We are in a different place now than we were two years ago.

Thinking back on that time, how many knew we would so quickly arrive at a “new normal” in which one has to get a two-dose vaccine + boosters in order to simply work or effectively participate in society?

Some certainly did. So this series is a tribute to those who predicted many things which have been demonstrated true as of January 2022.1

Outline of Article:

COVID-19 Origins
The Question of Gain of Function Research at the Wuhan Institute
The Ivermectin Propaganda Campaign
Effectiveness of the COVID-19 Vaccines
Safety of the COVID-19 Vaccines
The Vaccines’ Impact on Transmission
Effectiveness of Cloth Masks
The Inevitability of Vaccine Mandates
The Cover-Up of Nursing Home Deaths in New York State
The Risk to Children from the Vaccines
Conclusion

1. COVID-19 Origins

The theory that COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute has been increasingly seen as the most likely scenario since May of 2021, though it still has not been proven beyond a doubt.2 The mainstream perspective around it has shifted despite the fact that the known facts surrounding the origins have not changed too dramatically since the pandemic began in January of 2020.3

Before the widespread accepting of the lab leak theory as a plausible scenario, it had been denounced as being “more akin to a conspiracy theory than to a scientifically credible hypothesis.”4 As recently as May of 2021, media pundits even mocked it as being racist. For instance, this was a now-deleted tweet from New York Times health and science writer, Apoorva Mandavilli:5 6

What exactly about the lab leak theory made it more racist than assuming the virus originated in a Chinese wet market?

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was the governmental labeling of discussion of the lab leak as “misinformation” and the forbidding of people from questioning COVID-19 origins in a serious way. From February to May of 2021, Facebook censored posts relating to the theory.7

What follows is a presentation on how media has treated the lab leak theory when it was still taboo:

So how did “conspiracy theorists” know at the origin of the pandemic that the lab was a probable origin for the virus? They actually knew nothing which was not already accessible to everyone. For one, there was the circumstantial evidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a laboratory which studies bat coronaviruses, being located in the same city as the first detected cases of COVID-19. This lab was no ordinary lab, and carried with it many concerns about lab safety as well as controversies over the risky research it performed.8 9 In addition, the Chinese government was protective and secretive over any information relating to COVID-19’s origins. Many suspected the WHO’s initial investigation to be compromised, or at the very least incomplete, and the Chinese government disallowed any further investigation.10

The next question that must be asked then is: why was the theory labeled as misinformation? Was it an attempted cover-up, or simply a result of hatred for Trump who, unfortunately, came to be inextricably linked with the theory? The latter doesn’t appear likely, because characters such as EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Dazsak and the NIH’s Francis Collins would have known better, yet still pushed the idea that the lab leak theory was nothing more than a conspiracy theory.11 12

One interesting new revelation which came out of a Wikileaks dump of State Department cables was an email demonstrating Hilary Clinton had concerns about the Wuhan lab’s potential for being a source of bioweapons proliferation back in 2009.13 With such concerns being precedented, why was the potential of a leak seen as a kookish idea, fit only for tin foil hat types?

2. The Question of Gain of Function Research at the Wuhan Institute

Gain of Function in Wuhan - Daily Remedy

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly and definitively stated throughout the pandemic that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Gain-of-function research is defined as “research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses.”14 In May 2020, he said the following before the Senate:

“However, I will repeat again — the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

He still denies it despite a letter written in October 2021 by the NIH’s principal deputy director, Lawrence Tabak, stating that EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, violated the rules of the grant stipulated by the NIH during their bat coronavirus research. The letter further stated that the bats unintentionally became sicker through the lab-created virus. It is important to note that though the NIH recognizes that the bats became sicker with the lab-created virus, they say it is impossible for this virus to have become COVID-19.15

Multiple staff members at the NIH also expressed their concern over the “chimeric” work being done at the Wuhan Institute. Two of them wrote to EcoHealth Alliance noting that the work “appear[s] to involve research covered under the [gain-of-function] pause.” However, it seems this concern was ignored, and, instead, EcoHealth Alliance created language that allowed them to escape oversight on these experiments. In addition, the NIH knew this yet turned a blind eye to it.The Intercept reported on emails which demonstrated that NIH officials helped EcoHealth Alliance evade these gain-of-function restrictions.16

