Not all conspiratorial nut jobs, just a surprising fraction of the commenters.
In what possible world would this probable lab leak be "intentional"? How could the evidence you mention supporting the lab leak idea even begin to suggest intentionality?
To answer your question - "In what possible world would this probable lab leak be "intentional"?" - We must look at who stood to gain the most benefit from an intentional lab leak.
"How can you have energy companies that profit when there is an energy crisis?
A military industrial complex that profits when there is war?
Pharmaceutical companies that profit when there is a pandemic.
You are creating the necessity for ongoing crises. If the elites in society benefit from situations that are detrimental to everyone else. That is what reality is going to become.
That is what reality has become."
An 'intentional' lab leak benefits / benefited many by way of profit and power.
The way Peter Daszak writes in an e-mail how he wants to feign independence remains amazing to read. Thanks for your excellent long read; very readable for laymen!
Thanks! I still take your first-response as valuable feedback, as well as your second. Please feel free to share the article with friends - if we can popularize the key pieces of evidence & main lines of reasoning here, it can pave the way to improve public discourse and scientific investigations on SARS-CoV-2 origins.
If it did become official that covid did come out of scientists 'fiddling with genetics', given that the world doesn't do nuance the public political reaction could be a bit of a problem for many researchers , no ? Could explain an instinctive move on the part of at least some to slap down any suggestion of a lab origin ??
It would be good to write up the Bayesian evaluation not in a tendentious legal style but as a more neutral style. Some of your major points would go through unchanged. While I'm not an expert I can spot at least one that is pretty far off- the existence of the FCS. You forgot selection bias. By definition of a pandemic, we're not looking at a random SARS virus but one that has been post-selected to spread extremely well in humans. That has a much higher FCS probability, reducing the likelihood ratio for lab/zoonosis from the unselected one you use. This does not change the CGG factor. Even for the CGG factor, however, one should consider that this is a feature picked out post-hoc. Any random event always has some surprising peculiarities when viewed in detail, so some multiple-comparison correction should be included.
I think the posterior odds still favor lab leak, but I don't see why you chose to slant a case that already looks pretty compelling.
I like this idea. I've been meaning to write up the Bayesian Network reasoning for some time (presumably after popularizing all the evidence and shifting scientific discourse to enable publication of competing views on this topic). I also agree with your point about the selection bias or observation bias. We have a lot of room to dilute the 1/40 billion odds - my goal in presenting those is to at least be transparent about a simple, first-pass procedure. I love your second-pass here - this is science happening!
I don't see it as nit-picking, but rather a fair point. It's possible the FCS + CGG-CGG insert could come from a recombination event from a host with human-like arginine codon bias, and also possible that if we conditioned on a SARS-CoV that caused a pandemic then it would likely have an FCS. However, I think conditioning this on causing a pandemic isn't right, but rather we would examine the same evidence for a SARS-CoV that caused an outbreak in Wuhan that ended up being contained. Imagine if the January 2020 lockdown worked - we'd have all the same evidence. While emergent SARS CoVs may have a higher probability of having an FCS based on selective pressures to obtain an FCS commonly seen in serial passaging experiments in human cells, it's difficult to quantify this effect and, at best, I can't imagine it raising our 1/1000 estimate of FCS acquisition any higher than ~1/80 (number of SARS-CoVs observed, which includes detection of outbreaks)
Thank you for the detailed summary. Yet, no meaningful evidence has been presented that proves the release of the virus was an accident. Given this, it is just as likely that the virus was released intentionally. Additionally, anyone releasing it intentionally would likely try to make it look like an accident. This entire affair is diabolical.
Wow. Thanks for the effort Alex. I need to print this out and read it carefully.
I will say this much. No matter which theory is true, it is embarrassing for the Chinese regime. Either their labs are badly run and mismanaged, or they allow trade in endangered species and allow food markets to be run with a sub 3rd world level of sanitation.
Their course of action is clear. Destroy all of the evidence and provide just enough clues to get Western culture warriors to fight with each other. We can't pin anything on them and they get us to fight with each other. They are laughing at us.
