COVID-19 Interview Jeffrey D. Sachs

Why the Chair of the Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission Thinks the US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation Into the Pandemic

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs sheds light on the "alternative hypothesis" that COVID could be a biotech blunder.
Jeffrey Sachs, 2019. Bundesministerium für Europa, Integration und Äußeres, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

There is growing controversy surrounding Professor Jeffrey Sachs’ views about COVID-19 and its potential origin involving U.S.-supported research. ScheerPost believes this interview from August 2022 provides more context to the discussion.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs says he is “pretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of US lab biotechnology” and warns that there is dangerous virus research taking place without public oversight.
 

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as the chair of the COVID-19 commission for leading medical journal the Lancet. Through his investigations as the head of the COVID-19 commission, Prof. Sachs has come to the conclusion that there is extremely dangerous biotechnology research being kept from public view, that the United States was supporting much of this research, and that it is very possible that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19,  originated through dangerous virus research gone awry.

Prof. Sachs recently co-authored a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences calling for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins. He believes that there is clear proof that the National Institutes of Health and many members of the scientific community have been impeding a serious investigation of the origins of COVID-19 and deflecting attention away from the hypothesis that risky U.S.-supported research may have led to millions of deaths. If that hypothesis is true, the implications would be earth-shaking, because it might mean that esteemed members of the scientific community bore responsibility for a global calamity. In this interview, Prof. Sachs explains how he, as the head of the COVID-19 commission for a leading medical journal, came to the conclusion that powerful actors were preventing a real investigation from taking place. He also explains why it is so important to get to the bottom of the origins of COVID: because, he says, there is extremely dangerous research taking place with little accountability, and the public has a right to know since we are the ones whose lives are being put at risk without our consent.  
 

NATHAN ROBINSON: 

I want to quote something that you said recently:

“I chaired the commission for the Lancet for two years on COVID. I’m pretty convinced it came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature, just to mention. After two years of intensive work on this. So it’s a blunder in my view of biotech, not an accident of a natural spillover. We don’t know for sure, I should be absolutely clear. But there’s enough evidence that it should be looked into. And it’s not being investigated, not in the United States, not anywhere. And I think for real reasons that they don’t want to look underneath the rug.”


The statement that you made there is a controversial one. Just to read a couple quotes from the New York Times in the last year:


So I want to start by asking you just to tell us a little bit about the investigation that you were part of and what led you to think that what I just quoted is a misleading statement of the state of the evidence.
 

JEFFREY SACHS: 

Well, the funny thing is those scientists who are saying that said the same thing on February 4, 2020, before they had done any research at all. And they published the same statement in March 2020, before they had any facts at all. So they’re creating a narrative. And they’re denying the alternative hypothesis without looking closely at it. That’s the basic point. 

Now, what is the alternative hypothesis? The alternative hypothesis is quite straightforward. And that is that there was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses. And the particular virus that causes COVID-19, called SARS-Cov-2, is notable because it has a piece of its genetic makeup that makes the virus more dangerous. And that piece of the genome is called the “furin cleavage site.” Now, what’s interesting, and concerning if I may say so, is that the research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen. Oops! 

Well, that is what may have happened. And what has been true from the start is that that very real possibility, which a lot of scientists know, has not been looked at closely, even though it’s absolutely clear that it could have happened that way. They’re not looking. They just keep telling us, “Look at the market, look at the market, look at the market!” But they don’t address this alternative. They don’t even look at the data. They don’t even ask questions. And the truth is from the beginning, they haven’t asked the real questions.

But not quite the beginningBecause at the beginning, which we could date from the first phone call of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a group of virologists on February 1, 2020, the virologists basically said “Oh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?” Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program. And yet, by February 3, the same group is saying “No, no, it’s natural, it’s natural.” By February 4, they start to draft the papers that are telling the public, “Don’t worry, it’s natural.” By March, they write a paper—totally spurious, in my view—called the proximal origins paper that is the most cited bio paper in 2020. It said: it is absolutely natural. [Note: the paper’s conclusion is “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”] But they didn’t have any of the data that you read about in the New York Times. They didn’t have any of this. They just said the labs weren’t working on this alternative. But you know what, they don’t know what the labs were working on, because they never asked, and NIH hasn’t told us.
 

