Coronavirus Conspiracy, Evidenced by ‘Fake Science,’ Indicts Tulane and Scripps Agents in a Bioterror Racket Protecting Criminal Interests thru Media Cover-ups
Coronavirus conspiracy theories have come under fire for undermining the scientific community’s and governments’ remedial actions.(1, 2) The most important question in this controversy and battle against the “novel” 2019 coronavirus is the origin of the outbreak; not the utility or availability of masks, ventilators, drugs, vaccines, first responders, or lawmakers who abused intelligence briefings to profit from ‘inside trading.’
For all we know, without identifying the true source of the outbreak, additional outbreaks may multiply risks and civilization’s damage, disease, distress, and deaths.
For these compelling interests, coronavirus conspiracy theories are required for advancing intelligence, competent research, discerning analysis, and effective remedies.
In these efforts, journalists and whistleblowers play vital roles in vetting more than the commercial and political beneficiaries of the pandemic. Truth tellers, however controversial, serve the burdensome ‘public duty’ of disclosing hidden evidence of wrongdoing, including evidence of the alleged laboratory creation and ‘man-made’ origin of the pandemic’s geopolitical and economic impositions.
Such “conspiracy theories” must be presumed by the preponderance of facts and clear-and-convicing evidence summarized herein that best explain the 2019 “novel” SARS/HIV-1/coronavirus (“n-2019CoV”) alleged or presumed bioterrorism and biocrime.
In this context, 18 U.S. Code § 1002 makes it illegal to manufacture or possess false writings to enable bioterrorism or any such biocrimes. Articles are outlawed that would aid-and-abet anyone obtaining from the United States, any agency, officer, or agent thereof, any sum of money, based on any fraudulent document.
Given these facts, the author/whistleblower of this report condemns and indicts Tulane University and Scripps Research Institute co-authors Kristian G. Andersen and Robert F. Garry for publishing so-called “science” proximal to this level of crime. The evidence presented herein gives probable cause for a Department of Justice investigation into their alleged ‘fake science’ conspiracy and their financiers.
Background on the Coronavirus Conspiracy: Evidence of Tampering, ‘Fake Science,’ and Organized ‘Biocrime’
On March 30, 2020, when asked about coronavirus propaganda described as “outrageous lies” by some officials from China and America, President Donald Trump admitted on FOX News: “They do it and we do it…Every country does it.” Days later, he stated that the virus, outbreak, pandemic, or remedial response, was “artificially induced.”
The next evening, the network’s Tucker Carlson–son of Richard Warner Carlson, past director of the U.S. Information Agency, and director of the Voice of America propaganda program broadcasting during the last six years of the Cold War–indicted all governments. Carlson scolded health officials worldwide for “lying” about the apparent bioweapon and ‘lab virus outbreak.’
Referencing unnamed Chinese researchers who published an unidentified indictment of bioweapons research in labs allegedly sourcing the pandemic near the Wuhan market, Carlson dismissed the general scientific consensus that contaminated bat meat sourced the human disease.
Three weeks earlier, Carlson had reported that anyone advancing such a “conspiracy theory” was lying. In his March 31 revision, Carlson’s sources theorized that the outbreak occurred when coronavirus-contaminated lab specimens were somehow deposited at the nearby Wuhan seafood market.
In contrariety to Carlson’s aforementioned theory, on March 17, 2020, ABC and Yahoo News heralded a conflicting “study” that allegedly put the question to bed. Published in Nature Medicine, Kristian G. Andersen of The Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, CA; and Robert F. Garry of Tulane University in New Orleans and Zalgen Labs in Maryland, and others on their team, titled their writing: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”. That “study” purportedly “clearly show[ed] that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” (1) This opposition to “conspiracy theories” prompted international news headlines such as, “Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 ‘is not a laboratory construct’.”
In response, this author critically examined the Andersen and Garry et. al. study, and hereby refutes their conclusion. Not only does this team of ‘esteemed scientists’ working under federal contracts misrepresent facts, and neglect most substantive science, but their conclusion evidences frank fraud, complicity in the coronavirus conspiracy purportedly debunked by them, and an alleged violation of U.S. criminal law.
Title 18 U.S. Code § 1519 precludes the “Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations . . .” It states: “Whoever knowingly . . . conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . , or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Pursuant to this charge of criminal conduct by Andersen and Garry, et. al., on February 3, 2020, President Trump’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Kelvin K. Droegemeier, initiated a federal investigation into this precise subject—the alleged laboratory origin of the 2019 coronavirus. Droegemeier wrote to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) President, Dr. Marcia McNutt, to begin this urgent probe. This federal action prompted this author’s corresponding “Intelligence Memorandum” to Droegemeier and Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security, on February 10, 2020.
(Editor’s note: Such urgent NAS studies and reports are contracted with the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and administered by the NIH Office of Science Policy.)
Consequently, the origin of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic was, since that time, under federal investigation; and certain to be influenced by Andersen and Garry et. al.’s science article published in Nature Medicine dismissing the lab virus bioweapon notion.
“[T]he consortium has most to gain from the coronavirus pandemic, and much to lose from determining that the virus originated in a pharmaceutical biotechnology lab—a determination that would bring the entire genetic engineering biotechnology industry under intense scrutiny and regulatory pressures internationally.”
