New York Times ADMITS It Lied in SHOCKING Reversal

Chris rages over the NYT’s bombshell: scientists hid the Wuhan lab leak truth, with lax safety and Fauci’s crew burying evidence. Why aren’t more people furious? www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast explaining the news coming
out of the complex worlds of finance, economics, and politics
and the impact it we'll have on everyday Americans. Author,
investment banker, consumer advocate, analyst and trader Chris Markowski.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
New York Times Coming Clean on COVID? What is this?
Five years now? I did a podcast last week, talked
about on the radio show last week, the rage that
I still have first and foremost, you know't even get
the question why aren't more people angry and reached by

(00:36):
what took place? My theoriousness is that so many people believed.
So many people, how many people do you know? Were avid,
avid believers, mask wears, followed the government rules and social

(00:58):
distancing everything the government had. You know, people had spray bottles,
wiping down their packages delivered to their house, all over
social media, stay home, stay safe, all making those stupid
heart symbols with their hands. Again. I'll try to tone
it down, but yeah, yeah, so many people were involved

(01:23):
that they don't you know, they don't want to admit
that they were wrong. They want to forget it too.
They must feel pretty foolish when you know what, when
you're wrong and you screw up. You should be the
loudest voice and saying I screwed up. I messed up.
You should be angrier. Anyway, New York Times had peace.

(01:48):
We were badly misled about the event that changed our lives.
I'm gonna go through this with you. People started speculating
that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that
started the COVID nineteen pandemic. They were treated like kuoks

(02:09):
and cranks. Yeah, I was a kook and a crank
at the time and paid the price. Many public health
officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory.
Oh the virus came from animals at a seafood market

(02:32):
in Wuhan, China, when a nonprofit called eco Health lost
to grant because it was planning to conduct risky research
into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, research that,
if conducted with lack of safety standards, could have resulted

(02:52):
in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world. No
fewer than seventy seven Nobel lawreates and thirty one scientific
societies lined up to defend the organization, so the Wuhan

(03:13):
research was totally safe. Oh it was say pandemic was
its definitely natural? Oh it's consensus, scientific consensus. That that
scientific consensus is an oxymoron. And we were pointing that
out at the time. Yeah. Again, I'm thinking about kids

(03:36):
that I knew from high school that are now science teachers.
They were all in on this too. Oh yeah, yeah,
they know what they're there. I'm a science teacher. Scientific
mean you don't know shit. Anyway. We have since learned, however,
that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and

(03:56):
scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled one reporter, orchestrated
campaigns of supposedly independent voices, and even compared notes about
how to hide their communications in order to keep the
public from hearing the whole story. And as for that
Wuhan Laboratories research, the details that have sense emerged showed

(04:18):
that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax. Again I
remember pointing out at the time, but wait a second,
it isn't China. We're supposed to be our adversary, right,
China's our adversary. We're supposed to be spending all of

(04:40):
this money, billions and billions and billions and billions and
billions of dollars on weapons and guns because China is
a bad guy and we need to be scared of China.
Yet we're sending money over there to develop, for all
intents and purposes, bioweapons. You want to explain that to me. Yeah,

(05:06):
that's about as stupid as Europe. You know, well, let's
completely rely on Russia for all of our energy needs.
Yet we'll have you know, America and NATO protect us
against Russia anyway. Author, five years after the onset of

(05:28):
the COVID pandemic, it's tempting to think of all of
that as ancient history. We've learned our lesson about lab
safety and about the need to be straight with the public,
and now we can move on to new crisises. Right
all measles Avian flu? Yeah, there was a recent paper

(05:49):
in Cell, which is a scientific journal. Researchers, many of
whom work or have worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology,
described take samples of viruses found in bats and experimenting
to see if they could infect human cells and pose
a pandemic risk. Why why would you? Why would you

(06:16):
do that? Why? Sounds like the kind of research that
should be conducted, if at all, with the very highest
safety protocols. If you look at the journal and you
scroll down, you learn that the scientists did all this

(06:38):
under what they call b sl DASH two plus conditions,
a designation that isn't standardized, and that Barrick and Lipkin,
these are people that discuss this say is insufficient for
work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses. If just one last

(07:00):
worker unwittingly inhaled the virus and got infected, there's no
telling what the impact could be on Wuhan, a city
of millions, or the world. Yeah, we're still doing the
same bullshit. You'd think by now that we'd have learned
that it's not a good idea to test possible gas

(07:20):
leaks by lighting a match, and you'd hope that prestigious
scientific journals would have learned not to reward such risky research.
Why haven't we learned our lesson? Maybe because it's hard
to admit that this research is risky now and take
the requisite steps to keep us safe without also admitting
that it was always risky and that perhaps we were

(07:43):
misled on purpose. Do you understand how f'd up these
people Are you understand how screwed up these people? I mean,
really are What was it saying it was too smart

(08:06):
by half or something like that. I it was some movie.
I don't know it was what Alec Baldwin. Alec Baldwin
played a again, it was perfect, another perfect role for him,
plays an a hole, some cardiac surgeon. He had like
a god complex. These people, who do they think they

(08:28):
are anyway? Take the case of eco Health, that nonprofit
organization that many of the scientists leap to defend. When
Wuhan experienced an outbreak of a novel coronavirus related to
ones found in bats, and researchers soon noticed that pathogen
had the same rare genetic feature that the Eco Health

(08:49):
Alliance and the Wuhan researchers had proposed inserting into bat coronaviruses.
You would think Eco Health would sound the alarm far
and wide. No. No. Were it not for public records requests,
leaks and subpoenas, the world might have never learned about

(09:10):
the troubling similarities between what it could have easily been
going on inside the lab and what was spreading through
the city. First was a March twenty twenty paper in
the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent
scientists and declared that no laboratory based scenario for the

(09:33):
pandemic virus was plausible. But after the fact we learned
that while the scientists said the scenario was implausible, privately
many of its authors considered the scenario not just to
be plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper,
the evolutionary biologists Christian Anderson, wrote in these slack messages,

(09:59):
the labscape version of this is so freaking likely to
have happened because they were already doing this type of
work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario. Spooked,
the authors reached out for advice to Jeremy Farr, now
the chief scientist at the World Health Organization. In his book,

(10:20):
far reveals he required a burner phone and arranged meetings
for them with high ranking officials, including Francis Collins Than,
the director of the National Institutes of Health, and the
good Doctor Fauci. Documents obtained through public book records request
by the nonprofit US Right to Know show that the
scientists ultimately decided to move ahead with a paper on

(10:43):
the topic. Farrer reviewed their draft behind the scenes and
suggested to the authors that they rule out the LAB
leak even more directly. They complied. Anderson later testified to
Congress that he had simply become convinced that a LAB leak,

(11:06):
while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained
by Congress show the paper's lead authors discussing how to
mislead Donald G McNeil, who was reporting on the pandemic's
origin for The New York Times, so as to throw
him off track about the plausibility of a LAB leak.

(11:27):
Another one the The Lancet. The letter, which described the
idea as a conspiracy theory about the LAB leak, appeared
to be the group of independent scientists it was anything but.
Thanks to public document requests, the public later learned that
behind the scenes, Peter Dazik, Ecohealth's president, had drafted and

(11:50):
circulated the letter, while strategizing on how to hide his
tracks and telling the signatories that it will not be
identifiable as coming from anyone organization or person. The Lancet
later published an addendum disclosing Dacik's conflict of interest as
a collaborator of the will had Lab, but the journal
did not retract the letter. They had assistants. Thanks to

(12:12):
more public records requests and congressional subpoenas, the public learned
that David Morin's, a senior advisor to Fauci at the NIH,
wrote to Dazik that he learned how to make emails disappear,
especially emails about pandemic origins. We're all smart enough to
know to never have smoking guns, and if we did,

(12:33):
we wouldn't have put them in emails, and if we
found them, we delete them, he wrote. Now, this is
classic New York Times right now. We got to find
a way to excuse all of these evil doers. It's
hard listen. It's hard to imagine how the attempt to

(12:57):
squelch legitimate debate might have started. Some of the loudest
proponents of the lab leak theory weren't just earnestly making inquiries.
They were acting in terrible faith. Screw acting in terrible
faith by asking questions, using the debate over pandemic origins

(13:20):
to attack legitimate, beneficial science, to inflame public opinion, to
get attention. Clonie, I just wanted my kids to go
back to school. I wanted them back playing ball. I
wanted this nonsense to end. Anybody with half a brain

(13:40):
knew this was a lie. Half a brain. For scientists
and public health officials, circling the wagons and vilifying anyone
who dared to dissent might have seemed like a reasonable
defense strategy. Yes, all of US koops out there and

(14:02):
they're saying, oh, this is this might be might be
tempting for those officials to avoid looking too closely at
the mistakes they made because of all of US kooks
and cranks. While doing trying to do such a hard job,
they might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public.
Such self scrutiny is especially uncomfortable. Now again, then they're

(14:27):
going into RFK Junior and measles and all this other crap.
You know. Past couple of weeks we found out that
German intelligence, German intelligence, their secret service, I mean, their
their spies, new new with ninety five percent probability that

(14:50):
this leaked from Muhan, The former head of the UK's
foreign intelligence agency m I six, told Boris Onnson in
early twenty twenty that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab.
That means we knew the UK New and Germany knew

(15:16):
for some people out there, I don't know what it is,
top men, government, government officials, masks, whatever it may be.
It's like a it's like a wobbie. It's like a
safety blanket that a child might have. If they don't
have faith, that's the religion. If they don't have that,

(15:38):
they don't have faith in the bullshit that's being put
out by the government. They've got nothing they really do.
And I'm sorry, okay, I'm thinking. I'm thinking of Uma
Thurman in Kill Bill when she goes to U goes

(16:02):
to get her samurai sword it's a great film, or
a torre Hanzo's sword, and tells him, you know, Torri Hunt,
I'm not making any more weapons that kill people anymore.
And she explained that you have a serious responsibility because
the bad guy he created, he helped create you people

(16:26):
that touted this. You have a responsibility. You have to
make this right. You do, okay, you have to. I mean,
this is all laid out and I din't make it right.
You got to get your mind right. How you still

(16:49):
have have faith in these people that they're going to
do the right thing by it. Quite frankly is it's
beyond me. Watchdog on Wall street dot Com