I try to avoid overconfidence at all costs thanks to years of forecasting asset prices in global financial markets. With that said, I am more confident that SARS2 arose from a lab than I have been for any trade or financial forecast in my life (and that includes shorting the market in Feb 2020, buying Gilead in the lead up to Remdesivir passing clinical trials, buying oil ETFs when futures were negative, and buying life insurance immediately upon the announcement of Omicron - the last trade beat the market by +60% during a massive bear market).
While the CCP thinks the world is dumb, I believe they are scared more than anything else, as the telltale heart beats in the data and anyone taking the time to see the full picture & timeline of events will agree that SARS2 most likely emerged from a lab in China. The CCP has tried to hide this truth, the truth that they are responsible for a pandemic that killed millions around the world, and as the truth becomes known it may greatly undermine the Chinese government’s ability to assert itself as a beloved, trusted power in the world. They are erratically changing narratives, blaming it on India when they are skirmishing on the Indian border and then on the US when they’re sending spy balloons over Montana, and they locked down their own citizens, detaining and abusing any who sought freedom from such oppressive policies, in a desperate effort to prevent the virus from killing their own citizens and increasing the injury the CCP caused. When the people of China find out, their explosive discontent over zero-COVID policies may then focus to a laser directed at their own government’s responsibility for the virus, I would not want to be in the shoes of the CCP.
" I would not want to be in the shoes of the CCP."
I would agree that they are in a tough place.
But, we have been unable to use it against them, which is unfortunate.
Partially because some of our people like Fauci and Daszak helped fund the lab. Partially because it has become a culture war issue wrapped up with anti-vaxers and anti-maskers. And, partially because Washington is less than clear about the truly antagonistic nature of US China relations.
Nice summary. Listen, I would ditch the first-person narrative, attempt at brief history, and attempt to characterize human populations' reasoning skill. The effect is to evoke in reader, questions, such as "who is this narcissist?" "This guy is a tad full of himself?" Detracts from piece.
Regarding Alex's style and its consequent effects on credibility and readability, I find his use of first person keeps us informed of his motivation, his implicit self-questioning/reflection, and the critical lenses he brings to the research. His use of first person allows us readers another level of insight into how scientists approach and move progressively through science problems. The openness/invitation to competing discourses and ideas is very much a part of my reasons for following him.
On a different matter, I can still cannot fathom how to this day, Joe Biden administration will not acknowledge the lab leak accident. This gas-lighting on a scale this immense should disqualify Biden for reelection. Already, RFK is propounding that he will tell Americans the truth.
Your comment was good, don't feel bad or retract it at all! It's valuable to put our thoughts out there, and I never take this stuff personally.
As for the truth, I can't say. One possibility is that the coterie of highly conflicted scientists, who all appear to have been helping either the Wuhan Institute of Virology with their collection of bat SARS CoVs or susceptible to pressure from GoF proponents who led health science funding, may have succeeded in misleading and misdirecting (arguably defrauding) our nation's leadership. Another possibility is that the truth is known at some level, but the consequences of an official position could be understandably severe (with high probability) and so they may want to brace for impact before throwing the world into disarray with such consequential information.
If the former, then I cannot be more ashamed of the scientists who misled, misinformed, and misdirected the world on this topic (not to mention gone to great lengths to defame & attempt to discredit scientists like me who have spoken up). If the latter, then I have more sympathy for decision makers left with no good options. What if shouting this from the rooftops caused conventional war, or worse? One can justifiably want to avoid those anticipated consequences, even if avoiding those consequences involves unsavory decisions to hold off on pursuing this truth preparations have been made or risks mitigated.
As I'm sure you know, since you worked in virology and epidemiology, there is an interesting but unspoken point about the DEFUSE proposal: yes, it was not selected and not funded in that call for proposals. As for what went on in the potential world of classified funding of similar activities, we may never know.
However, as I'm sure, you know, it is pretty common practice when writing a grant proposal to essentially "propose work you have already done". That way you know that if you get funded, you will succeed in your project's goals (since you've already done the work) and you can use the money that you receive to do the next piece of work. Rinse and repeat.
My point is it is certainly possible that they had already done the work which they proposed to do in DEFUSE. That is fairly common practice across the spectrum when writing grant proposals.