Evidence for the Crime of Scientific Evidence Tampering, Bioterrorism, and Biocrime Raising Probable Cause to Investigate the Tulane and Scripps Suspects
Clearly, Andersen and Garry et. al. issued the most widely heralded and influential “science” paper on this topic. (1)
So based on the facts and evidence presented below, this team of scientists must be investigated for concealing scientific evidence (i.e., evidence tampering), and (inter alia) committing a Code § 1519 violation of fraud with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the presumably ongoing federal investigation or proper administration of the coronavirus response involving ‘source research’; aiding-and-abetting and protecting agents and entities suspected in the conspiracy to commit coronavirus bioterrorism and biocrime.
In addition, anti-trust laws may be called into question pursuant to the apparent ‘joint venture’ between agents for Scripps and Tulane U. corruptly influencing federal agents and agencies investigating the outbreak, imposing political constraints and economic damages consistent with a ‘racketeering enterprise’ that exclusively favors drug and vaccine special interests; and unfairly depriving alternative information and healthcare products and services from consideration to the detriment of free trade, favorable competition, and public health as intended by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care.
Considering Scripps’ agent first, in 2018, “Project Leader,” Kristian Andersen, PhD, co-director of the Center for Viral Systems Biology at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI; at that time), received a $15 million grant to conduct “an in-depth study” through the TSRI-led Center for Viral Systems Biology to fight hemorrhagic fever viruses, including Ebola and Lassa. The grant was given by the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, directed by the Trump Administration’s appointed chief coronavirus response official, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“Our goal is to help eradicate these diseases by building better diagnostics, designing new drugs and informing vaccine design,” Andersen explained to press officials at that time.
Quoting Scripps’ press release heralding the $15M grant, “The new study will take advantage of TSRI’s expertise in genomic analysis and data science. Andersen has previously led large-scale projects to track the geographic spread and evolution of viruses using genomic analysis, and he and his colleagues are now planning to use genomic analysis and other advanced tools, including physiological measurements, to study individual disease survivors.”(Emphasis added.)
It is Dr. Andersen’s “genetic analysis” of the subject coronavirus spike protein structure, omitting and neglecting four insertions from HIV-1, that is central to this investigation and alleged wrongdoing (as further detailed below).
Working closely with Andersen in “genomic analysis” is Dr. Robert Garry. According to a press release issued by Dr. Garry’s company, Zalgen Labs in Maryland, as early as August 2016, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), also under the direction of Anthony Fauci, transferred to Zalgen a grant for development of recombinant antigen diagnostics for filoviruses, which “resulted in development of the ReEBOV® Ebola test, among others.”
This fact is also material to Zalgen’s and Abbott Labs’ recent developments of industry leading coronavirus tests; as well as to Dr. Fauci and Abbott Labs’ recorded statements of November 7, 2019, pursuant to AIDS virus gene sequences enabling the circulating pandemic coronavirus to infect human cells (as reported by Preshant et. al. (6) as detailed below).
That date was three weeks after the suspect “Event 201” (i.e., ‘Agenda 21’) Coronavirus Preparedness (‘Predictive Programming‘) conference sponsored by key investors in the pharmaceutical cartel, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins University that leads coronavirus data mining and reporting, and the World Economic Forum that represents leading investors in the infectious disease syndicate.
That date was also three weeks before the first coronavirus cases appeared at the Wuhan seafood market.
Suspicious Contemporaneous ‘Discovery’ of the Emergence of a New Strain of AIDS by Abbott Labs
Recently, Johns Hopkins had reported genetically mutating the AIDS virus (HIV-1) to deliver “new DNA” to patients. This was described by NIH Director, Francis S. Collins, as a “cure” for sickle cell anemia targeting mainly people of color.
Abbott Labs had financed Johns Hopkins research into anti-cancer drugs that act similar to anti-coronvirus spike protein ‘protease inhibitors’ (much like Abbott’s drug Novir) as further explained below.
Quoting from Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola–Nature, Accident or Intentional? that urged international scrutiny and opposition to AIDS industry malfeasance, including suspect Anthony Fauci–the ‘AIDS Czar’ for the NIH at the NIAID privy to insider intelligence and commercial enrichment. The suspects and complicit agents are evidenced having manufactured, using early genetic biotechnology, the AIDS pandemic during the early 1970s:
“Abbott Labs are best known for having licensed and produced: the ELISA screening test for HIV. . . . Abbott also licensed and marketed the hepatitis core antigen test purchased by New York City Blood Center officials, following years of delay, and before the ELISA test was available, to help identify blood units suspected of HIV infection. The company had also supplied expertise and the radioactive experimental reagents to [Dr. Wolf] Szmuness required for this New York homosexual hepatitis B vaccine trial. Furthermore, Abbott Labs ended up commercially marketing Merck-Sharp & Dohme’s hepatitis B vaccine. (10; p. 126.)
“Moreover, the hepatitis B vaccines suspected of having transmitted HIV to American homosexuals, was researched by Abbott’s L.R. Overby, who was intimately connected to the New York University Medical Center hepatitis B chief, Saul Krugman. Together, they evaluated hepatitis B susceptibility and vaccination methods in the New York subjects during the mid-1970s.” (10; p. 126.)