The last notable thing to be mentioned here regarding gain-of-function research is that until recently, the NIH had a section on their website discussing gain-of-function research, defining it as: "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent."17

On October 20, 2021, the NIH removed that section from their website, and replaced it with a section entitled "ePPP (Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogen) Research", which it defines as: "research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."18

Though it hasn't been definitively proven yet, the timing of it causes it to appear as though they did so to bolster Dr. Fauci's claim that he never lied about denying funding gain-of-function research.

(Note: links to the two different versions of the page are provided in the footnotes at the bottom of this article; footnotes 17 and 18).

3. The Ivermectin Propaganda Campaign

Ivermectin is a Nobel prize-winning antiparasitic (with powerful antiviral properties) which has been used safely in humans for decades, including to treat river blindness and malaria.19 In addition, the CDC recommends the treatment of many human immigrants to the U.S. with ivermectin for parasites.20 It has even been called a “wonder-drug” for humans and has been said to have “had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world.”21

So why was there a concerted effort in the media and by the FDA to label it a horse medicine?22

One can quibble over its effectiveness; but its safety is well-established, and it certainly is not primarily a “horse medicine.”

4. The Effectiveness of the COVID-19 Vaccines

Those who originally marketed the vaccine as being 90%+ effective, neglected to caution about the decreasing effectiveness over time. They may have subtly referred to needing boosters, but much of the population did not believe boosters would ever be necessary.23

The CDC’s own website said that the vaccines were all “shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19.”

Fact checks repeated this information, claiming that vaccines protect against contracting and spreading COVID-19.24

Dr. Fauci said in February 2021 that all three vaccines were 100% effective at preventing death, and the risk for hospitalization was very close to 0. Doctors on President Biden’s coronavirus advisory board echoed a similar message:

“The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death.” 25

Many argue that the Delta and Omicron variants are what changed the game, leading to the declining effectiveness of the vaccines.26 27

However, “conspiracy theorists” were already predicting the need for boosters as soon as the vaccine became available.

Christmas Guro @hoennzollern

Vaccines are about to become a subscription service

Adam M. Goyer @AdamGoyer

Does anyone else see an mRNA vaccine and think: ☀️Someday soon, immunization will be a subscription service. Not just for COVID, I'm confident we'll update our immune system at similar intervals to software 💉🔬.

Yet they were waved off as being loons even though the CEOs of both Pfizer and Moderna as well as “vaccine health expert” and philanthropist Bill Gates alluded to the need for more doses. Gates said the following during an interview in February 2021:

“The discussion now is, do we just need to get a super high coverage of the current vaccine, or do we need a third dose that’s just the same, or do we need a modified vaccine?” 28

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla (also in February 2021) also foreshadowed the necessity of a third dose: "We believe that the third dose at six months (after) the first dose – is what we're going to try right now – will raise the antibody response 10- to 20-fold." 29

In April 2021, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel echoed a similar sentiment: “I think we’re going to need boosters starting this fall.” 30

Yet the fact checks in March 2021 on the claims of conspiracy theorists combated such claims as the necessity of boosters by saying: “Promising findings…suggest Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine may do the trick.”31

Sure enough, as of November 2021, media outlets were reporting that vaccine passports would now have an expiration date, and that the definition of “fully vaccinated” would change to include boosters:32 33 34

5. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines

Even as public health authorities and the mainstream media repeated the same memorized line: “safe and effective”; many believed the risks were not being honestly reported or accounted for. Indeed, one has to look no further than Pfizer’s own clinical trial to find an incident of a child, Maddie de Garay, who suffered severe, disabling post-vaccine effects during the trial, yet regarding whose story the media was entirely silent and whose disability was reported to the FDA as being merely “abdominal pain.”35

Many European countries have decided to not offer Moderna to children out of concern for adverse advents.36 Sweden, in particular, has decided to decline recommending any of the vaccines for children, citing an outsized risk compared to the benefit. 37

6. The Vaccines’ Impact on Transmission

Up until February 2021, the “expert consensus” was that the vaccines would not stop transmission. However, in February this consensus shifted as new studies came out which demonstrated the vaccine could prevent the transmission of COVID-19. (However, there were also contradictory studies which showed the opposite.) Dr. Fauci said he relied on “two new studies” on which to base his claim that the vaccine made the risk of transmission minimal. However, there were studies demonstrating the opposite as well.38 Do public health experts cherry-pick their data as much as the common folk do theirs?