The co-ordinated actions around the lab leak suggest intent although I suppose it's possible that it was an accident that evil brilliant powerful people exploited. Those actions included:
- worldwide lockdowns that jettisoned decades of pandemic plans, breached human rights to a degree never seen before, and ignored the lessons WHO learned from the Japanese Flu pandemic
- rapid development of a vaccine based on the spike protein
- medical coercion for mass vaccination by capturing scientific journals to slander early treatment options
If it's established that the lab leakers benefitted materially from these actions, I would go with conspiracy over cock-up
Thank you for this. You think the corona viruses were collected in, say, Laos as opposed to within China? Any evidence of travel there by any EcoHealth Alliance folk?
I see some in the Twittersphere now arguing that the origin of SARS CoV 2 is irrelevant and we should rather be focusing on the origin of the response. (Because it’s the response that’s proven more deadly). Both seem important to me.
I don’t think we can be sure how many people have died from covid because that data seems very messy and opaque. El Gato Malo writes an interesting Substack on possible iatrogenic events in the last few years, contributing substantially to the official mortality figures.
Nicely written & very interesting points. The factors, not discussed in the article, such as 1) pharmaceutical companies speedy delivery of supposedly 'novel' 'safe & effective' vaccines; 2) the demonising & denigration of Ivermectin an already proven readily available 'safe & effective' treatment; combined with 3) the censorship & blacklisting of expert medical professionals who were speaking out about existing treatments tells me there was NOTHING accidental about the lab leak.
Fair enough point. A possible scenario. Although if it was in R & D for over ten years as you state one would think a more effective 'vaccine' would have been the potential end product being disseminated come 2020. Any thoughts on my points 2 & 3?
Please see the research articles on vitamin D and the immune system cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ (Co-signed by Patrick Chambers MD: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Chambers-4/). Most people have 5 to 25 ng/mL circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is 1/10 to 1/2 of the 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L their immune system needs to function properly.
For 70 kg bodyweight without obesity, this can be reliably attained with 0.125 mg 5000 IU supplemental vitamin D3 a day. This is a gram every 22 years, and pharma grade D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. So where's the profit in this?
I am trying to keep this brief. If you think this is too simple to be true, you have not read the research. Most people have no idea about this, including immunologists and mainstream doctors. They assume this vitamin D stuff is just another over-hyped nutrient. Big mistake!
Nice sentiment at the end, but we won't truly be able to move on and prevent the next pandemic until Fauci and his confederates are brought to full justice and accountability.
The evidence that leads us to believe it originated in a lab is also evidence that suggests the virus was being made for innocent, pre-COVID research objectives.
If it was an accidental leak - then why the coordinated attack on all fronts that followed: 1) pharmaceutical companies speedy delivery of supposedly 'novel' 'safe & effective' vaccines that were then mandated, legislated & enforced/coerced on the masses; 2) the demonising & denigration of Ivermectin & other already proven readily available 'safe & effective' treatments; 3) the censorship & blacklisting/deregistering of expert medical professionals who were speaking out about existing successful treatments. For an accidental leak there were certainly some very 'coincidental' coordinated movements in predominantly WEF aligned countries that suggests to me there was NOTHING accidental about any of it.
It's depressing to see the responses to your well-reasoned if somewhat rhetorical case. Your readers seem to include many lunatics.
Not all conspiratorial nut jobs, just a surprising fraction of the commenters.
In what possible world would this probable lab leak be "intentional"? How could the evidence you mention supporting the lab leak idea even begin to suggest intentionality?
To answer your question - "In what possible world would this probable lab leak be "intentional"?" - We must look at who stood to gain the most benefit from an intentional lab leak.
"How can you have energy companies that profit when there is an energy crisis?
A military industrial complex that profits when there is war?
Pharmaceutical companies that profit when there is a pandemic.
You are creating the necessity for ongoing crises. If the elites in society benefit from situations that are detrimental to everyone else. That is what reality is going to become.
That is what reality has become."
An 'intentional' lab leak benefits / benefited many by way of profit and power.
The way Peter Daszak writes in an e-mail how he wants to feign independence remains amazing to read. Thanks for your excellent long read; very readable for laymen!
Nice to see Australia mentioned.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/first-detected-covid19-case-arrived
My wife and I just reread this. Forget what I said about the prose. Excellent.