Abbott’s press officials over the years distanced the company from its cartel agreements with the Rockefeller-IBM-partnered IG Farben conglomerate that administered Auschwitz and financed the death camps of WWII. Decartelization following Nuremberg Trials gave rise to Bayar AG, Hoechst and BASF, the latter acquired by Abbott in late 2000 for $6.9B (US) in cash. Since that time, Abbott has been a leading funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) legislative “bill mill” pushing mandatory vaccines through campaign financing of candidates in both parties. The company, that manufactures the AIDS virus spike protein attachment ‘protease inhibitor’ Norvir, has a history of bribing medical doctors and public officials, resulting in its 2006 rebuke by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).
Bill Gates and the Coronavirus Conspiracy Enterprise
Returning to Dr. Garry, on March 20, 2020, business publications heralded Dr. Garry’s Zalgen Lab’s that had development and tested a coronavirus diagnostic test in alliance with pharmaceutical interests, including the NIH, NIAID, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as Johns Hopkins University operating at the forefront of coronavirus intelligence gathering, data mining, scientific analysis, infection projections, and media reporting.
For this investigation, these named entities represent a “consortium” of interested parties (according to their press reports); and for legal purposes these agents and entities form a single medical science pharmaceutical syndicate, cartel, or enterprise.
Operating at the heart of this coronavirus enterprise commercializing the “pandemic response” (allegedly in the interest of public health and safety) is the Cambridge, Massachusetts biotech company called Moderna Inc. That company developed the leading candidate vaccine against the Wuhan novel strain. Moderna’s direct partners include Bill Gates, as well as the NIAID that is headed by Dr. Fauci.
“Notable about the Fauci-Gates Moderna coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273,” explained Princeton Univ. trained political and economic investigator, F. William Engdahl, “is that it has been rolled out in a matter of weeks, not years, and on February 24 went directly to Fauci’s NIH for tests on human guinea pigs, not on mice as normal.”
“Nature Medicine and Springer Nature act within the alleged criminal enterprise to influence the global scientific community and federal investigators as a main source of ‘fake science’ and ‘fake news.'”
In addition to the aforementioned suspects, Dr. Andersen and Dr. Garry’s publisher, Nature Medicine, is similarly incriminated by ethical breaches and conflicting interests. The entity is burdened by a history of scientific fraud. This purportedly “peer reviewed” journal is discredited by its Springer Nature owner.
Springer Nature is a premier globalist academic publishing company (within the suspect criminal enterprise) created by the merger of Springer Science+Business Media and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group‘s Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, and Macmillan Education. This multi-national syndicate made nearly $2 billion in 2019 by marketing its publications and properties in alliance with Big Pharma—the consortium that has most to gain from the coronavirus pandemic, and much to lose from determining that the virus originated in a pharmaceutical biotechnology lab—a determination that would bring the entire genetic engineering biotechnology industry under intense scrutiny and regulatory pressures internationally.(2)
Accenting a history of foul play, in 2011, Springer Nature acquired Pharma Marketing and Publishing Services (MPS) to mainly market partnering companies’ drugs and vaccines. In 2013, the London-based private equity firm BC Partners acquired a majority stake in Springer from EQT and GIC for $4.4 billion; and a year later, it was revealed that sixteen papers in conference proceedings published by Springer had been fraudulently generated. The scheme used SCIgen, “a computer program that uses context-free grammar to randomly generate nonsense in the form of computer science research papers.” (Emphasis added; (3))
Created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, home to the Media Lab embroiled in the Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein scandal, SCIgen’s stated aim is “to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.” All elements of the papers generated by SCIgen, including graphs, diagrams, and citations, were “fake”–fraudulently manufactured.
In other words, Nature Medicine and Springer Nature act within the criminal enterprise to influence the global scientific community and federal investigators as a main source of “fake science” and “fake news.”
In this instance, to discredit, discourage, and disparage coronavirus “conspiracy theorists,” this enterprise published Andersen and Garry’s “fake science” (a.k.a, ‘pseudoscience’). Their motive was to promote counter-intelligence concealing evidence of the lab virus origin.
To do this, the devil-doers needed to neglect the journal’s vitally-important earlier publication, a 2015 report by Menachery et. al.. This evidence of conspiracy to fraudulently conceal the lab origin of COVID-19, proposed convincingly that “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” Human transmission was especially predicted when the virus was altered in labs. “On the basis of these findings,” these scientists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in China, and the Department of Cancer Immunology and AIDS, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, “synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length [SARS/Corona] recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.”
Aware of these studies and dangers, the Anderson team noted “Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV. We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2.”
Searching for a possible precursor for this species jump through “genetic banks,” Anderson and Garry allegedly could find no other “progenitor virus” (predecessor) with very high genetic similarity to Covid-19. Consequently, closing their eyes to all the aforementioned incriminating facts, the group concluded “it is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.
This fraud exclusively favored the aforementioned pharmaceutical interests, including the monopolized media and related commerce.
This evidence of depriving whistleblowers and competitors best explains the ongoing chaos, conflicting official statements and instructions, characterizing the entire coronavirus response and criminal syndicate.
Protecting what amounts to a racketeering enterprise engulfing the Trump administration and governments worldwide; this alleged syndicate profits from the obvious bioterrorism and biocrimes–the objective of Nature Medicine’s, ABC News’, and Yahoo News’ fake news heralding Andersen et. al.’s ‘fake science’ or ‘counter-intelligence.’