ROBINSON:

Let me ask you if we can distinguish between what we know for certain and what is speculative because we just haven’t got the data. So we do know that there was—correct me if I’m wrong—research proposed that would have dealt with this category of viruses and would have modified them in ways that would have made them potentially more lethal. Do we know whether that kind of research was in fact actually ongoing somewhere?
 

SACHS:

We have enormous reason to believe that it was. And clearly, we haven’t even asked that question. But we have a lot of reason to believe that it was, because the scientists that were doing that research loved that research. And they explained to us publicly why it’s so important. And they wrote editorials about why this research must continue. And they made grant proposals saying that it should continue. And for those of us in the business of writing grant proposals, the fact that a particular grant proposal that’s deeply troubling was turned down doesn’t mean that it wasn’t carried out afterwards. But where is NIH saying, “Yeah, that’s an interesting question. Why  don’t we get the evidence?” It doesn’t even ask that question. 

And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don’t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It’s like sleight of hand art. Don’t look over there. Look over here. But we know that there was a tremendous amount of this research underway. We have interviews by the lead scientists. We have these research proposals. I know the intention of doing this research from discussions. I’ve read so many studies of the importance of this research claimed by the scientists. And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. “Oh, no, nothing here to look at.” And then I see the scientists. “Oh, nothing here to look at. We know it’s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No.  We don’t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn’t quite look right. Oh, but don’t look over there, because there’s nothing there, they keep telling us. Well, that’s a little silly. 

So my point is, there is a huge amount of reason to believe that that research was underway. Because there are published papers on this. There are interviews on this. There are research proposals. But NIH isn’t talking. It’s not asking. And these scientists have never asked either. From the very first day, they have kept hidden from view the alternative. And when they discuss the alternative, they don’t discuss the research program. They discuss complete straw men about the lab, not the actual kind of research that was underway, which was to stick furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses in a way that could have created SARS-Cov-2.

What I’m calling for is not the conclusion. I’m calling for the investigation. Finally, after two and a half years of this, it’s time to fess up that it might have come out of a lab and here’s the data that we need to know to find out whether it did.

ROBINSON:

One of the things that struck me that I didn’t know when I started writing about this and actually doing some some research is realizing that in the years leading up to the pandemic, there was a huge controversy about whether it was wise to modify viruses in the course of research in ways that could make a virus more infectious or more lethal. And some people were arguing that this kind of research was insane. And some people were warning that in the case of a lab accident—an accident, mind you, not as an intentional “bioweapon”—a simple human error could cause a real catastrophe.
 

SACHS:

That is exactly right. There were several kinds of experiments of manipulation of the genes of dangerous viruses. And this raised a lot of alarm. And there was actually a moratorium in 2014. But the champions of this kind of research pushed on, they applied for waivers, which they got, and finally the moratorium came off in 2017. And they said how important it is to do this dangerous kind of research, because they claimed, “Well, there are lots of viruses out there. And we don’t know when they’re going to become highly pathogenic, and we need to develop drugs and vaccines against a wide spectrum of them. So we have to test all these viruses that we can find, to see whether they have high spillover potential.” But they weren’t actually aiming to just test viruses that they were collecting in nature. They were aiming to modify those viruses. Because the scientists knew that a SARS-like virus without a furin cleavage site wouldn’t be that dangerous. But they wanted to test their drugs and vaccines and theories against dangerous viruses. Their proposal was to take hundreds, by the way—or least they talked about in one proposal more than 180 previously unreported strains—and test them for their so-called “spillover potential.” How effective would they be? And to look: do they have a furin cleavage site, or technically what’s called a proteolytic cleavage site? And if not, put them in. For heaven’s sake. My God! Are you kidding?
 

Okay, but we didn’t even ask the question from the first day: did you guys do that? Tell us what you did. Could you give us your lab notebooks? We’re kind of curious. Instead, these people who are writing these New York Times articles right now and publishing these pieces about the market, from the first day—without asking about the experiments—they said, “Nope, it’s natural.” That’s why I don’t trust them. Because they’ve never looked at the alternative hypothesis. And their hypothesis has so many gaps, so many holes in it. But they don’t even try to look at the alternative hypothesis.
 

ROBINSON:

I think it’s very important to make clear that the “alternative hypothesis” is mainly a hypothesis about an accident, and scientific hubris. It’s important to distinguish the kooky theories from the incredibly plausible theories. Because what you’re talking about is people who did not appreciate the dangers of what they were doing. 