Dr. Fauci said: “The risk is extremely low of getting infected, of getting sick, or of transmitting it to anybody else, full stop."39

As early as three months after Fauci’s statement, Nature published an article suggesting that vaccinated people did play a role in community spread; to what extent, though, was still uncertain.40

Now, just recently, New York City, home of the vaccine passport, has broken its own record with 44,000 new cases in one day, which was the “single-day biggest number recorded in a large city in the world.”41

Now cases among the vaccinated are skyrocketing just as much, if not more so, than among the unvaccinated.42 There are now multiple reports of 100% vaccinated cruise ships having outbreaks.43 44

In January 2022, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky confirmed this, stating: “what they [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission”, implying the important qualification that they used to be able to.45 This fact is still disputed, however.

7. On the Effectiveness of Cloth Masks

In December 2021, Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical analyst, shocked the world by calling cloth masks “little more than facial decorations” — exactly what Senator Rand Paul and others have called it for the past two years.46 47 Although she claims this statement is made in light of Omicron, “conspiracy theorists” were basing their claims on cloth masks not working due to previous studies demonstrating their ineffectiveness, and even harm in certain situations (such as during exercise.)48 49 50

8. On the Inevitability of Vaccine Mandates

In April of 2021, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the federal government is: “not now nor will we be supporting a system that requires Americans to carry a credential. There will be no federal vaccinations database and no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential.”51

This led many to believe that the federal government believed it did not have the authority to issue a mandate. However, they eventually still attempted a backdoor method via OSHA. Fortunately, that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The following screenshot demonstrates that throughout 2020 it was quite common for conspiracy theorists to be derided for their belief that vaccines would eventually be made mandatory.

Now German lawmakers are debating whether to make the vaccine mandatory, and Austria already has. 52 53

9. On the Cover-Up of Nursing Home Deaths in New York State

In February, PolitiFact issued an article stating the claim that Governor Cuomo’s order was solely responsible for the increase in deaths among nursing home patients was untrue. However, this was a strawman argument, as the claim they were citing merely blamed Cuomo’s order as “planting the seeds of infection that killed thousands of grandmothers and grandfathers.” Not solely responsible, but, indeed, bearing a great deal of the responsibility.54

Months later, the controversial order was deleted from the official state website, and Cuomo’s office was accused of manipulating the data regarding the deaths.55 56

10. The Risk to Children from the Vaccines

If you told a fanatic that there were greater risks to children from the vaccine than from COVID-19, chances are their eyes would glaze over as they rolled them to the top of their heads. They had the New York Times backing them up, too, with this piece released on Independence Day:57

However, a Project Veritas video released showed Pfizer employees saying that children do not need to get a vaccine, and that the only reason for the push is profit.58

In addition, a study released in September 2021 indicated that teenage boys may be more at risk from the vaccine (specifically Pfizer) than from COVID-19:59

In addition, many Nordic countries have since restricted the use of Moderna in the young.60 Most recently, Sweden has decided against recommending any COVID-19 for children.

Conclusion:

Something observed in common among each of these “conspiracy theories gone right” is that conspiracy theorists relied on evidence to make their claims — their claims were not baseless. Which leads us to the question, why was there an all-out effort to smear these claims which were later to be proven true? It wasn’t just one or two— there is a pattern of these things (and I may do two more articles on them, should this one be well-received.) So one must ask: why? Is it time to turn off the “talking heads” and, God forbid, do one’s own research? 61

Unfortunately, “do your own research” has now become a dirty phrase, as evidenced in the below article.

