Dominic Dwyer was the Aussie rep on the WHO/CCP investigation into the origin of Covid. Along with Eddie 'Honorary' Holmes, Dominic has been our expert in that crucial interface space between the CCP and the public.

Here's what you promised:

Dominic Dwyer (Dec 2, 2020): As a doctor and a scientist, I think politics complicates getting the answers. So I'd rather keep that aside. ..1:20: Our work as scientists is separate from politicians so we will try to leave the politics out of this and let other people argue the toss over that.

Ok, I'm other people, can i argue the toss, Dominic?

For starters, the beauty of the WHO investigation is that all the contestants (by invitation only) were vetted by the highest echelons of the CCP - a full-on surveillance state - you can’t get better vetting than that.

So there goes a shit-load of legwork for you, right there.

Deductionism tells you: those persons approved by that regime are corrupt (and/or incredibly gullible).

People do things for a reason - so let’s take a look at what makes Dominic’s centrifuge spin...

Westmead Hospital website: Leadership Team:.. Professor Dwyer is a microbiologist and Director of our Pathology West network. He trained in microbiology (virology and infectious diseases) at Westmead Hospital’s Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR). In 2009, Professor Dwyer was appointed Director and Senior Medical Virologist for ICPMR’s Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services.

So Westmead through and through. Studied there - rose to the top - still there. The ultimate insider - culturally speaking.

Dominic is also a colleague of Eddie Holmes at University of Sydney. There have been a lot of organizations that have disgraced themselves for covering up the origin of Covid - WHO, CDC, Columbia University, Wikipedia, CNN, Facebook, The Guardian, Google, The ABC, Nature, Lancet, etc, etc, etc... let one hundred flowers bloom... Sydney Uni is a heavy hitter on that list.

The Conversation: (Dwyer) is a member of the WHO Global Outbreak Alert Response Network (GOARN), and the Sydney Institute for Emerging Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at Sydney University.

GOARN was basically WHO's pre-investigation taskforce for squashing the lab-leak theory.

The Guardian: Dwyer has worked with the WHO before, spending six months in Beijing in 2003 at the height of the SARS outbreak.

Those six months were just his first stint working with Beijing's CDC. From then on, Dwyer and Westmead formed a deep relationship with the CCP's medical institutions that has extended to this present time. When you lie down with dogs...

Westmead (where Dwyer is part of the leadership team) is the organization that has linked Dwyer, WHO, and the Chinese CDC since the first SARS outbreak of 2003.

This 2007 paper lists the typical smorgasbord of collaborators:

Beijing Ditan Hospital, People's Republic of China
Capital University of Medical Sciences Affiliated Beijing YouAn Hospital, People's Republic of China
Department of Microbiology, Peking University Health Science Center, People's Republic of China
Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, NSW, Australia

That’s a whole lot of contracts signed with the People’s Republic of China - considering they’re a fascist regime. Remember, these are not freebies - they’re well-paid gigs - over decades - welcome to the CCP-sponsored Gravy Train.

How many of these invites do you reckon Dominic would’ve landed if he’d said ‘boo’ against totalitarianism?

Then there's this: Dominic's time there coincides with a double lab-leak of SARS in 2004 - what was up with that?

After the SARS outbreak of 2003 had died out, there were two lab-escapes in Beijing.

WHO: The outbreak .. began in April (2004)..when two graduate students working at a laboratory at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing, where experiments using the live SARS coronavirus were conducted in February and March, became infected with the virus.

According to published papers with Beijing labs, Dwyer was in a Beijing lab, working on SARS, around that time.

NIH Article: Associated Press reported (that) the authorities did not know yet whether any foreigners had been carrying out medical research in the facility and had since left the country.

17 years later, we still don’t know. But Dwyer was thereabouts. He published one SARS paper with Chinese researchers in Dec 2003, then another in July 2004.

W. Ian Lipkin (co-author of the infamous Proximal Origin paper) was right in the thick of it. He published a paper in Feb 2004 with the Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Beijing. Was this part of the research with live SARS viruses referred to by the NIH article?

The original Chinese Institute of Virology in Beijing changed its name after the lab-escape - it was China's CDC’s top lab, but it's not clear what the name was changed to - or whether our intrepid scientists were directly involved.

Following the lab-leaks, two separate ones within a month, there was a WHO investigation. Sound familiar?