SACHS:

In fact, it’s very interesting. The alternative that is the right one to look at is part of a very extensive research program that was underway from 2015 onward, funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci, in particular NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], and it was to examine the spillover potential of SARS-like viruses. The champions of this research explained in detail their proposals. But after the event, we’d never asked them, “So what were you actually doing? What experiments did you do? What do you know?” We somehow never asked. It was better just to sweep it under the rug, which is what Fauci and the NIH have done up until this point. Maybe they could tell us, “Oh, full exoneration,” but they haven’t told us that at all. They haven’t shown us anything. 

So there’s nothing “kooky” about it, because it’s precisely what the scientists were doing. And then you can listen to the scientists on tape describing why they think the research program is so important, because they say these are dangerous viruses, and therefore we have to prepare broad spectrum vaccines and drugs. They explain it’s not good enough to test one or two viruses. We have to test all of them. And then they came to realize, as I said earlier, that just having a SARS-like virus, if it doesn’t have this piece of the gene, it’s almost surely not going to be that effective. So they got around to the idea. “Well, let’s put these in,” if you can imagine that. To my mind, it’s mind-boggling. 

But they were proud of this, because it’s actually genius at a technological level. Can you imagine: you can take a sequence of letters, which defines the genome, you can recreate the virus just from the letters. You don’t even have to have the biological virus in hand, you just need the sequence. Then you can say “I’m going to add these four letters RRAR, the furin cleavage site, or maybe it’s eight, RRARSVAS, this is a sequence of eight amino acids—I’m going to stick it in there right at the S1 S2 junction of the spike protein, because I know from my research program that will make it more pathogenic, that is more disease-causing. And then I can see whether my drug candidates like remdesivir, or some other candidate works against it. That is their idea. There’s nothing kooky about our claim: Hey, what were you doing? Because they told us that they wanted to do these projects. And they told us that they were wanting to do these projects in the months leading up to this outbreak. And then what is absolutely strange is that even though scientists knew right from the start, that is very weird to have that RRAR furin cleavage site in there—never saw that before in a SARS-like virus, and that that could well have come from a lab—hush, hush. Don’t talk about it. Don’t even discuss it. Just say right from the beginning: This is natural. Of course, it’s natural. Everything else is kooky. 

So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you’re acting like a scientist, you’re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that’s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that’s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue. 

Now, again, let me emphasize, we don’t have definitive evidence of either hypothesis. But what we do have is definitive evidence that officialdom has tried to keep our eyes away from the lab creation hypothesis.
 

ROBINSON:

You mentioned the lab in Wuhan. It’s not just that there was a lab in Wuhan doing research on viruses. But there were ties between the lab and those pursuing this program. What do we know about the research that was actually occurring there?
 

SACHS:

We know that at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the scientists there had been trained by American scientists to use advanced bioengineering methodologies. And in particular, we have scientists in North Carolina, Texas, and so forth who do this kind of research, believe in it, argue for it, and say that they don’t want any regulations on it and so on. And they were in close contact with Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they were part of a joint research group that was stitched together by something called EcoHealth Alliance. And EcoHealth Alliance was the kind of marriage maker between the American scientists and the Chinese scientists. That was the vehicle for funding from the U.S. government, especially from the National Institutes of Health, and especially from Tony Fauci’s unit, the NIAID. There were years of grants, there were grant proposals. We don’t know exactly what was done. But we have enough reason to know that we should be asking exactly what was done. And we know definitively that from the beginning, NIH has been running from telling us what has been done. They’re not telling us the truth, that they had reason to fear from the start that this came out of a lab. And that to this day, they have reason to suspect it, but they’re not talking. 
 

ROBINSON:

A shocking thing to me was that the head of the EcoHealth Alliance was on the World Health Organization team that actually investigated the origins of COVID and concluded that it wasn’t the lab.
 

SACHS:

Well, more than that: I appointed him—this was Peter Daszak—I appointed him to chair the task force of the pandemic commission that I was running for the Lancet. And he headed a task force on the origins. I thought, naively at the beginning, “Well, here’s a guy who is so connected, he would know.” And then I realized he was not telling me the truth. And it took me some months, but the more I saw it, the more I resented it. 

