This is a slightly exaggerated but attractive title.
So, chatGPT after analyzing this week’s Congressional testimony of Christian Anderson swearing that Fauci did not bribe him to produce this flawed paper as evidence against a lab leak, what kind of punishment might they face if, for once, we start heeding your advice to hold them accountable? Also, what about the scientists who accidentally let the virus escape in Washington DC? Individuals who accidentally cause deaths but were following government safety regulations may likely avoid prison time. However, those who intentionally covered up the incident could face up to 10 years for perjury and up to 20 years for planting fake evidence, depending on the severity of their actions. It’s also a criminal offense for a government official to offer a bribe for political favors. Under federal law, this crime could be punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe amount.
For context, this weekend finally revealed Fauci’s own words summarizing the conference call, Anderson will now reference, confirming Fauci and his team of scientists were concerned about the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments and the role that may have played in the virus. That would be most unusual to have evolved naturally. Significantly, Anderson was not one of these two dissenters who Fauci said thought it was conceivable that this virus could have evolved naturally, even though these mutations have never been seen in a bat virus before.
Today’s hearing is targeted at a paper my colleagues and I published titled ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.’ In this paper, we concluded that the virus very likely emerged as the result of a zoonosis, that is, a spillover from an animal host. This remains the only scientifically supported theory for how the virus emerged. My initial hypothesis to us that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an engineered virus. Some have alleged that I have received a federal grant in exchange for the conclusions made in our proximal origin paper. There is no connection between the grant and the paper. Funding decisions on the grant were made before the pandemic, months before the February 1 conference call. Funding decisions were made before the conference call. Do I smell a weasel avoiding perjury? Yes, the statement can be considered weasel words. It implies the funding was approved prior to the call without explicitly stating it. This ambiguity could shield the speaker from definitive claims of dishonesty if it’s proven the funds were not approved beforehand because they only mentioned that decisions were made, not specifically that the funding was approved.
This evasiveness can indeed be interpreted as employing equivocal language or verbal gymnastics. Hmm, you know, perhaps it’s because Anderson’s written testimony documents that his grant application was only scored months before the call and for some unspecified amount. But Anderson was still waiting for the final decision from Fauci’s agency as of that call. And one week after the call, Anderson had done an about-face, writing his work ’now focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory.’ That work, of course, culminated in the paper which Fauci gleefully touted as proof the lab leak was a mere conspiracy theory. Only then did Fauci approve Anderson’s grant, and for a whopping nine million dollars.
So, the hearing ended with Anderson dancing a victory lap around the politicians. Grin as you may, Dr. Anderson. Let’s figure out how to wipe that grin off his face. See, a year ago, an anomaly in Anderson’s paperwork caught my attention, triggering suspicion that there might be more to the story. Note, the project in question initially had a six million dollar budget total to be divided among many of Fauci’s sugar babies, potentially receiving up to 850k each. Yet, when the Fauci gravy train stopped at Anderson station after his lab leaks back down, Fauci delivered Anderson a scrumptious 9 million dollar slice of government pie. Could it be that Anderson negotiated a bigger handout win for once he had the upper hand and Fauci actually needed him more than the other way around?
Hmm, trust but verify. So, I sent Anderson this tweet last year asking why the funding increase. That sure struck a nerve. Instead of just showing that nine million dollars was really pre-approved pre-pandemic, as implied by his weasel words, he deleted his Twitter account, going off the grid. Then, when he resurfaced, all who asked questions were blocked. So, let’s not throw in the towel. There must be a paper trail that many potential government whistleblowers would have access to, documenting what was the amount on his 2019 proposal and what date it got increased to nine million dollars and by whom. Significantly, subpoenas of their official emails failed to uncover discussions about funding levels or an expansion of Fauci’s grant. This might be important as I’m guessing it means they were cognizant of the need to employ alternative methods for these discussions to evade discovery. Perhaps that would establish intent, warranting potential criminal charges. Regardless, it should finally prompt the public to relinquish blind faith in their tainted claim of a natural origin, making the lab leak the default explanation.
So, chatGPT, how can we incentivize the production of verifiable evidence? If they were trying to cover their tracks during these hearings, someone found a dog hanging from a bridge in Hawaii, and to solve the crime, the community offered a reward for information. So, Chachi PT, is that our next step? Yes, it’s reasonable. When traditional methods are exhausted, creative approaches like grassroots campaigns for crowdsourcing evidence and incentivizing whistleblowers can potentially unveil hidden corruption. They empower citizens, promote transparency, and harness collective vigilance. Agreed. If we can rally support for a whistleblower to get justice for a single dog, why can’t we do the same for the millions of humans who’ve lost their lives to the pandemic? No one else seems to be attempting this. So, if you’re on board, tweet your pledge using this hashtag #plusfactbid. That way, it will be added to this page, which includes a click-to-start-a-tweet button with the hashtags pre-filled to avoid any typos. If a whistleblower comes forward, they can tweet donation instructions, which will be displayed on the page for direct donation. If satisfied, worst case, it costs us nothing to wipe the grins off their faces as we crowdsource a bounty for evidence to hold them accountable. So, let’s give it a shot. Lastly, on a lighter note, the hearing wasn’t entirely a snooze fest. Followed to catch my next video showing the hearing’s epic halftime show featuring SNL’s beloved detective Debbie Dingle easing the tension with much-needed comic relief. And then a tutorial showing how dot connectors figure this stuff out before everyone else.