Thanks! I still take your first-response as valuable feedback, as well as your second. Please feel free to share the article with friends - if we can popularize the key pieces of evidence & main lines of reasoning here, it can pave the way to improve public discourse and scientific investigations on SARS-CoV-2 origins.
If it did become official that covid did come out of scientists 'fiddling with genetics', given that the world doesn't do nuance the public political reaction could be a bit of a problem for many researchers , no ? Could explain an instinctive move on the part of at least some to slap down any suggestion of a lab origin ??
It would be good to write up the Bayesian evaluation not in a tendentious legal style but as a more neutral style. Some of your major points would go through unchanged. While I'm not an expert I can spot at least one that is pretty far off- the existence of the FCS. You forgot selection bias. By definition of a pandemic, we're not looking at a random SARS virus but one that has been post-selected to spread extremely well in humans. That has a much higher FCS probability, reducing the likelihood ratio for lab/zoonosis from the unselected one you use. This does not change the CGG factor. Even for the CGG factor, however, one should consider that this is a feature picked out post-hoc. Any random event always has some surprising peculiarities when viewed in detail, so some multiple-comparison correction should be included.
I think the posterior odds still favor lab leak, but I don't see why you chose to slant a case that already looks pretty compelling.
I like this idea. I've been meaning to write up the Bayesian Network reasoning for some time (presumably after popularizing all the evidence and shifting scientific discourse to enable publication of competing views on this topic). I also agree with your point about the selection bias or observation bias. We have a lot of room to dilute the 1/40 billion odds - my goal in presenting those is to at least be transparent about a simple, first-pass procedure. I love your second-pass here - this is science happening!
> I think the posterior odds still favor lab leak, but I don't see why you chose to slant a case that already looks pretty compelling.
Why does anyone slant an argument they're making in support of a theory?
I don't see it as nit-picking, but rather a fair point. It's possible the FCS + CGG-CGG insert could come from a recombination event from a host with human-like arginine codon bias, and also possible that if we conditioned on a SARS-CoV that caused a pandemic then it would likely have an FCS. However, I think conditioning this on causing a pandemic isn't right, but rather we would examine the same evidence for a SARS-CoV that caused an outbreak in Wuhan that ended up being contained. Imagine if the January 2020 lockdown worked - we'd have all the same evidence. While emergent SARS CoVs may have a higher probability of having an FCS based on selective pressures to obtain an FCS commonly seen in serial passaging experiments in human cells, it's difficult to quantify this effect and, at best, I can't imagine it raising our 1/1000 estimate of FCS acquisition any higher than ~1/80 (number of SARS-CoVs observed, which includes detection of outbreaks)
Thank you for the detailed summary. Yet, no meaningful evidence has been presented that proves the release of the virus was an accident. Given this, it is just as likely that the virus was released intentionally. Additionally, anyone releasing it intentionally would likely try to make it look like an accident. This entire affair is diabolical.
Have you ever worked in a lab? Accidents happen all the time.
What exactly would be the motivation to release an uncontrolled virus in one's own backyard?
Since when have China and North Carolina been collaborating on ways to attack the United States? I mean, it's not South Carolina!
Wow. Thanks for the effort Alex. I need to print this out and read it carefully.
I will say this much. No matter which theory is true, it is embarrassing for the Chinese regime. Either their labs are badly run and mismanaged, or they allow trade in endangered species and allow food markets to be run with a sub 3rd world level of sanitation.
Their course of action is clear. Destroy all of the evidence and provide just enough clues to get Western culture warriors to fight with each other. We can't pin anything on them and they get us to fight with each other. They are laughing at us.
I try to avoid overconfidence at all costs thanks to years of forecasting asset prices in global financial markets. With that said, I am more confident that SARS2 arose from a lab than I have been for any trade or financial forecast in my life (and that includes shorting the market in Feb 2020, buying Gilead in the lead up to Remdesivir passing clinical trials, buying oil ETFs when futures were negative, and buying life insurance immediately upon the announcement of Omicron - the last trade beat the market by +60% during a massive bear market).
While the CCP thinks the world is dumb, I believe they are scared more than anything else, as the telltale heart beats in the data and anyone taking the time to see the full picture & timeline of events will agree that SARS2 most likely emerged from a lab in China. The CCP has tried to hide this truth, the truth that they are responsible for a pandemic that killed millions around the world, and as the truth becomes known it may greatly undermine the Chinese government’s ability to assert itself as a beloved, trusted power in the world. They are erratically changing narratives, blaming it on India when they are skirmishing on the Indian border and then on the US when they’re sending spy balloons over Montana, and they locked down their own citizens, detaining and abusing any who sought freedom from such oppressive policies, in a desperate effort to prevent the virus from killing their own citizens and increasing the injury the CCP caused. When the people of China find out, their explosive discontent over zero-COVID policies may then focus to a laser directed at their own government’s responsibility for the virus, I would not want to be in the shoes of the CCP.
" I would not want to be in the shoes of the CCP."
I would agree that they are in a tough place.
But, we have been unable to use it against them, which is unfortunate.
Partially because some of our people like Fauci and Daszak helped fund the lab. Partially because it has become a culture war issue wrapped up with anti-vaxers and anti-maskers. And, partially because Washington is less than clear about the truly antagonistic nature of US China relations.
Nice summary. Listen, I would ditch the first-person narrative, attempt at brief history, and attempt to characterize human populations' reasoning skill. The effect is to evoke in reader, questions, such as "who is this narcissist?" "This guy is a tad full of himself?" Detracts from piece.
Regarding Alex's style and its consequent effects on credibility and readability, I find his use of first person keeps us informed of his motivation, his implicit self-questioning/reflection, and the critical lenses he brings to the research. His use of first person allows us readers another level of insight into how scientists approach and move progressively through science problems. The openness/invitation to competing discourses and ideas is very much a part of my reasons for following him.
Yep. Reread piece, and retracted my objection.
On a different matter, I can still cannot fathom how to this day, Joe Biden administration will not acknowledge the lab leak accident. This gas-lighting on a scale this immense should disqualify Biden for reelection. Already, RFK is propounding that he will tell Americans the truth.
Your comment was good, don't feel bad or retract it at all! It's valuable to put our thoughts out there, and I never take this stuff personally.
As for the truth, I can't say. One possibility is that the coterie of highly conflicted scientists, who all appear to have been helping either the Wuhan Institute of Virology with their collection of bat SARS CoVs or susceptible to pressure from GoF proponents who led health science funding, may have succeeded in misleading and misdirecting (arguably defrauding) our nation's leadership. Another possibility is that the truth is known at some level, but the consequences of an official position could be understandably severe (with high probability) and so they may want to brace for impact before throwing the world into disarray with such consequential information.
If the former, then I cannot be more ashamed of the scientists who misled, misinformed, and misdirected the world on this topic (not to mention gone to great lengths to defame & attempt to discredit scientists like me who have spoken up). If the latter, then I have more sympathy for decision makers left with no good options. What if shouting this from the rooftops caused conventional war, or worse? One can justifiably want to avoid those anticipated consequences, even if avoiding those consequences involves unsavory decisions to hold off on pursuing this truth preparations have been made or risks mitigated.
As I'm sure you know, since you worked in virology and epidemiology, there is an interesting but unspoken point about the DEFUSE proposal: yes, it was not selected and not funded in that call for proposals. As for what went on in the potential world of classified funding of similar activities, we may never know.
However, as I'm sure, you know, it is pretty common practice when writing a grant proposal to essentially "propose work you have already done". That way you know that if you get funded, you will succeed in your project's goals (since you've already done the work) and you can use the money that you receive to do the next piece of work. Rinse and repeat.
My point is it is certainly possible that they had already done the work which they proposed to do in DEFUSE. That is fairly common practice across the spectrum when writing grant proposals.
Yes, they had already done the work.
I'm surprised that Alex hasn't mentioned this UNC study (where Ralph Baric participated)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985?fbclid=IwAR1365aW8Pa8BBKOLWxfb01zO9-FUIU8iw4fRil_juTTIXwdSQkGkShJ6CY_aem_AXPm2iZbVZtRPDfArBKynh8oa6z4CLFwxEQioOV7_4jTsIz3wd JpJX4VO_vHXXn7XZ0Xc5VnvCoLJBlo8qy2gAMb
Or these previous works::
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC111474/?fbclid=IwAR3B5O2dQ2Oxswp3xYwhV3GyQwGzl2N2kAeH1J3kUSz6gMuYqglCilkzcPM_aem_AXPGNqvx-cHPUpdFhLkifWk_0TwWMFqt7t9uNYbGjX1YCKISpG0Y7IvNcUbWT0_8WNnutSJ6L_SaGaR7NoVObnkd
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258702/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2519660/
https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI059136-05
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-controversial-us-scientist-creates-deadly-new-flu-strain-for-pandemic-research-9577088.html
The co-ordinated actions around the lab leak suggest intent although I suppose it's possible that it was an accident that evil brilliant powerful people exploited. Those actions included:
- worldwide lockdowns that jettisoned decades of pandemic plans, breached human rights to a degree never seen before, and ignored the lessons WHO learned from the Japanese Flu pandemic
- rapid development of a vaccine based on the spike protein
- medical coercion for mass vaccination by capturing scientific journals to slander early treatment options
If it's established that the lab leakers benefitted materially from these actions, I would go with conspiracy over cock-up
Brilliant article - thanks!
Thank you for this. You think the corona viruses were collected in, say, Laos as opposed to within China? Any evidence of travel there by any EcoHealth Alliance folk?
I see some in the Twittersphere now arguing that the origin of SARS CoV 2 is irrelevant and we should rather be focusing on the origin of the response. (Because it’s the response that’s proven more deadly). Both seem important to me.
I don’t think we can be sure how many people have died from covid because that data seems very messy and opaque. El Gato Malo writes an interesting Substack on possible iatrogenic events in the last few years, contributing substantially to the official mortality figures.
Thanks once again. 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you.
The best all encompassing summary of this sordid debacle .. I have ever read..
Nicely written & very interesting points. The factors, not discussed in the article, such as 1) pharmaceutical companies speedy delivery of supposedly 'novel' 'safe & effective' vaccines; 2) the demonising & denigration of Ivermectin an already proven readily available 'safe & effective' treatment; combined with 3) the censorship & blacklisting of expert medical professionals who were speaking out about existing treatments tells me there was NOTHING accidental about the lab leak.
Fair enough point. A possible scenario. Although if it was in R & D for over ten years as you state one would think a more effective 'vaccine' would have been the potential end product being disseminated come 2020. Any thoughts on my points 2 & 3?
Please see the research articles on vitamin D and the immune system cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ (Co-signed by Patrick Chambers MD: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Chambers-4/). Most people have 5 to 25 ng/mL circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is 1/10 to 1/2 of the 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L their immune system needs to function properly.
For 70 kg bodyweight without obesity, this can be reliably attained with 0.125 mg 5000 IU supplemental vitamin D3 a day. This is a gram every 22 years, and pharma grade D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. So where's the profit in this?
If everyone had this, there would be no COVID-19 or influenza pandemic transmission, and almost no sepsis, which killed 11 million deaths in 2017, worldwide https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32989-7/ .
I am trying to keep this brief. If you think this is too simple to be true, you have not read the research. Most people have no idea about this, including immunologists and mainstream doctors. They assume this vitamin D stuff is just another over-hyped nutrient. Big mistake!
Nice sentiment at the end, but we won't truly be able to move on and prevent the next pandemic until Fauci and his confederates are brought to full justice and accountability.
I agree with Tim’s comment. You are saying, concluding, with what evidence it was an accident??
The evidence that leads us to believe it originated in a lab is also evidence that suggests the virus was being made for innocent, pre-COVID research objectives.
If it was an accidental leak - then why the coordinated attack on all fronts that followed: 1) pharmaceutical companies speedy delivery of supposedly 'novel' 'safe & effective' vaccines that were then mandated, legislated & enforced/coerced on the masses; 2) the demonising & denigration of Ivermectin & other already proven readily available 'safe & effective' treatments; 3) the censorship & blacklisting/deregistering of expert medical professionals who were speaking out about existing successful treatments. For an accidental leak there were certainly some very 'coincidental' coordinated movements in predominantly WEF aligned countries that suggests to me there was NOTHING accidental about any of it.