Bob Dietz, WHO spokesman: We have a team of two or three international experts that's arriving in a day or two. They are going to go into the labs with Ministry of Health people and find out what happened here.
We've been told we'll have full access, be able to test all the surfaces, interview people who worked there, and look at documentation to find out what was being done.

For comparison, that’s the same song-sheet Dominic and other ‘investigators’ sang from recently about the Covid WHO/CCP investigation:
Dwyer: I think the access, my understanding is it's going to be very good. Obviously the Chinese have done a vast amount of work in trying to understand what happened so it's a matter of reviewing what they have done so far.

Dietz (2004): We're not releasing the names of the experts yet, but once you see the names you'll recognize them. They will be international experts from the relevant disciplines.

Did they ever release the names? I can’t find them. The one WHO article i found reffed the WHO report, as did another article, but when you click on the links all you get is a message saying WHO has “revamped” their website.

Unsurprisingly, the investigation turned out to be useless.
WHO Dr Angela Merianos: The investigation conducted to date has yet to identify a single source of infection or single procedural error at the institute. Consequently the route or routes of transmission are not known at this time.

WHO: It also remained unclear how two researchers at the institute became infected since they were not even working with the SARS virus. All those who became infected in the latest outbreak were people working at the institute and people who came into contact with them.

It’s easy to blame two graduate students, but they were ‘not even working with the SARS virus’. Tragically, the mother of one of the students became infected and died after she was visited by her daughter in Anhui.

So how did they become infected? Logic tells you that it goes higher up the chain - to people who were working with the virus.

Do either Dominic or Lipkin have information on this chain of infection or the dead-end WHO investigation? We don’t know. We only know they were in Beijing around that time working on SARS.

At the very least, given their proximal origin to the 2004 outbreak, it’s plain deceitful that they were leading the charge on denying Covid could have escaped from a lab - knowing full-well how easily it happened before.

(Also makes you wonder - was the original SARS outbreak of 2003 a lab accident?)

NBC: The organs of members of marginalized groups detained in Chinese prison camps are being forcefully harvested — sometimes when patients are still alive, an international tribunal sitting in London has concluded.

Tribunal: Falun Gong practitioners have been one — and probably the main — source of organ supply .. (while) the concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent.

NBC: Allegations .. came to light in 2001, after a boom in transplant activity was registered .. with wait times becoming unusually short. Chinese websites advertised hearts, lungs and kidneys for sale and available to book in advance, suggesting that the victims were killed on demand.

Dr. Enver Tohti, surgeon, witness: What I recall is with my scalpel, I tried to cut into his skin - there was blood - that indicates the heart was still beating … At the same time, he was trying to resist my insertion, but he was too weak.

NBC: The tribunal is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, who worked as a prosecutor at the international tribunal for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia.

Well, Sir Geoffrey sounds nice - how about the nice researchers at Westmead - surely they wouldn’t have anything to do with that horrid, institutionalized practice?

Sydney Morning Herald: Sydney’s Westmead Hospital, which is connected to the University of Sydney, has long-standing links to Third Xiangya Hospital, a major transplant centre in Hunan province. The relationship, which reportedly began in 2005, has involved collaboration in transplant research, .. much of it conducted at a time when the bulk of China’s organs came from executed prisoners.

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH): Undisclosed ties and agreements between Sydney’s Westmead Hospital and Changsha hospitals (Xiangya hospitals especially) (include a) 2013 “letter of intent” (signed) between Westmead and The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, for both parties to “regularly conduct academic exchange conferences .. and undertake advanced study .. in medical treatment, (and) surgical demonstrations.”

I’m not suggesting Dominic Dwyer was directly involved in this transplant research with Xiangya hospitals - he wasn’t - it’s not his field (that honour goes to Jeremy Chapman from Westmead) - but he is listed on the NSW Health website as being part of Westmead’s ‘Governance team’, specifically, the Westmead Research Hub Executive. (Chapman is the Chair of the Westmead Research Hub Council!).

As a senior Director of Westmead’s research executive, Dwyer is responsible for the entrenched culture at Westmead. This culture, during his tenure, has bedded down with the immoral practices of the CCP - be that organ harvesting, the suppression of Tibet, mass arrests/suppression in Hong Kong, surveillance abuse, the Uighurs, the Covid cover-up.