The criminal intent of the suspect publication, its commissioners, and complicit authors, was to defraud the public and scientific community, and ‘neutralize’ legitimate whisleblowers in science who, in this instance, evidenced the coronavirus’ lab origin, “predictive programming,” and resulting global impositions best labeled bioterrorism, biocrime or genocide.(4)
Concealed Evidence of Genetic Engineering in the Coronavirus Conspiracy
Thirdly, Andersen and Garry et. al. based their anti-conspiracy conclusion on their terminally-flawed, biased, negligent, and purportedly “peer reviewed” “perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.” (5, 6) Therein, these authors fraudulently neglected the scholarly, albeit suspiciously-censored, genetic research upon which a conflicting conclusion was reached by Pradhan et. al. (6)
Prashant Pradhan is the Chief Technical Officer for IBM in Asia. Pradhan’s group of coronavirus gene-sequencing experts are affiliated with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), the University of New Delhi, IBM, and New York University at Stonybrook. This team of nine experts used the most advanced computer programs to perform a most important study on this topic. (6)
Andersen’s team disregarded Pradhan’s widely circulated “pre-publication,” neglected to review and report certain spike protein “inserts;” and falsely argued against a laboratory cell culture “intermediate” between the presumed ‘bat reservoir’ and the first infected Wuhan humans.
Andersen’s team reported that “a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described.”
That statement and ‘hypothesis’ omits the gene sequences discovered by IBM’s computers as reported by Pradhan et. al. (6); and makes a material misrepresentation that is clearly false. “High genetic similarlity” to HIV-1–the AIDS virus–was reported, and is certainly amenable to repeated discovery.
Moreover, the complicit suspects’ statement is diversionary. As early as 2009, Wimmer et. al. published genetic studies heralding “Synthetic viruses” virtually identical to the 2019 pandemic coronavirus. The manufactured RNA viruses combined the human endogenous retrovirus, HIV cpz [the AIDS virus progenitor] and the “SARS-like coronavirus.”
Much like Andersen et. al. have done with their bogus dismissal of coronavirus conspiracy theories, Wimmer et. al. neglected the increased risks to society in advancing this dangerous biotechnology, exclusively favoring commercial interests and enabling biocrimes.
In fact, Pradhan’s group expressly described more than “very high genetic similarity” between the pandemic coronavirus and the earlier engineered lab virus called AIDS/HIV-1. (10) Pradhan’s group identified identical sequences in the subject coronavirus ‘bioweapon’ and HIV-1. (1, 6)
Consequently, Pradhan’s group vicariously determined the urgent need for further investigation in lieu of the high probability further mutations in the circulating bioweapon might arise combining more deadly gene sequences from coronavirus-infected persons, leading to worsening morbidity and mortality globally.
“Andersen’s team disregarded Pradhan’s widely circulated ‘pre-publication,’ neglected to review and report certain spike protein ‘inserts;’ and falsely argued against a laboratory cell culture ‘intermediate’ between the presumed ‘bat reservoir’ and the first infected Wuhan humans.”
Also discrediting Andersen and Garry et. al., these leading coronavirus conspiracy skeptics controverted their own widely-publicized opposition to coronavirus conspiracy theories by including a ‘disclaimer.’
After acknowledging that “The receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the spike protein [associated with four unique HIV-1 genes according to Pradhan et. al. (6)] is the most variable part of the coronavirus genome amendable to therapies, (1) Andersen et. al. wrote: “In [conspiracy] theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations during adaptation to [laboratory] passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV.” (1)
More Pseudoscience and Fraudulent Concealment in the Coronavirus Biocrime
Andersen’s team also misrepresented the ‘unnatural selection’ of the pandemic coronavirus when they explained “the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human” cells. They wrote that this binding “is most likely the result of natural selection on a human.”
Alternatively, these suspects speculated that a “human-like [receptor] permits another optimal binding solution to arise”.
Throughout their discussion, these agents recklessly neglected, or purposely concealed, the likelihood that the “optimal binding solution” arose by the insertion of the HIV-1 AIDS spike protein gene sequence that Pradhan’s group recorded and explained in great detail.
“This is strong evidence that SARS[/HIV-1]-CoV-2 is . . . the product of purposeful manipulation.” (1, 6)
In review, the New York Times overview of the coronavirus ‘spike protein’ attachment mechanism may be helpful, and is provided in the following screenshots:
Pradhan’s group identified four obviously ‘unnatural’ gene sequences from the AIDS virus (i.e., HIV-1) that had been spliced into the “novel” “SARS-CoV-2” spike protein. This unnatural attachment mechanism, governed by the ‘positively charged’ added envelop gene segments, is a virtual ‘smoking-gun’ in the biocrime as well as concealed remedies as previously reported.
Pradhan et. al.’s study is titled, “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag [gene sequences].” It concludes: “The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity/similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.”
In other words, the AIDS-virus envelop gene could only have entered the subject coronavirus through genetic engineering in a lab, not by natural ‘evolution’ of the species as Andersen and Garry’s team falsely concluded and promoted in the media.
More Technical Analysis of Andersen and Garry’s Fraudulent Concealment of the HIV-1 Spike Protein Genetic Homology and Anti-Oxidant Susceptibility
A leader in the field of manufacturing chemotherapies to inhibit binding of laboratory-engineered viruses to human cells is R&D Systems—a fact commonly known to researchers throughout Andersen and Garry’s industry.
According to R&D Systems’ promotions, the most important mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the “ACE-2” “Entry Receptor” discussed by the suspects. (7) This is the “attachment apparatus” for pathogenesis—linking the coronavirus to its immune-insufficiency disease and unnecessary deaths.
