Where Did the Virus Come From?
I first drafted this article a month ago, and I planned to use this first paragraph as an apology for delving into one of the media’s taboo subject areas, a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Cue the scary music.
How quickly tides turn. The past month has been stunning. Rarely does such a monolithic media narrative disintegrate so quickly. We are in a “Weapons of Mass Destruction” moment. A sacrosanct pillar of a narrative justifying government power is crumbling before our eyes.
If you’re already certain about the origin of the virus, or just don’t have time to read this full investigation and timeline, you can scroll down to “The Takeaways,” where I explain what I think this news means.
As recently as the first week of May, very few people in establishment media or mainstream politics were talking about the origin of the virus. It was a forbidden topic as it had been for the entirety of 2020. The mainstream media called it a “fringe” “conspiracy theory.” Vaunted “fact-checkers” called it a pants-on-fire lie. Just asking basic questions about the origin of sars-cov-2 got journalists, doctors, and entire independent media sources deplatformed, censored, demonetized, or “fact-checked” as liars and kooks.
Things have changed in a splendid hurry. It’s fascinating, and I think it’s essential to understand what this means for our understanding of the world today.
THE TWO THEORIES
The two theories for the origin of this virus are the “lab leak hypothesis” and the “natural zoonotic hypothesis.” We could compare the evidence for the two, but at this point there is so much evidence for the former and so little for the latter, it’s not a fair fight. What I’ve decided instead is to write up and share a timeline that demonstrates how I and many others arrived at what I believe is about 90% certainty on the origin of this virus.
Nothing is proven yet, but there is a vast preponderance of evidence on one side. Let me know if this format is useful and what if anything I’ve left out.
First, the two theories:
Natural (zoonotic) hypothesis. According to this theory, the virus developed naturally in an animal, probably bats, and then made a natural genetic jump to infect humans via mutations and an intermediate species such as pangolins. Proponents of this theory point out that most viruses have natural origins and point to coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS earlier in the century as demonstrations that coronavirus mutations can and do happen and that there is evidence of zoonotic origin of those viruses. This theory posits that the first human infection of sars-cov-2 happened in a food market in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019 and that it then spread worldwide via human air travel.
- Lab leak hypothesis. This theory posits that the virus was created as part of “gain of function” research in a laboratory. This type of research has been going for many years with coronaviruses, in both the US and China. The virus now called sars-cov-2 was partially natural in origin, according to this theory, with its basic backbone perhaps harvested in a Chinese horseshoe bat, but it was developed, augmented, changed, and made more transmissible and harmful via dangerous experimentation in places such as at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The virus was created as early as 2017 in this theory and escaped some time in 2019. (Whether the leak was deliberate or accidental is a fascinating question but beyond the scope of this theory.)
Now let’s take a deep breath and a big step back. A chronological look at the order of events leading to the discovery of the origin of the virus:
JAN – MAR 2020
What we had right out of the gate was a paper put together by British Disease Ecologist Peter Daszak (remember this name) stating that there was no evidence for anything other than the natural zoonotic origin theory. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin,” stated the paper, utilizing the barbed “conspiracy theory” slur on day one. “We declare no competing interests,” the paper concluded. What was not disclosed was that Daszak was working with the Wuhan lab, nor that two signatories on this paper worked for Daszak, nor that Daszak had ‘bullied’ many of the other signatories into signing; that information would come later. This paper was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, and signed by two dozen scientists in the field, and it led to a widely-cited article in the journal Nature which claimed to establish that the virus had originated naturally and been transmitted to humans at Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China. (source, source)
The central argument made in the article was fairly weak — essentially that the mutations present in the virus were too unusual for human ingenuity to have invented. Far from proof, this wasn’t even rigorous logic given the current state of virus manipulation science, but nevertheless Daszak’s paper and the Nature article were enough for corporate media such as the trendsetter New York Times, which thereafter always reported on the virus as if it were of natural origin, treated other ideas as “conspiracy theories,” and usually discounted even the need for further inquiry. When Senator Tom Cotton suggested the possibility of a lab origin, the Times called it a “fringe” “conspiracy theory.” (source, source, source, source)
APR – JUN 2020
Despite the Daszak paper and the Nature article, in the early days the media remained somewhat open to inquiry about the virus. Some genuine skeptical coverage emerged, providing provocative tidbits of information. Both Newsweek and Business Insider reported on Tony Fauci’s connections to gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. (Gain-of-function is essentially making a virus more deadly or more transmissible to humans; this research was banned in the United States in 2015 on ethical grounds, which is to say it was banned because the chance viruses would escape were deemed too great, but it wasn’t banned in China.) The Newsweek piece, entitled “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research,” substantiated both Fauci’s and Daszak’s involvement with the Wuhan lab’s dangerous work, cited the NIH and NIAID grants, and gave voice to concerns that a manipulated virus could have escaped. (source, source)
But the New York Times largely put an end to this inquiry when it reported with thick skepticism on President Trump and Mike Pompeo’s suggestions that the virus could have originated in a lab. Rather than leave the question open, or provide actual evidence, the Times used unnamed “sources” and unnamed “American allies” to assert that the odds of a lab origin were “slim,” while reporting that the odds of a zoonotic origin were “much higher.” This set the tone — as the Times often does — for the entire American media landscape, and for the rest of the year this rush to judgment plagued global scientific inquiry into the virus. (source)
A widely-cited Scientific American piece purported to prove without evidence the zoonotic theory. It cited Daszak as an expert without mentioning his connections to the Wuhan lab. (source)
Daszak himself published an unusual piece in the Guardian entitled “Ignore the Conspiracy Theories: Scientists Know Covid-19 Wasn’t Created in a Lab.” (source)
Daszak might have felt the need to dismiss these suspicions with the anti-intellectual slur “conspiracy theories” because of a few inconvenient facts that just wouldn’t go away. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, China’s most sophisticated biological weapons lab, the only BSL-4 Level biological weapons lab in the country, was in the same city and not far from the blamed food market. The US NIH and NIAID Director Tony Fauci had been funding and collaborating on virus work at that same Wuhan lab for many years. The US has a disturbingly long record of harming with biological weapons its own people and those of other countries, and it runs the largest and most sophisticated weapons labs in the world, including the most sophisticated bioweapons lab in North Carolina and another laboratory in Italy. (source, source, source)
JUL – DEC 2020
But anyone putting forward such questions was silenced in the second half of the year. The zoonotic theory entered the hallowed ground of “settled science,” and questioning the virus’s origin was met with derision and called a “debunked conspiracy theory.” (source, source)
The lab leak hypothesis was neither debunked nor a conspiracy, but it was a theory — and a plausible one. Pointing this out resulted in attacks and censorship that sent chills through social and mainstream media discussion. Influential talk show host Joe Rogan outlined the evidence for a lab origin; he was denounced as a conspiracy theorist. Popular independent health program The Highwire presented doctors discussing the likelihood of a lab origin; its videos were taken down by YouTube and its press release privileges revoked by PR Newswire. Financial and cultural blog Zero Hedge asked the same questions; it was labeled a “far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories” and was removed by Twitter and delisted by Google (ostensibly for “racism” but without evidence). Even a Chinese virologist claiming he had proof that the virus was created in a lab was banned from Twitter. (source, source, source, source, source, source)
That was 2020. Barely a peep about the provenance of the virus. It was rush-to-consensus on everything from masks to ventilators to treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. Science was no longer a method for ascertaining truth but rather a set of beliefs to which one subscribed or didn’t. The media intoned the mantra “follow the science,” but when various Trump administration officials suggested that the virus could have leaked from a lab, the entire elite media establishment from NPR to the New York Times maintained that this suggestion couldn’t be considered, it had to be wrong — not because there was actual evidence one way or the other, but (it seemed) because anything that Trump or anyone in his administration said just had to be wrong. Such has been the sad, politically-driven state of science in this country over the past 18 months. Anyone discussing a lab leak was a wacko. The topic was off the table. You weren’t supposed to think about it. So said NPR, CNN, The New York Times, etc. (source)
Change came with the new year. Or perhaps it was the new administration. For whatever reason, for the first time, scattered questions about the virus’s origin appeared in corporate media. One particular piece shattered the silence: “Did Covid-19 Originate in a Lab?” It was a fantastically researched piece by Nicholson Baker in New York magazine, and it asked all the big questions. It was followed a week later with a lengthy penetrating article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The World Needs a Real Investigation into the Origins of Covid-19.” (source, source)
If the zoonotic theory were true, these pieces pointed out, we should have found the intermediate species by now, we should have been able to determine the stepwise mutations of the virus. It had been a full year with all scientific eyes trained on this virus, but there remained no hard evidence that the virus had mutated naturally; no intermediate species had been found; no actual evidence for natural stepwise evolution had emerged; nothing approaching proof of transmission in the Wuhan food market had been presented. What was in Wuhan, of course, was that bioweapons lab.
In response to the gently increasing pressure in the media, what had been a perfunctory investigation commissioned by the WHO to ascertain the virus’s origin took on more serious importance. A team actually traveled to China to investigate the possible origins of the virus. Who did the WHO choose to lead the investigation? Who WHO? Why none other than our favorite zoologist, Peter Daszak, that’s who, the very same man who had organized the Lancet paper in February 2020 discounting the possibility that the virus could have originated in a lab and who had written the Guardian article in June 2020 dismissing such inquiries as “conspiracy theories.” (source)
The investigation carefully scratched the surface. The New York Times and Washington Post covered it with mild criticism, chiding Chinese authorities for preventing a real investigation of the lab, but still hiding the many conflicts of interest. Daszak was named simply an “expert on the WHO team.” In its coverage, the Times stuck to the 2020 narrative that the lab leak theory was “unlikely,” “unsubstantiated,” and based on evidence that was “circumstantial.” And that was enough for the establishment media as well. The lab origin was dismissed once again as a “debunked conspiracy theory.” Daszak made the rounds on cable news and provided quotes for newspapers with his British accent. And once again the corporate media never explained Daszak’s true job, nor described his organization, the EcoHealth Alliance, in anything but brief and positive terms. (source, source, source)
Independent media journalists took over at this point, and they uncovered the rest of the story.
Peter Daszak’s deep and knotted conflicts of interest finally emerged. He was about as far from a neutral investigator as one could imagine. He had personally funneled millions of dollars from Tony Fauci’s NIH and NIAID to that specific Wuhan lab for that specific coronavirus research. He was the guy literally funding the dangerous “gain of function” research in Wuhan to make bat coronaviruses more deadly and transmissible. He stood to lose significant money and reputation — his entire career, perhaps — were it discovered that the virus had in fact been created by the research he and Fauci were funding. (source)
Few were surprised when Daszak reported back to the WHO. The investigation found no evidence that the virus had originated in the lab. “Key questions asked and answered,” he posted on his Twitter account, without further explanation, and the investigation ended. Independent journalists pointed out that allowing Daszak to run the WHO investigation at the Wuhan lab was in essence allowing a murder suspect to run the police department. It didn’t mean he was guilty, but it definitely didn’t look good. (source, source, source, source)
To extend the plausibility of the zoonotic theory, pangolins were added as a possible vector for natural evolution and transmission to humans. So it was either a bat or a pangolin. Or a ferret badger too, that could have been it, said a disinterested benign smart zoologist on CNN by the name of Peter Dasazk. Or even a rabbit. “Peter Daszak, a zoologist on the WHO team, said in an interview that ferret badgers were among carcasses found in freezers at the market, and that while they tested negative, they were capable of carrying the virus.” (source, source)
“Those who tell the stories rule society.”
The WHO published a report based on Daszak’s investigation that determined that the lab leak theory was “extremely unlikely.” (source)
Independent media channels pushed on. The lead Chinese doctor working with Daszak in the Wuhan lab, a woman named Shi Zhengli (sometimes called “Bat Woman” in the media), had stated in 2020 interviews that she had been sleepless for days after the discovery of Covid-19. She had been petrified with fear that the virus had leaked from the Wuhan lab, she said. Her quotes undercut many of Daszak’s longstanding claims by providing expert opinion that: 1) The virus sars-cov-2 was either identical or very similar to a virus that the lab was working with, and 2) There was at least some chance that the virus had escaped. (source, source)
Independent media channels uncovered the depth and breadth of Fauci’s funding of gain-of-function and bioweapons coronavirus research in Wuhan, as well as his connections to new vaccine corporation Moderna. When the dangerous research was banned in the US in 2015, Fauci and Ralph Baric at the North Carolina lab, unconstrained by ethics, moved this work to China. They funded Shi Zhengli’s lab in Wuhan via Peter Daszak’s consulting outfit, EcoHealth Alliance. (So when Fauci declared unequivocally that the virus could not have originated in a lab — both back in 2020 and during explosive testimony to Congress in May — he was not telling the truth. Fauci was in fact instrumental in overturning an Obama-era ban on gain-of-function research in 2017. He holds patents on gain-of-function manipulation of coronaviruses and is undoubtedly acutely aware of what virus manipulation science is capable of today.) (source, source, source, source, source, source, source)
Studies emerged demonstrating that the virus dies quickly in sunlight, which suggested a lab origin since sunlight is generally not present in bioweapons laboratories but is in most natural environments. (source, source)
The New York Times published an unusual piece that attempted to rule out the “lab leak theory” once again while also acknowledging that the investigation into the theory was inadequate and the team sent to do it were told not to probe too deeply.
At the end of March, things changed. For the first time questions about the origin of the virus broke across mainstream media channels. The head of the CDC, Dr. Robert Redfield, stepped down from his post and gave a surprisingly candid interview on CNN. “I’m allowed to have an opinion now,” he told the interviewer.
I am of the opinion that the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory… I am a virologist, and I have spent my life in virology. I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and at that moment in time the virus became one of the most infectious viruses that we’ve known in humanity for human-to-human transmission. Normally when a pathogen goes from zoonot to a human it takes a while for the virus to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-to-human transmission. I just don’t think this makes biological sense. (source, source)
It was a bombshell interview. Two days later, Jamie Metzl, advisor to the WHO, revealed on 60 Minutes that Daszak had “bullied” the WHO investigative team into narrowly focusing its investigation to avoid considering the lab leak scenario seriously. “The Lancet letter was scientific propaganda and a form of thuggery and intimidation,” he added, further incriminating Daszak. “By labelling anyone with different views a conspiracy theorist, the Lancet letter was the worst form of bullying in full contravention of the scientific method.” (source, source, source, source)
And then April arrived, and the story gathered steam.
Sanjay Gupta, appeared on CNN, supporting former CDC Director Redfield’s theory. (source)
Anthony Blinken, Biden’s Secretary of State, said aloud that he didn’t trust the WHO or China on the topic of the origin of the virus. (source)
Mainstream media was still concealing Daszak’s role, calling him merely the leader of “a New York-based environmental health nonprofit.” (source)
Someone finally picked the padlock on the mainstream media right at the time I was first writing up this email and timeline. Suddenly the story began to flow.
That lockpick was Congressman Dr. Rand Paul, who grilled Tony Fauci during a widely-rewatched congressional hearing on gain-of-function research. Fauci visibly squirmed, played legalistic word games, and probably committed perjury by stating that the NIH and NIAID didn’t fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. The NIAID certainly provided funding via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance to support the Wuhan lab’s dangerous gain-of-function work and did so for years under Fauci’s direct supervision. (source, source)
At the same time, Nicholas Wade, a New York Times writer, published a piece in The Bulletin entitled “The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?” The story was widely-read and for many readers of the New York Times. (source)
Fauci, his credibility disintegrating, began changing his tune. In several interviews that week, he claimed that he “wasn’t convinced” about the natural origin of the virus anymore and that a true investigation should take place, directly contradicting what he and the mainstream media had said throughout 2020. Much as he had changed his tune on masks and herd immunity, his opinion shifted repeatedly here. (source, source, source)