And so I told him, “Look, you have to leave.” And then the other scientists in that task force attacked me for being anti-scientific. And I asked them: “What are your connections with all of this?” They didn’t tell me. Then when the Freedom of Information Act released some of these documents that NIH had been hiding from the public, I saw that people that were attacking me were also part of this thing. So I disbanded that whole task force. So my own experience was to witness close up how they’re not talking. And they’re trying to keep our eyes on something else. And away from even asking the questions that we’re talking about. We don’t have the answers. But we have good reasons to ask. And we have good reasons to know that NIH is not doing its job properly right now.
 

ROBINSON:

So you’re saying that Daszak and others did not disclose to you pretty serious conflicts of interest? Since, on the hypothesis that it had something to do with this kind of research, that would have implicated Daszak himself in the origins of the crisis? 
 

SACHS:

Well, he could have explained to me right from the beginning that there was a big research program and that they were manipulating the viruses, and here’s how. He could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, “No, my lawyer says I can’t give it to you.” I said, “What? You’re heading a commission. We’re a transparent commission. You’re telling me your lawyer says you can’t give me your project proposal.” I said, “Well, then you can’t be on this commission. This is not even a close call.” 

But there were so many other things. He was just filled with misdirection. I don’t know whether he understands or not, maybe he doesn’t understand. But the things he said just were absolutely not right.
 

ROBINSON:

When people hear you say, “They’re sweeping it under the rug, they don’t want to look,” one question that may come to their minds is “Well, why? Why would people not be interested in getting to the truth?” But the alternate hypothesis from the natural spillover that you’re talking about could have serious repercussions. It would implicate a lot of people in potentially millions of deaths. So there’s a lot at stake here for the scientific community. Which explains why there would be an interest in directing people away from this possibility. 
 

SACHS: 

There are at least two reasons why they might be doing what they’re doing. One is, as you say, the implications are huge. Imagine if this came out of a lab. And we have, by some estimates, about 18 million dead worldwide from this. That’s not the official count. But that’s the estimated excess mortality from COVID. Well, the implications of that—the ethical, the moral, the geopolitical—everything is enormous. 

But there’s a second matter that is really important, too. One thing that is rather clear to me is that there is so much dangerous research underway right now under the umbrella of biodefense or other things that we don’t know about, that is not being properly controlled. This is for sure. And that’s happening around the world. And governments say “don’t poke your nose into that.” That’s our business, not your business. But it’s actually our business. It’s our business to understand what is going on with this. This is not to be kept secret. We don’t trust you. 

Let me put it this way: I don’t trust them right now. I want to know. Because even what we know of the dangerous research is enough to raise a lot of questions of responsibility for the future. And to pose the question: “Hey, what other viruses are you guys working on? What should we know?” Because no matter what the truth is on SARS-Cov-2, what is pretty clear is we’ve got so much technological capacity to engineer dangerous pathogens right now. And a lot of that is being done. And it’s classified. It’s secret, and we don’t know what it is. And I don’t like that feeling at all. I don’t recommend it for us and for the world.
 

ROBINSON: 

Well, you’ve rather answered the question of why it’s important to get to the bottom of this. Because one of the excuses you hear is, “Well, who really cares? Does it matter? It was an animal, it was a lab, whatever it is, it’s here.” But what you’re saying is, “No, we actually need to know where this started.” Because this isn’t going to be the only one, whatever the origins are. And we don’t want people to die from future viruses. This is critically important. If we’re going to save millions of lives, we have to find out the answer.
 

SACHS:

I can tell you one thing that I’ve learned from talking to a lot of scientists in the last couple of years: the technological capacity to do dangerous things using this biotechnology is extraordinary right now. So I want to know what’s being done. I want to know what other governments are doing, too, not just ours. I want some global control over this stuff. 

We’ve kind of understood the nuclear risk—even that, of course, is in a lot of ways hidden from view. But this is a clear and present risk. And there’s reason to believe we’re actually in the midst of it, not just hypothetically. So come on: it’s time to open the books everywhere. It’s time to find out. Maybe it was the marketplace. Maybe it wasn’t a lab. But we need to get real answers, now. Not the kind of misdirection that’s been going in since February 2020. Enough nonsense! Enough New York Times stories saying, “Oh, it’s this, it’s that,” without looking closely at the very plausible laboratory hypothesis. 
 

ROBINSON:

It seems from what you’re saying that as the head of the Lancet’s COVID-19 commission, you didn’t feel you were able to get satisfactory answers or see the data you wanted. What kind of investigation do we need and who ought to do it? 
 