R&D Systems’ literature review features cancer cell lines. The company especially tests the “Vero-E6” monkey kidney cell line known to permit SARS-CoV replication, in the same way it permits the multiplication of the AIDS virus (HIV-1), Ebola, Ebola’s ‘mother’—the Marburg virus—and cowpox viruses. (8) R&D Systems research and developments dovetail with Garry’s company’s research and developments. This fact compounds evidence of Andersen and Garry having concealed coronavirus genetic science intentionally, knowingly, and willfully to publish false and misleading, albeit federally-influential, opposition to the laboratory creation of the SARS-CoV-HIV-1 bioweapon.
“For all we know, without identifying the true source of the outbreak, additional outbreaks may multiply risks and civilization’s damage, disease, distress, and deaths.”
As S&R officials noted, Hoffman et. al. determined that “SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on [that] ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor.” (9) What that “protease inhibitor” does is central to Garry’s commercial efforts in Maryland at Zalgen Lab, and that of the suspect public-private pandemic enterprise as a whole. That protease inhibitor blocks the activation of the attachment apparatus so that the virus cannot attack human cells.
In other words, by neglecting, concealing, and obfuscating what is common knowledge in the coronavirus biotechnology trade, Andersen and Garry, et. al. have deprived the damaged government and taxpayers of multiple remedies and likely cures.
To prevent the coronavirus disease, inhibiting the transformation of the attachment protein is required. To stop the disease and deaths this way, albeit concealed by the suspects’ propaganda, the specific protein transforming enzyme produced by the human host cell is required to energetically alter the virus binding site. Without that enzyme required to transform and activate the positively-charged spike protein, infection is precluded by the failed attachment; thus preventing the infectious disease.
Otherwise, the offending SARS/AIDS coronavirus is able to electromagnetically (i.e., energetically) attach to human cells; and inject its RNA genetic code into the host, thus causing morbidity and mortality.
To commercialize and profit from this knowledge, R&D Systems developed an “Anti-ACE-2 Antibody” (Catalog # AF933). The company tested this potential remedy knowing this product blocked entry of the Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) into human cells. They used VSV “pseudotypes” to express the damaging SARS/HIV-1/CoV-2 S protein. (7)
It is noteworthy that this VSV pseudotype lab virus was originally cultured for studies from the Rhabdovirus species–studies extremely well known to Andersen, Garry and NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci in lieu of the 2014 “Ebola Emergency.”
That family of deadly viruses originally infected rodents, causing rabies. But through crude genetic engineering of Rhabdoviruses at the U.S. Army’s sixth leading biological weapons lab—Litton Bionetics—during the 1960s and early 1970s, officials generated the “mother of Ebola”—the Marburg virus. They then adapted this Rhabdovirus to infect monkeys, producing ‘Rhabdovirus simian’. These acts were recorded in government contracts and conference discussions during the Special Virus Cancer Program. These facts were first made public by this author in his first of three national bestselling books, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? (10)
Accordingly, the suspects, indeed the virology and biotechnology communities at large, are well aware, that the entry of the SARS/AIDS-CoV-2 RNA into human cells requires the ‘cleavage’ of the AIDS-linked lab-engineered S [spike] protein. In their objectionable writing, the suspects have fraudulently concealed and recklessly neglected these facts. Relying on S&R’s words, “For SARS-CoV entry into a host cell, its S protein needs to be cleaved by cellular proteases at 2 sites, termed S protein priming, so the viral and cellular membranes can fuse.” (7)
Indeed, this largely-hidden knowledge directs preventatives, treatments, and cures for the coronavirus disease, because that attachment mechanism largely depends on fluids bathing that environment, or ‘terrain;’ and this implores the importance of acid/base chemistry in the delivery of therapeutics. Thereby, the positively-charged spike-attachment complex, comprised of protein and sugar parts, and their binding process, is interrupted or blocked by an assortment of natural, low-cost, safe and effective anti-oxidants. (11-13)
As a matter of anti-trust and consumer fraud concerns raised by the actions of the suspect enterprise, these ‘alternative treatments’ have been recklessly and damagingly neglected. These ‘alternative treatments’ for coronavirus disease include remedies for recovery and prevention including vitamin C, D, Zinc, chlorophyll, and “strong silver catalysts” promoting the breakdown of the spike protein amino-acid sugar complex that is highly influenced by oxidation/reduction reactions. (12)
Again, this molecular chemistry involves ‘electro-mechanics’ and biophysics. This dynamic system best explains the reported effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, as well as the aforementioned anti-oxidant therapies that neutralize reactive oxygen species (ROS) that the spike protein includes.
In other words, Andersen and Garry’s concealed ‘smoking gun’ is also the ‘Achilles heal’ of the virus. The coronavirus, like many other viruses, can be neutralized, for instance, by the drug hydroxychloroquine in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. (13) This drug provides a ‘hydroxyl radical’ to alkalize (i.e., reduce) the positively charged spike protein.
Unfortunately, hydroxychloroquine can cause adverse side-effects, is not available ‘over-the-counter,’ and is costly.
