878 deaths, a 32% increase.

The Public Is in the Dark

By accepting excessive cycle thresholds for COVID PCR tests, CDC considerably expanded the numbers of COVID-positive cases, hospitalizations and deaths. By using a variety of idiosyncratic and changing statistical measures, CDC was able to control and further increase the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19.

I do not mean to imply that the PCR tests, whose manufacturers may have recently reduced their cycle thresholds, are now accurate. Over 200 different PCR tests have been “authorized” under emergency rules36 by the FDA, which so far has not standardized or formally approved them.

The public is in the dark as to whether and how each individual test may have changed in response to WHO’s instruction, and we remain uninformed about the accuracy of each test. In fact, it has been established37 by the American College of Pathology that COVID-19 PCR test results are not reproducible.

By hand-coding each death due to COVID, CDC gave itself the power to determine how many COVID deaths would be counted at any particular time. And by creating excessively loose case definitions38 for COVID, several of which did not require a single sign of illness, just a positive test, CDC was able to calibrate the number of COVID-positive cases by the rate at which it rolled out tests to the nation.

Today, the media are telling us to rejoice. Maryland has just gotten its percentage of positive COVID tests below 5%,39 when a month ago the rate was 8.76%. In my state of Maine, a reduction in the percentage of test results that are positive has turned all counties “green,” allowing schools to be open.40 How much of this is due to dialing down the cycle thresholds?

We Are Being Lied Into the Abyss

Things are worse, things are better. Wear no mask41 — no, wear a mask — hey, wear two masks.42 New variants with even more infectivity are coming! But they are no more lethal, and SARS-CoV-2 is quite infectious already, so will the new strains make an appreciable difference?

It seems that despite having recovered from COVID, you can be reinfected with the new viral strains. But how common is that? Does it simply mean you can have a positive PCR test, but be otherwise asymptomatic? I found only a single case report43 of a person becoming severely ill from a new strain after having recovered from original COVID.

  • The point is to keep us begging for the latest vaccine as soon as we have received the last, but no-longer-effective, vaccine.
  • The point is to keep coming up with narratives to justify locking us up and reducing productivity.
  • The point is to keep us frightened and confused and unable to use our wits.
  • The point is to stop us looking deeply and clearly into what is happening, while the media blares COVID hysteria nonstop.

Our families are being torn apart. Our small businesses are going bankrupt. Our countries, and probably we ourselves, are being scooped up by the banks, as borrowing on an unheard-of scale persists at a dizzying pace. Who will pay these debts? What will be the price? Can you see that the looting and crashing of our economies is intentional, buttressed by lie after lie?

We are being lied into the abyss. Our so-called leaders are tossing us and especially our children and grandchildren over a cliff. They threw away our Constitution long ago. Now, they have stolen and sold our future.

Please calm down. Turn off all the “news” and ponder what has been happening. We can fix this mess, once enough of us understand it. Give it the time and focus it deserves. Our leaders won’t save us. Only WE can.

“Fall of the Cabal parts 1-10” on Rumble and Bitchute (plus MP4 DOWNLOADS of the compilations)

Image links to the Rumble series

Well, these were posted earlier (3-21-20) at this Kp blog post, but, not surprisingly were, taken down from YouTube. These are wonderfully extensive disclosure / red pill video series, done by Janet Ossebaard, of the Netherlands (and who knows how many anons).

I downloaded the compilation videos (5 parts each), whose links are below (as MP4s (both 720dpi)):

Parts 1-5 compilation MP4 (222MB); Parts 6-10 compilation MP4 (217MB)

So, the “news” from this current Kp blog post, is that these have all been uploaded onto both Rumble and Bitchute. I wanted to place those channels links here. These may be useful for future “red pilling assistance” of whomever may still have an open mind to this information.

[Caution: do not try to show to anyone who insists on wearing masks, because they will likely pull the mask over their eyes so they won’t be “infected” by this information.]

Rumble video links: JanetOssebaardOriginalSeries Channel

Bitchute video links: FallCabal channel

The Bitchute FallCabal channel also has a sequel to each of the original 10 videos, plus more (which I’ve yet to view).

Pentagon says military does not have resources for “urban combat” in dystopian “megacities”

(Natural News) With the new domestic “war on terror” quickly gaining steam, the Pentagon is anticipating a dystopian future in which the military is entirely ill-equipped for “urban combat.” In a video entitled, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity” that was shown at Joint Special Operations University, the Pentagon presented disturbing visuals of crowded urban…

Democrats want right-leaning news outlets to be canceled from cable and satellite

(Natural News) The House Energy and Commerce Committee convened a hearing recently to address “the spread of disinformation and extremism by traditional news media,” which members of Congress claim “presents a tangible and destabilizing threat” to the country. Entitled, “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media,” the hearing focused on the “problem” of…

Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good

(Dr. Mercola) In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.

The post Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good appeared on Stillness in the Storm.