SACHS:

The most interesting things that I got as chair of the Lancet commission came from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits and whistleblower leaks from inside the U.S. government. Isn’t that terrible? NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages. They gave us a cover page and 290 blank pages! That’s NIH, for heaven’s sake. That’s not some corporation. That is the U.S. government charged with keeping us healthy. 

What I found is that we have a lot of data which we’re not finding right now. And I don’t want to have to rely on FOIA and leaks, though those can be incredibly informative. I want clear, independent scientific investigation and transparency. One way to do this would be a bipartisan congressional oversight investigation that had subpoena power. Give us your lab records, your notebooks, your data files of virus strains, and so forth. There are many questions that we need independent scientists to define, to tell us exactly the kinds of information. But we know right now we’re operating in an environment in which the government is working to hide the data that we need to make a real assessment.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

* indicates required

26 comments

  1. We believe Mr Sachs is telling the truth.
    We have lost our faith in believing what UK, US and EU government people say, hoping it will be believed by the gullible.
    We believe him and they are disgusting in de-platforming him, so to speak.

  2. What makes this very important is that jeffrey Sachs is vary believable and in his position with Lancet he was well-informed about research taking place.. Another point to consider is that this kind of cover-up to prevent accountability is typical of how things are done in government these days.

  3. As a former investigative reporter I suggest if ScheerPost is genuinely serious about pursuing this world-class scoop to whatever apocalyptic horrors it will undoubtedly reveal, they look closely into whether there are any connections between the EcoHealth Alliance and the late University of Texas professor Eric Pianka, who urged a 90 percent reduction in the (implicitly working class) human population as the only viable means to save the planet.

    The socioeconomically privileged students at Western Washington University’s Huxley College of Environmental Studies I encountered c. 1982-83 were conversationally urging exactly the same final solution a decade before Pianka’s proposal became public.

    Thus I cannot but wonder if the idea of such targeted genocide is not only applauded by today’s environmentalists, but was a contributing factor in the “Democratic” [sic] Party’s effective dismissal of the nation’s white working class as “a basket of deplorables.”

    (Which is most assuredly NOT to suggest the Hitler-wannabe Trump — the Bad Cop in our Masters’ application of the irresistibly terrifying Good Cop/Bad Cop torture technique — is any better than the more carefully closeted Hitler-wannabe Democrats.)

    1. Ding!!! You rang the bell – you get the cigar! Congratulations.

      You just wrote one of the most cogent and insightful comments that I’ve ever seen here at Sheer Post.

      And since “predictive programming” – or better said, ‘plans drawn up, and then publicly released, perhaps as confessions, in advance in advance of carrying them out’ – appears to be real thing, in Hollywood…allow me to draw your attention, to the film “V for Vendetta”. The elements of the story, about a “St. Mary’s Virus” – created and then DELIBERATELY RELEASED, by members of “The Party” securing to themselves ever-greater wealth, power, and social control, all while killing large swaths of the population… Well they seem like a VERY prescient or clairvoyant prediction, of what looks to have occurred.

      And as much as I like Jeffery Sachs, and what he’s doing here… He seems to be ignoring the fact that NIH Research Programs are separate and distinct from Pentagon Weapon’s research. And these things tend to work (TOP) secretly (meaning SCI classification), and in parallel or tandem, with the “peaceful research”. http://dilyana.bg/project-g-2101-pentagon-biolab-discovered-mers-and-sars-like-coronaviruses-in-bats/

      There’s good reason to suspect that the Wuhan lab – COULDN’T have been the origin point… if we evaluate using a more reasonable timeline. The still-unsolved-mystery of “Mysterious Vaping Illness”, from the USA, and over the Summer of 2019 – is why its symptoms appeared to have been virtually IDENTICAL to Covid. and then there’s this, also with identical symptoms, which appears to have been a practical test or demonstration of release into a nursing home setting – which we know killed far too many New Yorkers and Californians within a year . https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/07/17/third-person-has-died-after-respiratory-illness-outbreak-greenspring-village-fairfax-officials-say/

      And let us not forget that we are now acting very much like we’re gearing up to start a War with China. And the Trump Regime, packed with NeoCons, like Bolton and Pompeo, already had us in a “Trade War” with China, at the time – along with a violent “Color Revolution” attempt in Hong Kong, and an armed Jihadist insurgency in western China.