Alternatively, the natural silver hydrosol called OxySilver may be used. This low cost and safe broad-spectrum antimicrobial is manufactured using ‘structured water’ that resonates at 528Hz frequency. That precise energy has been shown to increase anti-oxidant activity by 100 percent. (14)
Furthermore, the spike protein glycan group “can be excellently released from the glycoprotein by alkaline” treatments, according to Vliegenthart and Kamerling. (15) Alkalizing water for improved body hydration, therefore, is a reasonable investment, as are the alkalizing foods and nutrients, as previously reported. discussed elsewhere. Small amounts of baking soda, NaHCO3, consumed in drinking water (e.g., 1/2 teaspoon per gallon), activates anti-inflammatory mechanisms and the transition of macrophage phenotypes from M1 (inflammatory) to M2 (regulatory) subtypes. (16)
Quoting Fuchs et. al. (17), “the current available data indicate that macrophage polarization is a multifactorial process in which a huge number of factors can be involved producing different activation scenarios. Once a macrophage adopts a phenotype, it still retains the ability to continue changing in response to new environmental influences” including terrain electrochemistry, anti-oxidant availability, or extracellular alkalinity. (16, 17)
These facts are consistent with Pradhan et. al.’s determinations. From studying the novel attachment apparatus of the offending coronavirus, they published Table 1 that makes clear the laboratory-engineered spike protein “inserts have a high density of positively charged residues. The deleted fragments in insert 3 and 4 increase the positive charge to surface area ratio.” (6)
In other words, returning to Andersen et. al.’s false science paper, the subject bioweapon developers, knowing this spike protein-sugar assembly depended on the “positively charged residues” within the attachment complex, increased the infectivity and lethality of the SARS/HIV-1/2019-nCoV mutant by removing “fragments in insert 3 and 4 [to] increase the positive charge to surface area ratio.” (6)
Accordingly, this manufactured coronavirus mutation would increase morbidity and mortality. These two objectives—more disease and costly profitable healthcare, and depopulation as openly promoted by Bill Gates who invests heavily in coronavirus biotech firms and co-sponsored the “Event 201” coronavirus ‘predictive programming’ conference six weeks before the Wuhan outbreak—are noteworthy and material to required criminal investigations into the lab originating the AIDS virus, SARS, coronavirus recombinant.
Pradhan et. al. wrote of the mutagen, “The amino acid residues of inserts 1, 2 and 3 of 2019-nCoV spike glycoprotein that mapped to HIV-1 were a part of the V4, V5 and V1 domains respectively in gp120 [Table 1].” (6)
These genetic findings not only convincingly prove the lab virus “conspiracy theory,” but also indict the Tulane and Scripps co-authors for recklessly neglecting widely-known science.
Andersen and Garry’s omissions and false writings implicates their own institutional and governmental involvements in advancing the ‘coronavirus conspiracy;’ apparent pharmaceutical monopoly and restraint of trade in alternative remedies that much like the AIDS cancer industry deprives the public of intelligence encouraging economical prevention and natural cures, such as readily available antioxidants, as opposed to costly prescriptions.
As Pradhan’s group made known, “The HIV-1 Gag protein [spliced into the offending coronavirus] enables interaction of virus with the negatively charged host [cell] surface (Murakami, 2008) and a high positive charge on the Gag protein is a key feature for the host-virus interaction.” This ‘smoking gun’ and ‘Achilles heal’ of the virus, suggests “unconventional evolution of 2019-nCoV that warrants further investigation.” (6)
“To our surprise,” Pradhan et. al. reported, “these sequence insertions [identifying HIV-1 gp120 and Gag genes spliced into the novel 2019 coronavirus] were not only absent in S protein of SARS but were also not observed in any other member of the Coronaviridae family. This is startling as it is quite unlikely for a virus to have acquired such unique insertions naturally in a short duration of time. . . . Taken together, our findings suggest unconventional evolution of 2019-nCoV that warrants further investigation.”
Pradhan et. al.’s “work highlights novel evolutionary aspects of the 2019-nCoV and has implications on the pathogenesis and diagnosis of this virus,” (6) as well as implications on readily available preventatives and highly probable cures.
Criminal Investigations Warranted by the Evidence
Criminal investigations into Andersen and Garry’s ‘bogus science,’ and complicity in the enterprise responsible for the alleged biocrime, are warranted by the evidence presented above and in previous reports.
Compounding evidence of reckless negligence, and negligent manslaughter for the fact that people are dying from the aforementioned omissions, misrepresentations, fraud, and related bioterrorism and biocrime, this study provides probable cause for Anderson et. al to be investigated by Justice Department officials; indicted by a grand jury for complicity in the mounting genocide; and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
This study gives governments worldwide more than ‘probable cause’ to demand “further investigations” into the “conspiracy theory” best explaining the laboratory-engineered 2019 coronavirus. Andersen and Garry et. al. have played an important role in aiding-and-abetting the biocrime and bioterrorism. Officials, who share a public duty to protect, defend, and secure citizens against such wrongdoing, and the ongoing impositions of n-2019CoV as an expression of organized crime, have ample evidence now to serve and secure society.
In this regard, discerning the extent of the academic and media enterprise implicated, is crucial to resolving these matters and preventing further ‘outbreaks.’
Andersen’s and Garry’s institutional affiliations, related biases, and motives, cannot go unnoticed. For Dr. Andersen of The Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, CA, or Dr. Garry at Tulane University in New Orleans and Zalgen Labs in Maryland, a quick online inquiry reveals their conflicting interests.
The Scripps enterprise is heavily invested in media and medicine. In fact, the Scripps publishing enterprise is actually partnered with the Springer Nature enterprise in sourcing medical propaganda, especially influencing the genetic-science community. Major institutional investors in E.W. Scripps and Springer include world leading “Deep State” financiers, Blackrock Inc., the Vanguard Group, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., and other globalist investment entities according to NASDAQ.
Further conflicting interests are evidenced by the Scripps Research Institute enterprise that incorporates the Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology & Immunogen Discovery. This racket holds a vested interest in concealing the AIDS virus envelop gene spliced into the coronavirus, as was recklessly neglected or concealed by Andersen et. al.
The lab virus origin of AIDS from within the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute’s Special Virus Cancer Program was thoroughly researched and reported by this author. This dutiful whistleblowing resulted in substantial censorship of this author’s works, substantial libel by so-called ‘science skeptics,’ and substantial personal and economic hardship. Such disinformation agents and agencies are evidenced by the Wikipedia censorship suffered by this author, as shown in the screenshot published below.
In addition, the concealed conflicting interests of Dr. Garry cannot be neglected or dismissed. Tulane University’s complicity in sourcing the AIDS cancer complex by viral engineering was thoroughly investigated and reported by Edward T. Haslam in several publications, including Dr. Mary’s Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans, and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses are Linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK Assassination, and Emerging Global Epidemics.
Meanwhile, Dr. Garry unethically neglected to disclose his company’s express research and developments of a coronavirus test under the required disclosure of “Competing interests”. Dr. Garry simply noted that he co-founded “Zalgen Labs, a biotechnology company that develops countermeasures to emerging viruses.”
If the public and scientific community realized the lab virus origin of the COVID-19, and the aforementioned parties’ complicity in concealing and aiding-and-abetting the alleged biocriminal enterprise, not only might Dr. Garry and his cohorts be held accountable under 18 U.S. Code § 1002, but civilization might be relieved of these severe infectious disease burdens and future unnatural ‘outbreaks.’
The scientific evidence and socio-economic and geopolitical facts presented in this paper raise substantial probable cause for investigating the named suspects for complicity in the overall “coronavirus conspiracy.” These facts and scientific evidence compound the need for thorough investigations that have been, thus far, neglected.
Scientific and judicial forums worldwide must reconcile the laboratory creation of the “novel” 2019 coronavirus/SARS/HIV-1 mutagen, its deployment in Wuhan (and probably elsewhere), and the resulting deadly pandemic.
The public and private biotechnology and pharmaceutical enterprise implicated by the evidence of wrongdoing presented herein, and diversionary ‘fake news’ and fraudulent “science” published, must be scrutinized in the interest of public health and justice. Without such urgently needed interventions, the threat of compounding outbreaks and deadlier biocrimes looms severe.
Andersen et. al.’s bogus “science paper” provides substantial evidence of bad faith. These federal grant recipients and enterprise agents did not “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” To the contrary, their fraudulent concealment of solid science and genetic engineering of that coronavirus evidences a conspiracy to cover-up the biocrime in which they are substantially implicated.
Not only is Andersen’s group commercially and ethically compromised by their concealed conflicting interests exposed herein, but these scientists recklessly neglected and concealed genetic sequencing evidence that vindicates “conspiracy theorists.”
Honorable whistleblowers include science scholars who heroically herald emerging viruses of unnatural origins to their own detriment. By so doing, these public health advocates are attacked ad hominem as “conspiracy theorists.” They risk their reputations, careers, livelihoods and safety to discover and disclose concealed truths rejected by the corporate-controlled media influencing the science world’s and society’s erroneous ‘general agreement.’
This study vindicates these public servants from such malicious disparagement, and indicts several of the main agents and institutions aiding-and-abetting the commercial enterprise profiting most from this devastating pandemic and alleged biocrime.
This study also evidences Andersen and Garry et. al. having published a writing knowingly concealing and misrepresenting coronavirus genetic science by omissions, and promoting this false information protecting and enriching special interests. These suspects knowingly recorded and circulated a scientific paper with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the (allegedly ongoing) federal investigation into the pandemic’s laboratory origin.
This violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1002, inter alia, occurred within the jurisdiction of the NIH and the National Academy of Sciences in response to direction by the Executive Office of the United States to investigate allegations of n-2019CoV being a lab virus. Andersen and Garry et. al. are alleged to have written and published their article in contemplation of their writing misleading, obstructing and preventing the government’s reputable investigation, and discovery of this urgent intelligence required for competent coronavirus remedial response.
Accordingly, President Trump and Attorney General William Barr are hereby called to act dutifully in investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and convicting Andersen and Garry et. al., under 18 U.S. Code § 1002 and other laws of the United States, encouraging imprisonment by statute for “not more than 20 years.”
In addition, treason law 18 U.S. Code § 2381 states: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Coronavirus bioterrorism and biowarfare has been imposed by the aforementioned suspects and enterprise. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is already subject to substantial criticism by the media for miscalculating the spread of coronavirus, and misinforming the President and the public regarding risks and remedies, is subject to this treason charge. Fauci is joined by Bill Gates and his equally suspect alliances.
REFERENCES & NOTES
Under New York law, there are five elements of a fraud claim. These include: misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, intent to deceive, reliance and damages. Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co., 615 F.2d 68, 80 (2d Cir.1980); Freschi v. Grand Coal Venture, 551 F.Supp. 1220, 1230 (S.D.N.Y.1982). According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Neder v. United States, 527 US 1 – 1999, “the well-settled meaning of ‘fraud’ required a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact.