Dwyer loves to justify Westmead's partnerships with CCP-run institutions by saying we're ‘taking the politics out’ - it's one of his favourite lines:

Dwyer: This time around China have .. report(ed) things as they really happened so that the rest of the world could be prepared. .. As a doctor and a scientist, I think politics complicates getting the answers. So I'd rather keep that aside. .. I think it’s really important to keep the politics out of it. (Dec 2, 2020)

So Dominic, as a Director on Westmead's Research Hub Executive, and from your vast experience with dealing with the CCP, would you advise Westmead researchers to 'take the politics out' before the organs are taken out of prisoners of conscience? Or just do it at the same time?

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH): Australian government-funded research facilities, hospitals, and state health departments ..have entered into arrangements with Chinese hospitals (that) compromise Australia’s medical and ethical standards, thus directly undermining the very nature of Australia’s sovereignty.

‘Undermining national sovereignty’ - that's heavy stuff, Dom. Then there’s knowing that - but carrying on.

Tribunal: Governments and any who interact in any substantial way with the PRC including ..(d)octors and medical institutions ..should now recognise they are .. interacting with a criminal state.

Dominic, 'the evidence suggests' you've been using your immense power on the loudest platforms to sell the CCP’s version of events - all lies - to protect/cover-up for a 'criminal state'!?

You guys - Andersen, Dwyer, Daszak, Lipkin, Holmes, Ryan, Fauci, Embarek, Tedros et al - far be it from taking the politics out - you’ve put so much politics in, totalitarian politics, you’re sailing perilously close to treason.

The good news is i still think you're a decent chance of getting away with it - but God help you if you don't.

Dominic Dwyer (Jan 29, 2020): This virus is probably not too much of a problem, but you know, we've got to monitor. .. I mean, we know that there are over 4,000 cases in China, most of which will be that province (Hubei), but when you consider what the population of Wuhan is ..10 million or so people, the likelihood of people being infected is still extremely low.(Jan 29)

ELEANOR HALL: Some people inside China are saying that there is actually a greater spread of the virus than we're being told.

DOMINIC DWYER: We've got to remember that it is wintertime in China. They're going through their normal influenza season. So just because people say they're seeing people who are sick, doesn't mean they have this new coronavirus. .. (S)ome of the reporting and the kind of social media stuff is a bit over the top.

Dominic, your unquestioning support of the CCP’s version of Covid was/is over the top. That’s a pity - coz if you could have warned the world earlier that we may be dealing with a juiced-up super-virus escaped from a lab, then the world would have been on its toes.

ELEANOR HALL: Australia's government is looking .. to evacuate those Australians trapped in Wuhan, but the WHO is warning foreign governments against pulling their citizens out. What do you think is the right approach?

DOMINIC DWYER: My personal opinion is … they're probably actually okay. ..I think the sort of rushing in of planes to pull people out, I don't think helps sort of allay the general anxiety of the population.

‘Allay the general anxiety of the population’ - so that was your goal? When the big moment came and we’re all relying on our highly-paid experts, you down-played it, thereby causing a disaster to erupt.

“We’ve got to remember” that you were in Beijing in 2004 when SARS-1 escaped twice - so you must have known that a lab-escape was a strong possibility. If you had reported that information and raised the alarm, the virus would have been stamped out early - when it was still possible (such as Taiwan did - by not believing a word you or the CCP said). That would have saved 4 million lives and averted a global catastrophe.

But you did the opposite. Your advice allowed the virus the crucial space it needed to spread around the world. Good job.

Are you ok being held accountable for that?

(Full disclosure: i got the severity wrong as well in the beginning - but that was back in Jan 2020 when i still listened to the experts on the ABC.)

Dwyer: As I write, I am in hotel quarantine in Sydney, after returning from Wuhan, China. There, I was the Australian representative on the international World Health Organization’s (WHO) investigation into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Great - so what did you find out?

Dwyer: Extremely unlikely the virus escaped from a lab

The most politically sensitive option we looked at was the virus escaping from a laboratory. We concluded this was extremely unlikely.

That’s extremely extreme Dominic. Are you an extremist?

Dwyer: We visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is an impressive research facility, and looks to be run well, with due regard to staff health.

That’s true - US intelligence reports say three researchers were well cared for in hospital after becoming sick with Covid-like symptoms in Nov 2019.

Dwyer: We spoke to the scientists there. We heard that scientists’ blood samples, which are routinely taken and stored, were tested for signs they had been infected.

You heard? What - CCP whispers style?