      And let’s not ignore all of the prep work, and ominous foreshadowing statements, coming the directions of the Rockefeller Foundation (LOCKSTEP), Gates and the Davos WEF Trillionaires (Agenda ID2020, Event 201, etc., etc.), working in conjunction with the WHO, and Fauci.

      Frankly – this Chinese take, seems to be the most reasonable, to my eyes… https://web.archive.org/web/20200713161459/https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-state-tv-host-covid-19-came-lab-leak-united-states

      1. My thanks to A+WV+I+P. Three points:

        (1)-The Tacoma, Washington independent-living senior-housing community in which I have dwelt since 2004 was afflicted by an unusually deadly “flu” just after Christmas 2019. But annual flu shots — which we get here in our activity room to accommodate those of us without transport — were no defense; it sickened all our 40 residents and as I recall put five of us in the hospital and killed three. Despite my own potentially fatal co-morbidities and age (79 at the time), I remained at home, though it was devastating enough I spent eight or 10 days abed. Symptoms were identical to those later attributed to Covid19: wrenching but unproductive dry cough; sore throat; shortness of breath; mid-grade fever (101-102F); severe muscular pains; complete loss of senses of taste and smell; general malaise. The fact Tacoma is the third busiest seaport on the West Coast, the proximity of Fort Lewis, McChord AFB and three naval bases plus the timing cited in your concluding link suggest this may indeed have been an early Covid outbreak, possibly vectored by the seafarers, longshore workers or active-duty military personnel amongst my neighbors’ kin.

        (2)-No doubt under the influence of the innumerable high-ranking German Nazi war criminals to whom both the federal government and its plutocratic owners maliciously gave anti-Soviet sanctuary, we of the 99 Percent have long been victimized as lab rats by the One Percent. The following links are but the proverbial tip of this deadly iceberg of atrocities:
        https://www.businessinsider.com/biological-agents-were-tested-on-the-new-york-city-subway-2015-11
        and
        https://exhibits.stanford.edu/saytheirnames/feature/tuskegee-syphilis-experiment
        and
        https://militarytruth.org/germ-warfare-tests-on-americans/
        It is perhaps also significant that at the time of the NYC subway tests, the City was considered the ideological epicenter of the revolutionary-socialist sentiment then sweeping the nation. Though the government insists all such tests have long been banned, recent events plus the government’s history of concocting elaborate lies to protect the perpetrators of its innumerable atrocities and war crimes suggests otherwise: https://www.dcreport.org/2019/12/04/the-army-quietly-re-opens-its-infamous-germ-warfare-lab/

        (Disclosure: as news editor of The Morris County Daily Record c. 1968-69, I was approached by a spokesperson for the victims, but because all of them lived outside our circulation area, I could not get the publisher’s authorization I needed to unleash my investigative reporters on this obviously world-class story. As I recall, the spokesperson asserted the tests in the NYC subway killed at least three people; I also remember thinking because the tests were said to have been conducted during earliest part of the morning rush, 7:30-8:83 a.m., they were apparently timed to target the nonwhite minorities who make up most of the subway ridership during that period. Fortunately Newsday’s people were not as restricted as mine; they scooped the world on this atrocity sometime later in ‘69 or early 1970, and as I recall won a significant award for their work.)

        (3)-My own experience of our government’s malevolence includes the ideologically motivated destruction of two close relatives’ deputy-regional-director-caliber federal careers; the secret-police terminations of the best two job journalistic offers of my own life; and in all probability the federal (or at least federally commanded) destruction by arson of a 19-year, thoroughly researched, extensively footnoted photographs-and-text project with all its associated drafts, imagery and research notes incinerated just as the resultant manuscript seemed on the brink of major publication. Working-titled “Glimpses of a Pale Dancer” and endorsed by the late Cicely Nichols as potentially one of the most influential works of the 20th Century, had it not been reduced to ash, it would have redefined the ‘60s Counterculture as the spontaneous first wave of a global revolution against patriarchy. Thus I am admittedly inclined to a conviction too many of us in our conditioned gullibility reject: that the USian Empire – no doubt with Nazi war-criminal assistance – has replaced Nazi Germany as the most bottomlessly apocalyptic Evil ever unleashed against our species and our Mother Earth.