Days later, the new Director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky joined her predecessor Robert Refield in expressing less than certainty about the zoonotic theory. Whereas Redfield admitted he had suspected all along that the virus was of lab origin, Walensky allowed (when pressed in Congressional testimony) that the lab leak theory was “certainly” “one possibility.” This was significant because she is the current head of the CDC, so this reflected the new position of the CDC as a whole. (source)
This story was suddenly everywhere. Even President Biden spoke about it and ordered an intelligence report. (source)
But would there be a “smoking gun” to prove the lab leak theory? It appeared so. Telltale components of the genetic structure of the virus had been discussed for months in independent media, but they finally were outlined in mainstream media in a Wall Street Journal piece by Dr. Steven Quay and Richard Muller entitled “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak.” The researchers laid out the practical impossibility of the virus’s genetic code (a furin cleavage site, doubled CGG code sequences) occurring naturally. (source, source, source, source)
News broke that Daszak had not just orchestrated the original Lancet piece that labelled as “conspiracy theorists” those who suggested the virus had a lab origin; he had deliberately “bullied” scientists and his own employees into signing on while he was trying to appear uninvolved. (source, source)
Freedom of Information requests by the Informed Consent Action Network yielded thousands of Fauci’s emails, revealing that from day one, and even before, Fauci was involved in shutting down scientists who indicated any suspicion that the virus might have come from a lab even as he himself knew it was possible. Some of these scientists expressing concern that the virus was likely of lab origin apparently were “bullied” by Fauci or Daszak to instead write that the virus could not have originated from a lab, as several signed on to that original Lancet paper. These emails depict a scientific community that is corrupt at the top. (source, source, source, source, source, source)
Fauci appeared on MSNBC to respond to the mounting criticism and used one of the most outlandish defenses I’ve seen in some time. He claimed that the questions today about his declarations and motives are actually “attacks on science itself.” This is a claim of infallibility. This is a dictator’s or a Pope’s defense. King Louis XIV said “L’etat c’est moi” with similar cavalier arrogance. Fauci said when people question him, in reality “science and the truth are being attacked.” He really said that. (source, source, source)
Mark Twain once said, “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.” In another sign the virus origin story was reaching mainstream acceptance, famed left-leaning comedian Jon Stewart unleashed a hilarious comedy bit last week on the origin of the virus.
IS IT A BIG DEAL?
That brings us to today. Evidence that this virus was created in a lab grows daily. On the other hand, there has still been no evidence whatsoever for the theory of a natural origin.
One can only imagine Fauci is in increasingly hot water, along with apparent collaborators Peter Daszak, Robert Baric, Kristian Andersen, Christian Drosten, and others.
Sure, some in media now say things like, “well, we can’t be certain… ” But you can watch Tony Fauci squirm on television as he tries to justify one more of his past declarations which hasn’t aged well. If you’re as old as I am, you can remember Colin Powell and Robert Mueller at the UN holding up a vial and swearing that a violent invasion of Iraq would be self defense.
Virtually every corporate media publication has written about the origin of the virus now. Many editorials freely acknowledge that the virus probably originated in a lab without ever apologizing for their coverage throughout 2020. What many editorials then assert is that it doesn’t really matter. They suggest that because we don’t know for sure — and might never know for sure — despite a massive preponderance of evidence gathering behind only one of the two theories. These editorials generally go on to say that the virus is dangerous wherever it came from, and so hey its exact origin isn’t a big deal.
I believe this is distortion intended to spread confusion, induce amnesia, and insulate those in power from being held to account.
This is a big deal! Where did this virus come from?
It’s the question of the year, perhaps of the decade.
Had the media actually “followed the science” and reported honestly about both the possibility that the virus had originated in a lab and Fauci’s and Daszak’s involvement in gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab, many things about 2020 would have been very different and — most likely — much better for everyone:
Knowing the virus likely originated in a lab would have enabled humanity to immediately access information on the known strengths and weaknesses of the virus to best protect us against it.
We would have an immediate investigation into the lab, who funded it, who worked in it, and how the leak happened.
We would possibly already have banned biological weapons research.
Fauci’s name would have been connected to the research. He wouldn’t have been given much if any power by governments or trust by the media.
Fauci’s connections to new mRNA injection maker Moderna would have been examined more closely.
We would likely have had more honest reporting on science, lockdowns, treatments, and everything else about the pandemic.
Hundreds of doctors and independent media channels that were banned over illegitimate “fact-checks” might still have their ability to reach us.
As a country, we might have more trust in the media and government officials today.
We likely would not have had fewer lockdowns.
We would possibly be a more united country.
This story is a bombshell that should change our understanding of reality in 2021. To me it’s more compelling and fascinating than any other story out there right now. Here are the three biggest takeaways I believe from this still-unfolding catastrophic failure of the media:
Covid is a Bioweapon. The scenario with the preponderance of evidence at this point is that American money funneled to a Chinese virology lab funded “gain-of-function” research on bat coronaviruses, and this research led to the creation of a highly transmissible and dangerous new pathogen called sars-cov-2, which in turn caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, sars-cov-2 is a man-made bioweapon. Some will argue the invention was intended all along to be a bioweapon; others will ascribe a more benign intention to the research. It doesn’t matter. If you invent a more deadly machine gun as a science fair project, or as a toy, or as a paperweight — it makes no difference. You invented a more deadly weapon, and likely either you or someone else will use it as a more deadly weapon. Your original intent doesn’t change this. The organism called sars-cov-2 that has shut down civilization is likely a deliberate human creation, and based on the damage it has wreaked on the world, we must now see that bioweapon labs pose more immediate danger to the planet than, say, climate change. Bioweapons must be understood thoroughly and contained immediately. Whether this particular bioweapon was deliberately or accidentally released must be explored next. This is the next frontier, the next question that the corporate media will tell you cannot be asked. The fact-checkers and the social media platforms will insist: you may not think about this. Questions will be censored, journalists silenced, channels banned. But the courageous among us must look facts square in the face: the spread of this virus led to tremendous upward transfers of wealth and power: power to national and state governments; wealth to pharmaceutical corporations. The question must be asked because the answer is too important to assume.
Propaganda and Lies Permeate US Media. The other reason this new knowledge is a bombshell for our conception of reality is that it reveals that for an entire year the American corporate media giants shut down scientific inquiry and free speech on a vital topic. This would be chilling even if we didn’t know it was deliberate. But we now know this was on some level concerted and deliberate, even if not all censorship and distortion was deliberate. Powerful independent media voices like The Highwire that were asking important and legitimate questions were literally removed from YouTube simply for asking whether the virus might have a lab origin. Fact-checkers turned out to be little more than protectors of the dominant media narrative. The New York Times, MSNBC, NPR and countless other outlets got in on the act too. How could censorship cut so uniformly across nominally “free” news sources? I’m writing an entire book to answer this question. Suffice it to say: we must incorporate into our sense of reality the knowledge that the corporate media and politicians are lying to us even about extremely important things. If for a year they could prevent intelligent people across the country from even thinking about something as important as the origin of this virus, this means our very freedom of thought is being manipulated. What information is being shut down about these so-called “vaccines?” If we now can assume that the virus is a lab-created bioweapon, then it stands to reason that the injection might have been invented at the same time. If so, could the highly profitable sale of the vaccines be the real reason the virus escaped? Or could the vaccine too be an experimental bioweapon? Could the entire medical dialectic of the created virus and the manufactured vaccine be an experiment in global social control? These questions must be asked, as scary as they are to contemplate. I believe that we should hide from them no more, even if I do at times fear what I might uncover. These are things I’m broadening my media diet to attempt to understand, and I am always open to your thoughts and research.
China isn’t the Only Enemy. If it’s true that this is a bioweapon made in the Wuhan lab, certainly the Chinese government and, to some extent, the Chinese virologists bear blame for its disastrous creation and escape. But a very large — perhaps equal — share of the blame must fall on other governments, the United States in particular. Yes, the virus was probably isolated in the Chinese lab and the head of research was Shi Zhengli, but by all accounts that research began in the United States, shifted to China to avoid American laws, and received funding from the NIH. Fauci, Daszak, and Baric were all heavily involved in one way or another. The crimes are the creation and use (inadvertent or intentional) of deliberately souped-up human pathogens. These are crimes against humanity and must be made illegal the world over. Blaming China alone would be both incorrect and foolhardy.
The origin of the virus is an enormous story, possibly bigger than Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jeffery Epstein’s island, Hillary’s emails, QAnon, and Russiagate, combined.
It changes everything we thought we knew about our media, our science institutions, and the gravest threats we face as a civilization.
It’s a big deal.
Posted in Red, White & Blind
by Tony Brasunas on June 24, 2021