Dwyer: No evidence of antibodies to the coronavirus was found (so we heard). We looked at their biosecurity audits. No evidence.

The old ‘no evidence’ line. That’s like knocking on the door of your chief suspect in a murder investigation and when he says “fuck off”, you say he must be innocent, coz there’s “no evidence”!

When asked if the CCP might have been withholding evidence, Dwyer has this neat answer:
Dwyer: (timestamp 2:25) (T)hey were pretty open with what they gave. But of course as to whether they hid things - by definition we wouldn’t know.

Dominic, there’s a stack of stuff they refused to handover - access to the lab’s data-bank of studied viruses for one thing! As were sewerage and blood samples from around the time of the first outbreak. These are not unknown unknowns - they just said ‘No - report what we tell you to report.’ Which you did.

Dwyer: I think one of the features of these WHO missions is the people come in without their national viewpoints, biases or the politics. That’s one of the advantages of WHO.

Huge advantage if you’re the CCP. Coz the CCP is not coming in without biases or politics: Why bother with messy democracy when you can have one united national viewpoint?!

A standard intro for Dwyer is:
ABC: An Australian scientist with direct experience in dealing with an outbreak of this type, is Professor Dominic Dwyer, who worked with the WHO on SARS.

Dwyer published SARS papers with Chinese researchers, he was a SARS WHO investigator around the time it twice escaped from a Beijing lab.

Let’s forget the ‘conspiracy theories’ for a moment re your proximal origin to those lab-leaks - but bare-bones we can agree: you’re a world-leading expert on SARS-1, right? Indeed, you embrace the mantle of “international expert”, and trade off your “experience with SARS” to support the case that a lab-leak was “extremely unlikely”.

Your alternative truth: SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, most likely arose in bats, and then spread to humans via an as-yet unidentified intermediary animal.

This conclusion is based on an oft-repeated premise:

Dwyer: (Timestamp 0:00) Well look uhm - that’s always been the pattern of the spread of these viruses you know from bats from some sort of animal into humans - it happened with SARS, it’s happened with MERS ... uhm … so therefore uhmm ... that’s always been the pattern .. you know - from bats from some sort of animal into humans.

I’m detecting a pattern, Dom, of behaviour by scientists who’ve built careers out of collaborating with CCP-run institutions - but let's stay on point. For the record, your premise is:

Covid has a natural zoonotic origin because “it’s always been the pattern - from bats - some sort of animal into humans” - just like SARS and MERS - whilst pushing any meaningful conclusion back into the never-never:

Dwyer: (O)rigins - studies of diseases - those sorts of studies can take many many years (many many billions in public money). ..we may never find virus zero. .. Same with SARS - it took 10 or 15 years before the causative sort of virus in animals was found - so it can take time.

So Dominic, SARS expert-extraordinaire, what was it? 10 years? Or 15? They’re quite different numbers. And what was this “causative sort of virus in some sort of animal” exactly? Or you really don’t know?

This is the curious part - considering you’re a world-leading expert on SARS - it all sounds terribly vague. But from this vague premise you then claim:

Dwyer: There is evidence that suggests the virus jumped from a natural reservoir, such as bats, to an intermediary animal host, possibly triggering an outbreak among animals in the Wuhan wet market.

For perspective, the above quoted interview was conducted on May 28, 2021. All the fattest rats jumped ship two months prior - Tedros, Fauci, then the whole effluent of experts sludged their way off to reconfigure themselves - but not you. It’s admirable in a way - you and Eddie are good Aussies, right? Sticking by your (CCP) mates when they’re down?

Last chance Dominic:

ABC: (0:00) Professor Dwyer, thanks for joining us - you’ve been to the Wuhan institute of Virology - do you still think it’s ‘extremely unlikely’ it escaped from there?
Dwyer: (0:10) Look, I do .. I mean we have many other viruses that have clearly gone from bats into animals into humans .. it happened with SARS, it's happened with MERS.

There it is - straight from the expert's mouth for the umpteenth time. So if we can agree that your premise, “it’s always been the pattern from bats to animals to humans” is false, then we can deduce that your conclusion is false. Sound fair? Let’s take a look at SARS first.

For the record - the origin of SARS-1 is still unknown.

Dominic (SARS Boy), Bat Lady (Shi Zheng-li), Batman (Daszak), and Virus Hunter (Lipkin) all rose to fame through their SARS-1 involvements. Coincidentally, they've played the roles of highest-platformed advocates of the CCP’s version of everything ever since.

Unlike SARS Boy and Virus Hunter, Bat Lady and Batman were convinced that civets had nothing to do with SARS-1. Here is their evidence from a 2006 paper written along with Wang Lin-fa (Aust CSIRO/Duke/WIV):

During the 2002–2003 outbreaks, none of the animal traders surveyed in the markets, who supposedly had very close contact with live civets, displayed SARS symptoms. .. The lack of widespread infection in wild or farmed palm civets makes them unlikely to have been the natural reservoir host.

Then in 2013, another Shi/Daszak/Linfa Wang (NIH funded) collaboration announced in an EcoHealth Press Release: that they had:
...uncovered genome sequences of a new (bat) virus closely related to SARS (thereby) .. precluding civets from playing a part in the transmission process.

The paper states: Our results provide the strongest evidence to date ...that intermediate hosts may not be necessary for direct human infection by some bat SL-CoVs.

Even Lipkin, like Dwyer, a pro-intermediate zealot, is quoted as admitting:

This paper hasn’t resolved the provenance of SARS CoV; nonetheless, it does provide compelling evidence that an intermediate host was not necessary.

Bat Lady/Batman’s ‘discovery’ of the closest known match to SARS (“nearly 97 percent” according to Scientific American - strangely, that's the only ref i can find), is marginally higher than RaTG13’s 96.3% match with SARS-2.

Finally in 2017, the same researchers proclaimed they'd found all "the building blocks" in a cave in Yunnan - 1000 km away from Guangdong. Meaning they could theoretically piece together SARS from different bats. But still no explanation of how that theoretical bat traveled 1000km, without infecting anyone on the way, and no demonstration of its theoretical virus being able to jump from bats to humans (or civets).

Intriguingly, we can deduce that they must have spent a lot of lab-hours trying to piece this bat virus together to prove their theory. Is that how SARS-2 was created? Nature claims it was the "smoking gun" for SARS-1 - it wasn't - but it may be for SARS-2.

So what do we know?

• Despite exhaustive efforts to find Dominic's ‘sort of intermediate animal virus’, none have been found.
  
• The closest match is a bat virus found in 2013 by Shi/Daszak.
  
• In 2017 Shi/Cui claimed to have found "the building blocks" - but still no single bat that carried the same strain - and no demonstration of how it could infect humans.
  
• None of this “has resolved the provenance of SARS CoV”.

Therefore, your premise, Dominic - “it’s always been the pattern - from bats to some sort of animal into humans”, is: wrong.

Therefore, your conclusion, based on this premise, is: wrong. Sorry.

It's 'wrongness' does raise some questions though.

Although Shi's/Daszak's Yunnan bat was 1000 km from Guangdong, it was only a few km's from Kunming Biological Products Factory, which according to Eric Croddy (2001), specialized in "Research and cultivation of various bio-weapons agents." (p28)

Did SARS also involve engineering scientists and a lab accident? We don’t know. Why don’t we know? Same reason as this time: the SARS response/investigation was a cover-up from go to woe - so there's "no evidence".

(Note: follow up to SARS-1 origin has been split from the Dwyer thread. It continues here.)

Dwyer: (0:00) Well look uhm ..it's happened with SARS, it’s happened with MERS ... uhm … so therefore uhmm ... that’s always been the pattern.

Well, no, it hasn’t - we saw that the provenance of SARS is still unresolved so that’s the end of the pattern theory. But for interest’s sake, what about MERS - the other example of a lethal coronavirus that you bring up?

Firstly, the ‘evidence’ of MERS's origin comes from a study conducted by none other than Lipkin and Daszak that claims MERS traveled from bats to camels to people. That’s a worry straight-off-the-bat.

Lipkin (and his team) was the sole external investigator invited by the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia to assist in identifying reservoirs and vectors for transmission of the MERS coronavirus.

Daszak was also on that team. Here’s the ‘pattern’ emerging again - if you’re a murderous totalitarian regime wanting to bury the origin of a coronavirus, better call Lipkin and Daszak.

The fact that those two researchers were involved, is enough to dismiss their report, but let’s take a look anyway.

New York Times: In a paper published online by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a research team comprising veterinarians from EcoHealth Alliance, virologists from Columbia University and Saudi health officials said they had found a stretch of viral RNA in the feces of a bat that matched similar stretches of viral RNA found in humans infected with ..MERS.