    2. I think you raise interesting questions here, but see little reason to believe that the lab research and activities (if, indeed, they were the origin of SARS-COV2) was done for population reduction, or for any ideological reason, for that matter.
      In every instance of such lab bio-engineering (and most engineering) that I can find, it is ultimately driven by profit motive. (Initial scientific curiosity by an individual or team may be nothing more than that initially; but research is funded only where and when it can produce profits for the ‘investors’.

      Let’s go one step at a time here. Throwing broad conspiracy theories about the how and why will only discredit and make possible the suppression of ANY inquiry such as Prof. Sachs advocates for here. If we can get to the point where an honest, independent scientific review of ALL THE DATA is finally made possible, THEN there is a much better chance that the public might actually know how this disaster was produced – and could better prevent it. At that point, you might also find any culpable parties, and gain a better understanding of motive.

      1. Sorry, A+WV+V+I+P, for four minor errors, each nevertheless a major vexation and thus corrected here:

        Section (2) shud rede: …elaborate lies to protect the perpetrators of its innumerable atrocities and war crimes suggest…;

        Disclosure shud rede: …the earliest part of the morning rush, 7:30-8:30…;

        Section (3) shud rede: …the best two journalistic job offers…;

        Dunno why, but dyslexia makes it absolutely impossible for me to successfully copy-edit or proofread on a VDT, this in contrast to the fact I was considered exceptionally competent at these tasks with pencil on paper. Again my apology.

      2. The ONLY reason not to see any reason to believe that goals of all this was population reduction – is because you’re not paying attention, you are poorly informed, or for some reason you just aren’t willing to recognize and believe that the Eugenics and Global Depopulation advocates (like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab) – who collaborated on the “Event201” “exercise” – are willing and capable of implementing the designs that they’ve long announced. Agenda 30 and the Global Development Goals, just like Gates’ Ted talk – call openly for depopulation. The answer for them appears to have been a BioWeaponized Virus, that is highly treatable, combined with Public Health Policies that militate against the medicines that are known to treat it…in favor of highly toxic and ineffective responses like Remdesivir. Because none of the cheap, safe, and effective chemotherapeutic responses were acknowledged and approved (they were deliberately suppressed, all the evidence inducates) – eventually you have the legal justification fir the “Emergency Use Authorization” of the experimental synthetic mRNA Gene Therapy injections – that were guaranteed to kill large swaths of the population, whether through their ubiquitous adverse events, or the paradoxical effects of “vaccination” – like ADE, original antigenic sin/imprinting, and the evolutionary pressure towards mutations, caused by any effectiveness of those injections.

  4. Think weaponization and paranoia. Governments around the world are in a constant state of conflict with each other, thinking, “If some bad actor creates a bio threat, we have to be ready”. So they play the game of “get them before they get us”. Much like nuclear weapons research in the 1940’s, knowing what is possible, creates a scenario where it is now a race for domination and power. Fear, aggression, suspicion, and the lust for power and control, are the motivating factors behind all of this, and so it is not surprising when such ill-conceived research blows up, or escapes with huge “unintended consequences”. When and if the truth is revealed, I suspect to hear, “yes it was a risk, and it back-fired, but we had no choice because the “bad guys” were out to get us with their bio-weapons, and we had to be ready for it.

    1. To paraphrase George Carlin, “It’s a BIG CLUB” – and they’ve beaten you silly with it. .

      You’re ignoring all of the International COOPERATION around this, and plans which had long been drafted, prior to the release. Agenda ID2020 was the goal accomplished with “Vaccine Passports”. The “Vaccines” (actually – Experimental Synthetic mRNA Gene Therapy injections, bearing no relation to prior generations of Vaccines), were a GOAL, but one with a problem preventing their use… They’re DANGEROUS, and had killed far too many Ferrets, in previous Lab Trials, to ever be approved, using the non-“Emergency” approval process – which includes long-term testing. And the highly prescient “Event201 Excercise” – had the fast-tracking of those injections as, a primary endpoint, along with increasingly authoritarian and technocratic social control … And all of that was “International” in the planning and execution.

    2. Agree. Conjecture is easy to make. Evidence can be proven. This is not a story until there is provable evidence. If evidence is being withheld, documentation of this is necessary, not just statements that responses were redacted.

      1. The Cover-up PROVES the CRIME. In Civil Law, if a party destroys the evidence – a jury is allowed to conclude that it was bad for their case.