In the instant case, co-authors Andersen and Garry, et. al. misrepresented coronavirus genetic science. They willfully and knowingly omitted the HIV-1 inserts into the spike protein genome material to the pandemic’s pathogenesis.
The intent of this omission and misrepresentation was to deceive the public and official investigators to induce their dismissal of the “conspiracy theory” and laboratory bioweapons origin of the pandemic.
Recipients of this false writing relied upon it, including ABC News, Yahoo News, and presumably federal agents and agencies entrusting Scripps, Tulane, and Zalgen Labs with grant monies to conduct this (and related) research. Taxpayers were also damaged, as was the international scientific community and its reliability. Society as a whole suffers.
Such damaging fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, thereby, satisfies all the elements of ‘fraud in the factum’ inducing damaged parties to dismiss urgently needed intelligence required to prevent additional outbreaks and develop remedies for the current crisis.
This felony dovetails with additional charges of obstructing justice as an impediment to governmental activities. Laws precluding obstruction of justice include witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1)(2)), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513(e)(f)), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law).
(2) Horowitz LG. The Lancet Coronavirus Science Fraud Reveals Bioterrorism. February 23, 2020. MedicalVeritas online journal. See: https://medicalveritas.org/coronavirus-science-fraud/
(3) Quoting the CIA’s ‘propaganda mill’, Wikipedia. Additional reference links to MIT’s ‘Media Labs’ largely financed by Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein’s group of investors that include The Mega Group of globalists tied to the Israeli Mossad.
(4) Horowitz LG. Coronavirus Predictive Programming: A Docu-commentary on the October 18, 2019 “Event 201” Proceedings. See: https://revolutiontelevision.net/video/coronavirus-predictive-programming/
(5) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 – Supreme Court 1993. Quoting the ruling disfavoring the drug company that claimed its sales and promotional publications were based on “peer reviewed” science, a “pertinent consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, see S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 61-76 (1990), and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published, see Horrobin, The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation, 263 JAMA 1438 (1990). Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published. But submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of “good science,” in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. See J. Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration 594*594 of the Grounds for Belief in Science 130-133 (1978); Relman & Angell, How Good Is Peer Review?, 321 New Eng. J. Med. 827 (1989). The fact of publication (or lack thereof) in a peer reviewed journal thus will be a relevant, though not dispositive, consideration in assessing the scientific validity of a particular technique or methodology on which an opinion is premised.
(6) Pradhan P. et. al., Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-n-CoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jan. 31, 2020. See the ‘censored’ scientific report re-published under public duty doctrine at: https://medicalveritas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pradham-et-al-Coronavirus-HIV-paper.pdf
(7) R&D Systems. ACE-2: The Receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Online literature review including 27 scientific references is available at: https://www.rndsystems.com/resources/articles/ace-2-sars-receptor-identified
(8) Dziuba N. et. al. Identification of cellular proteins required for replication of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 [HIV-1]/ AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2012 Oct; 28(10): 1329-1339. Available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448097/
(9) Hoffman M. et. al., SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell. Published online on March 5, 2020, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420302294?via%3Dihub
(10) Horowitz LG. Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 1996. See also: Horowitz LG. AIDS/Ebola author defends embattled African presidents. OriginofAIDS.com, November 7, 2002. Press release and letters available at: http://www.originofaids.com/author_defends_embattled_african_presidents.htm
(11) Schmidt RR. Heteratom manipulation. In: Comprehensive Organic Synthesis. 1991. Elsevier Science, Ltd. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/o-glycoprotein
(12) Kamerling JP and Gerwig GJ. Analysis of glycans; polysaccharide functional properties. In: Comprehensive Glycoscience. 2.01.5.5. Uronic Acid Degradation Elsevier B.V. 2007. Quoting these authors:
“The alkaline degradation of reducing sugars, which also includes epimerization reactions at C2, and the alkaline lability of Hex(1-3)Hex bonds at the reducing end form classical examples of this type of reactions.” See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/o-glycoprotein
(13) Rezabakhsh A. et. al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine on oxidative/nitrosative status and angiogenesis in endothelial cells under high glucose condition. Bioimpacts. 2017; 7(4): 219-226. Published online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801533/
(14) Babayi T and Riazi GH. The effects of 528Hz sound waves to reduce cell death in human astrocyte primary cell cultures treated with ethanol. J Addict Res Ther 8: 335. Available online at: https://medicalveritas.org/the-effects-of-528-hz-sound-wave-to-reduce-cell-death-in-human-astrocyte-primary-cell-culture-treated-with-ethanol/
(15) Vliegenthart JFG and Kamerling JP. Analysis of glycans; polysaccharide functional properties. In: Comprehensive Glycoscience. Elsevier B.V. 2007. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/o-glycoprotein
(16) Ray RC. Oral NaHCO3Activates a Splenic Anti-InflammatoryPathway: Evidence That Cholinergic Signals Are Transmittedvia Mesothelial Cells. Journal of Immunology April 16, 2018. See: https://www.jimmunol.org/content/jimmunol/early/2018/04/14/jimmunol.1701605.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
(17) Funes, S. C., Rios, M., Escobar-Vera, J., & Kalergis, A. M. (2018). Implications of macrophage polarization in autoimmunity. Immunology, 154(2), 186–195. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29455468