Sounds ok on the surface.

New York Times: But the matching fragment was found in only one bat. And it was a tiny sample: from a genome composed of about 30,000 base pairs, building blocks of genetic material, the matching fragment was only 190 base pairs long.

Why was it a tiny sample? According to:

Lipkin/Daszak et al’s paper: The Oct 2012 shipment was inadvertently opened at customs in the United States and sat at room temperature for 48 hours before transfer to Columbia University. At arrival, all samples had thawed.

Whoops! That sounds not good.

Lipkin/Daszak paper: (T)he sensitivity for viral nucleic acid detection in samples collected in October 2012 was probably reduced because of failure in cold chain transport. We were unable to recover additional sequences beyond the 190-nt RdRp fragment.

None of which stopped them from proclaiming: We are confident in the fidelity of the finding.

I’m not confident. Neither was Stanley Perlman, a virologist at the University of Iowa (or several other virologists). In the NYT article he said he:

...would have been more convinced by a match of at least 400 of the base pairs that encode the virus’s surface spikes, which mutate frequently; the 190-pair match was for viral replication machinery, which mutates less.

Hmm, so, a shady trip to Saudia Arabia at the exclusive invitation of a totalitarian regime - where the samples thawed out and were rendered useless in terms of making a definitive conclusion. But you made one anyway.

So there we have it.

Dwyer’s conclusion that it was: Extremely unlikely the virus escaped from a lab (and that it) .. most likely arose in bats, and then spread to humans via an as-yet unidentified intermediary animal ...

because:

(0:10) we have many other viruses that have clearly gone from bats into animals into humans .. it happened with SARS, it happened with MERS ...

Is: demonstrably wrong.

Not only is it wrong, it’s inconceivable that Dwyer, a supposed expert in coronaviruses, didn't know it was wrong when he was repeatedly advancing it on all major media platforms.

On the flip-side, we can still draw conclusions from Dwyer’s deceitfulness:

You are using your power/privilege - to lie - on the world's biggest stage - about the origin of Covid? What would make you do that?

As mentioned earlier, following the accumulation of a mountain of evidence by groups such as DRASTIC, the fattest rats started jumping ship in Mar, 2021.

Tedros went from: China’s commitment to transparency and supporting other countries .. is.. impressive, and beyond words.
To:
(Mar31,2021) Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation.

In May, Ralph Baric, GoF bat-virus WIV collaborator, who'd supported WIV to the hilt, suddenly released a statement saying "theories of accidental release from a lab .. remain viable." Fauci soon followed with his own ratty qualifications. These subtle acknowledgements of the bleeding obvious sound innocuous, but it came off the back of a year of relentless, co-ordinated vilification by scientists of anyone who dared raise the possibility.

They also came after the WHO team had completed their investigation and announced a lab-leak was extremely unlikely and they’d “closed the lid” on it. Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, WHO mission head declared, it was "not in the hypotheses that we will suggest for future studies".

In other words, the lab-leak was dead to WHO.

As such, this subtle signalling from Tedros was actually a blaring betrayal for those who can translate politico-expert speak. (Whatever you might think about Tedros, he’s a cunning old fuck - always survives - somehow - though his friends don’t.) It sent shockwaves through the scientific community, the media, and politicians - which precipitated the unseemly scurrying behaviour we’ve recently witnessed - it was like watching footage from a mouse plague where the whole earth appears to scurry. Typically, they try to slip out of it by echoing the above remarks: ‘It’s not that we ever dismissed a lab-leak - just there was no evidence’.

Caught in the precarious position of having to re-position, whilst desperately trying not to offend the CCP, the experts were left slithering around in their own slime.

Despite this exodus, a few notables decided to hang tough with the CCP - double or nothing - to the bitter end. This is not an exhaustive list - only from those celebrity scientists we’ve looked at:

Daszak (WIV/EcoHealth)
Holmes (Sydney Uni - Prox Or. author)
Andersen (Schipps - Prox Or. co-author)
Dwyer (WHO/Westmead)
Nature (Mega-science platform)

Embarek, should be on it of course, but haven’t studied him. As would several others - for the same reason. But not many.

That makes you wonder, what does the CCP have on these dudes? It can’t be just money.