        There’s plenty of evidence that Mr. Sachs doesn’t bother to consider or discuss, that suggests that his takes, if anything, are inexplicably, and unjustifiably generous to the accused.

  5. Thank you Jeffrey Sachs for asking this question out loud. Many others have been wanting answers and people held accountable. Maybe we will now get some answers

  6. Thank you for bringing Dr. Sachs’s paper and this discussion to our attention. Clearly without disclosure of pertinent facts regarding the lab tests done, we can never learn with certainty the source of COVID-19.

  7. As my earlier comment on this lame economist Star Fucker
    Has made clear, this guy is “late for the Sky”-Jackson Brown.
    He seems totally unaware of Sucharit Bhakdi and the Great
    Barrington Declaration of 10/2020.
    Why would I -or any sane communist -give credence to this
    Slow semi -interlectual apologist for plutocracy?

  8. The emails FOIA by Judicial Watch make it clear that Fauci and NIH had a gag order, and were working with US DoD on coronavirus and sharing information with a Chinese General and Virologist/Scientist. For some reason Fauci was put up front to handle the pandemic, and lied about the origins. And many in government allowed this to happen. I would be happy to see everyone in government who covered this up be ineligible for future office and resign immediately. Millions dead. So many lies. A coordinated coverup for which they blame China, despite knowing NIHs own complicity.

  9. Sachs has laid out what we call a prima facae case. In other words, probable cause to look further. There are plenty of incidents where, in the past, our government engaged in official cover-ups when unauthorized activity was discovered. The Tuskegee experiment, the exposure of GI’s to radiation during A-bomb tests, the CIA LSD experiments and many more.

    The only thing different here is the size and scope of this disaster. Sachs is clear to point out there is no evidence that this was done intentionally, but it could amount to criminal negligence if it was unauthorized through proper channels.

    But how to move forward is the issue. Congress is not going to hold hearings, and the Biden administration’s AG is not going to investigate. So, where does that leave us?

    Unless the principles are required to testify under oath they will continue to lie and cover their behinds.

  10. I find it strange the medical establishment in question, sticks to the natural spread hypothesis when 50,000 animals have been tested by China with no positive matches for COVID-19? It is also frightening in that the corona virus family was selected for gain of function research because corona viruses are so wide spread.

    I still think that Mr. Sachs is on the right track.

    P.S. I can imagine a cartoon in which humans will need so many vaccines that we will look like pin cushions- if we survive that is.

    1. It wasn’t from the zoo pool in the Wuhan market. Fauci had a gag order, and NIH had been conducting corona research with China both inside the US and Wuhan lab. We have FOIA emails to prove it all. For some reason leadership is pulling a big coverup: I guess they fear what the truth may bring. The leak was likely from the Wuhan lab, due to poor security as noted in a prior assessment, they lacked safety adherence. A Chinese General and Virologist was working with the US on corona. The early leaks and existing whistleblower story supports this. Early satellite imagery shows a ramp up of hospital activity in Wuhan in September 2019 and data shows a spike in activity in the last days of August. Harvard released a study essentially proving this hospital activity. Numerous doctors leaked info on an unknown pneumonia type illness. US leadership didn’t say anything until December. I can’t figure out if our leadership is 100% incompetent or covered it up. I find it hard to believe the intelligence apparatus didn’t inform the CJCS and CIC/POTUS about the virus activity in September?

    2. The sad thing is the emails between Fauci and NIH discussing corona virus research between the US and Wuhan are all unclassified and available. Go to Judicial Watch. Read then. I write to Francis Collins asking that he be transparent, and several weeks later he resigned. Collins is a good man, Fauci on the other hand has a dark history along with a history of discussing ways to force citizens to allow public health to dictate vaccines and pandemic response. It’s not surprising Fauci ran with the lie.

  11. To everyone involved in making and posting this story you have my gratitude.

    When someone as esteemed as Mr. Sachs can have his voiced silenced what hope to us in the teeming masses have of finding the truth of this matter.

    From my dilettante perspective the case for zoonotic origins has not been proven and the case for lab-origin has not been fully investigated. Instead we are left in the nether world of confusion, conspiracy theories and stupefaction. This is exactly where the powers-that-be prefer the teeming masses to dwell lest they learn that the emperor has no clothes.

  12. all dissident views not adherent to the covid fascist position are censored in USA—“America is not a nation for dissidents”. Richard Hofstadter

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: