1/16 I have added a few elements to my Fate or Failure piece to show how
@gregfolkers.bsky.social influenced the Biden 90-day report, as the intermediary between Daszak coalition and Fauci.
The "Critical Review" was rushed to Zenodo 4 hours before Fauci's meeting with Beth Cameron and the IC.
2/16 One hour and a half after the meeting, Greg Folkers converts the Zenodo link to Bitly and tweets it.
(time is NZ below)
@thedeadhandbook @thackerpd
3/16 Next day, early morning, Fauci (who does not have a Twitter account and does not read tweets, as per his diary) forwards Greg's Bitly link to Beth Cameron, recommending the "Critical Review" to the IC, and its 'highly qualified' authors.
4/16 He will then recommend Holmes, Rambaut and Andersen a few days later.
5/16 Folkers was wired directly into the Daszak/Morens network.
Morens named Folkers, in a Sep 2021 email to Gerald Keusch, as one of only "two key people who decide what Tony sees" — and, that April, as one of the few people "in whom Tony confides when the subject is difficult or personal."
6/16 He certainly made sure that Fauci saw the paper rushed by the "Critical Review" authors on Zenodo, a no-delay preprint site, which they only used when needing to beat a deadline (as they did again with the Market papers in Feb 2022 to beat Gao to the line).
That Master Degree in Journalism helped.
@SenRandPaul @SenJoniErnst @SenTomCotton
7/16 The paper got published in Cell on 18 August, still one week before the end of the Biden 90-day review, the usual go-to for quick and easy publication.
@jarikuikanmaki
8/16 The authors list of the "Critical Review" is Daszak's Coalition + P.O. authors, plus Worobey, Crits-Christoph and Farrar.
Basically the full bag of narrative fixers.
@KatherineEban
9/16 Why not Lipkin? He was close to Daszak, as a surprising supporter of the GVP.
👉🏻 My guess:
- Baric was plugged into the 1 feb call by the intel as a passive listener
- Lipkin, his friend, was plugged in as P.O. intel mole (and likely a GVP one)
Both had that 'other' lives.
@HansMahncke @JeremyFarrar #DRASTIC @BumblebeeJoe @Jerdman2005
10/16 Farrar was in contact with MI5, so the IC needed to check what was going on. Remember that Lipkin dropped in rather late out of nowhere.
So far so good, all, inc. the IC, wanted to trade the truth for access in Feb.
The problem came when no access resulted. The CIA cooled down.
@DrZulauf @mattwridley
11/16 Comes the 4 June 2021. The CIA has a chat with Fauci on the possible origins and is very suspicious. Fauci does not understand why.
He tries to steer them toward Garry and Andersen instead, which obviously ain't going to work (remember Lipkin was the mole!).
12/16 Then all the usual suspects get to rush the "Critical Review" to Zenodo for the next IC meeting, this time steered by Beth Cameron.
T'was a complete comedy, with people not showing their cards:
- Fauci does not get it.
- The CIA got put back into line by the NSC/ODNI.
13/16 Anyway, at the time the National Security Council was considering having Fauci as a 3rd party reviewer of the final product.
Fauci, the one who shaped P.O. for access (with the full knowledge of the IC), and then (stupidly) tried it again with the "Critical Review", when all had changed.
14/16 The CIA is likely not too keen to reopen this. Does not look good.
@TulsiGabbard did what she could.
15/16 I guess that the CIA must now be surprised to see so much narcissism, opportunism and mediocrity in that bunch of narrative fixers.
At least cocaine cartels bosses are smarter.
You can read about (some) of it here.
I will extend that piece - wanted to just release a thread first.
@Tantalite
nemonominem.github.io/WHO_Compromission_Public/surfaces/article/index.html
Gilles Demaneuf
@gdemaneuf
Pointy Head. Opinions, analyses and views expressed are purely mine and should not in any way be characterised as representing any institution or company.