How, for instance, do you get an expert to say this?:

Dwyer: Now of course it doesn’t mean that the outbreak actually started in Wuhan. .. It’s an easy assumption just to say, ‘It’s all in Wuhan’. (AKA Occam's Razor) .. It could have been brought into Wuhan either from .. other parts of Asia, or indeed, other parts of the world. (2:45) ..(A) number of detailed studies need to be done to work out was the virus in Wuhan in an unknown manner or cryptic manner .. could it have been in other parts of the world? (3:25)

'Cryptic manner' - that's a good one Dom. The only cryptic part is why are you using the world's biggest platforms to push the CCP's implausible messaging?

(Apologies - this is a rehash of past post - collating it into this thread)

The Guardian, the same people that brought us Peter Daszak, also proudly presented Dominic Dwyer with his fringe 'cold-chain' theory - that conveniently exports the origin of Covid to a non-China "elsewhere"

Dwyer: Then there was the “cold chain” hypothesis. This is the idea the virus might have originated from elsewhere via the farming, catching, processing, transporting, refrigeration or freezing of food. Was that food ice-cream, fish, wildlife meat? We don’t know.

The idea? Is this meant to be science or a mental-imaging exercise? Why are you even talking about it Dominic? It's a fringe theory.

Dwyer: But to what extent did it contribute to its spread? Again, we don’t know.

Again - why are you talking about it? Would it have anything to do with not talking about the elephant in the room - that it may have leaked from a bio-defense lab?

Dwyer: Several “cold chain” products present in the Wuhan market were not tested for the virus.

Oh, i see. Forgot to test the ice cream stand?

Dwyer: Environmental sampling in the market showed viral surface contamination.

As it would since there was a cluster outbreak there - well after the original cases - that had no connection to the market. A fact that you were fully aware of.

Dwyer: This may indicate the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through infected people …

May indicate? We can safely say ‘extremely likely’ since there was an outbreak there. Where are you going with this?

…. (O)r contaminated animal products and “cold chain” products.

Oh, still on your whacky cold chain hypothesis.

Dwyer: Investigation of “cold chain” products and virus survival at low temperatures is still underway.

I bet it is. Which as you mentioned many many times it will take “many many years” (plus a Gravy Train full of many many money) and hopefully get things even further out in the weeds - till - no-one knows/cares what happened. Same as Anthrax, SARS-1, MERS.

The impulse is to dismiss Dwyer’s cold-chain as silliness - but it has value as evidence in itself.

It’s evidence that Dwyer is using his power, with the platform connections that entails, to promote CCP-propaganda. It’s so ‘out there’ it “may indicate” a motivation for Dominic that goes beyond CCP-money.

Here's my cold-chain hypothesis: Your involvement in the WHO SARS-1 Origin investigation - which went cold - by obfuscating details of its origin - is connected to our current predicament - and explains why you are going so far out on a limb to support the CCP's version of events.

Or you fell for a honey-trap somewhere along the journey?

One of those two.

If you want to come clean, Dominic, it’s not too late. Well it is too late for the millions that have died and the cyber-surveillance crackdown on normal freedoms, but to give you the last word, we can: "continue to learn from our experiences to improve how we investigate the next pandemic."

There were other MERS studies claiming a bat-camel-human provenance - but they're also mired in controversy.

Science: The Saudi scientists said they had .. sequenced the virus directly from samples taken from the patient and the camel—and those two were also 100% identical. But the two sets of sequences differed in two positions.

That's impossible to explain, (Christian) Drosten says; a virus can change slightly when put into cell culture, but why would the camel and the human virus show exactly the same two changes when cultured, changes never seen before?

Good question.

Science: Drosten suspected that contamination had happened, and that what the researchers called the camel virus was actually the human virus as well.

Thomas Briese, virologist at Columbia University, Lipkin colleague (One Health editorial board, said although the duplication seemed unlikely he "can not exclude the possibility". In other words, offering partial support to the Saudi scientists.

Science: Frustrated, Drosten stopped working with Madani’s group in mid-December.

Michael Osterholm, University of Minnesota: It really is a sign of the overall scientific investigation dysfunction that has occurred to date in Saudi Arabia.

The kindest thing you could say is that the Saudi MERS studies have been bungling affairs.

An alternative conclusion is that it was scientific deceit.

What we can say with certainty is that there are zero grounds for Dwyer's "always been the pattern" argument regarding zoonotic transmission of Covid.

So why have Lipkin, Daszak, and Saudi scientists been fudging data to try and pin the MERS origin on the bat-camel-human transmission chain? I don't know. But there will be a good reason.