Throughout the pandemic, public health authorities were, in general, perceived to be unbiased. In addition, public opinion relied on “expert consensus.” However this expert consensus was a myth, a shadowy illusion, as demonstrated by the various studies published by dissenting experts which contradicted the mainstream ones pushed by the public health authorities.

Seeing how often the public health authorities and so-called “fact-checkers” have gotten things wrong throughout this pandemic— shouldn’t we view such things with a more skeptical eye? We don’t even have to go so far as to suspect malevolence on their part — even if one chalks it all up to incompetence, it should still give one pause before trusting their respective edicts and verdicts. “Trust but verify” is a good maxim to follow in all matters of life; and it certainly applies no less here.

Credit to @Aphilosophae’s amazing thread which gave inspiration to this article:

CulturalHusbandry @APhilosophae

Epstein committed suicide McAfee committed suicide Biden won the election COVID came from a wetmarket Conservatives are all terrorists Ivermectin doesnt work HCQ doesnt work Biden doesnt have dementia The jab isnt making anyone ill Fauci was consistent Masks work COVID passports

1

It is important to recognize for the sake of balance that many conspiracy theories have also not been proven true. However, this article focuses only on those true ones.

2

“Wuhan lab leak ‘now the most likely origin of Covid’, MPs told.” The Telegraph.

3

“The lab-leak hypothesis is gaining currency even as the facts remain the same.“ If the Lab-Leak Theory is Right, What’s Next? The Atlantic.

4

See note 3.

5

Mandavilli deleted her tweet after internal criticism circulated at the New York Times. She wrote this message, not apologizing for calling it racist, but merely calling it “badly phrased":

Source: “Taking a look at the media’s role in the Covid-19 lab leak theory.” CNN.

6

She has also, separately, received internal criticism for grossly overstating the number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations in children, falsely claiming it was 900,000 when the correct number was 63,000. The following is a screenshot of the correction issued by the New York Times:

Source: “A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now.” The New York Times.

7

They updated this policy and stopped censoring these type of posts after news broke in the Wall Street Journal of three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology coming down with symptoms in late 2019. This was declared to be “previously unreleased intelligence”, but had already been circulating for a while.

8

Ralph Baric, a virologist and bat coronavirus expert, published a paper in May 2020, writing: “speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility.”
Source: ”Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan.” Technology Review.
For Baric’s paper, see: “SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence.” US National Library of Medicine: National Institutes of Health.

9

The NIH even cited concerns with the Wuhan lab in April 2020 when it terminated its bat virus grant to EcoHealth Alliance. It noted that the Wuhan Institute had: “been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns…We have concerns that WIV has not satisfied safety requirements under the award, and that EcoHealth Alliance has not satisfied its obligations to monitor the activities of its subrecipient.”
Source: ”Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan.” Technology Review.

10

“Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic’s origins.” The British Medical Journal.

11

Peter Daszak covertly organized an influential letter signed by 27 scientists and published in The Lancet in February 2020 which was the first to label the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Daszak is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, and has had ties to the Wuhan Institute for 15 years. The letter said: "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin...and overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.”
Source: “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.” US National Library of Medicine: National Institutes of Health.
This letter has been called “scientific propaganda and thuggery” by a WHO advisory board member and was said to have had a “chilling effect” on scientific inquiry and discussion.
Source: “WHO adviser accuses COVID-19 lab-leak theory critics of 'thuggery'.” The Hill.

12

A mostly redacted email from Francis Collins to Anthony Fauci. Subject line reads “conspiracy gains momentum” and email body includes a link to an article discussing the lab leak theory. The email was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by BuzzFeed News.

Source: “NIH Director Appeared to Dismiss Wuhan Lab Leak Theory as ‘Conspiracy’.” Newsweek.

13

The email stated: “The U.S. believes participants would benefit from hearing about your experiences assisting China in setting up a Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the export control and intangible technology transfer perspectives. We are particularly interested to know how China plans to vet incoming foreign researchers from countries of biological weapons proliferation concern.”
Source: “Bombshell Emails: Hillary Clinton Warned ‘Biological Weapons’ Were Being Made at Wuhan Lab Long Before Pandemic.” En Volve.