Proximal Origin: the paper that locked the narrative to usher in the Plandemic

Whose quiet hands did shape the Origin’s tale and did Langley’s shadow lean across the veil?

I have a vested interest
in finding where SARS was made,
and by whom it was first arrayed.

Not for the geopolitics’ game,
nor to expose the cover-up’s shame.

But I fight for those who cannot stand -
the injured, the dead, across the land,
the persecuted,

the INNOCENT hands.

Jessica Rose

The plan and the solution

There was a plan. An insidious plan that involved many individuals with intentions to rise to fame and to make unfathomable amounts of money at the expense of the entire human population. It involved a novel pathogen called SARS-CoV-2 - a chimeric virus whose engineered spike protein would become the blueprint for experimental technology. Experimental technology based on foreign, synthetic genetic scripts encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles in a 300 µl solution - sold as a “vaccine”. On January 26, 2021 the word “vaccine” was redefined as an injection to stimulate an immune response as opposed to providing immunity.¹

There was a solution. A solution that you were told would put an end to your suffering. A solution that would buy you a ticket out of isolation jail. “Do it for the greater good!” they chanted. You won’t get COVID-19 if you get the jab! You also won’t lose your job, incidentally. There was, however, no mention to the people that these were not conventional vaccine products - these were novel gene-based prodrugs wrapped in particles with unresolved toxicity issues.²

A solution that was so effective that the “unvaccinated” were treated as the unclean and were gaslit and branded as “unprotected” outcasts and the reason for human death and suffering. A solution that relied on the theatrical fabrication of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, where propaganda was constantly broadcast to shame the people who had the foresight not to fall for the scam, in order to guilt them into getting injected.

A solution that was so effective that it had to be mandated. If you are anti-mandate, you are anti-vax. Words uttered by the Chief Minister of Australia’s Northern Territory to double down on his anger-laced campaign to shame people who did not believe what he believed.

A solution that weaponized words to guilt human beings into behaviours they would never subscribe to unless under duress. Invocation of the names of spiritual leaders in bizarre, teleprompted productions as part of “vaccination appeal”. You were a good civilian only if you got injected.

And it went on and on. It was a solution that amounted to an all-out assault on humanity itself - integrity, decency, common sense - cast aside like yesterday’s trash.

As the predator stalks its prey by night,
Our longing to do what we know is right
Was seized and twisted, used as their feed -
Fodder for the campaign, the hunger, the need.
With that pure desire they struck the blow,
And massacred us with the good we know.

Jessica Rose

Gates’ role and his ties to Fauci

There was a plan clearly outlined in Gates’ memo “The First Modern Pandemic” - long before anyone had to die - that involved injecting every single living human being with these experimental gene-based prodrugs. This memo sent to Anthony Fauci and edited by David Morens, can be found in the Rand Paul Reading Room release “Bill Gates Had a Q Clearance and a Private Editor at NIH”. It outlined how Bill Gates - a businessman - was “thinking about the COVID pandemic in its various aspects”. Therein, he broke down the innovations required to end the pandemic (which he compared to WWII innovations) into five categories: treatments, vaccines, testing, contact tracing and policies for opening up.

It’s all there.

This email from Gates to Fauci was sent on April 22, 2020, and it would have taken time to write an 11-page memo with 4,500–5,000 words on this subject matter.

Anthony Fauci had “a good conversation with Bill Gates” a little earlier in the month (April 1, 2020 - page 81) about partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and BARDA to scale up “vaccines, therapeutics”, as per his diary entry on April 1, 2020.

Yes. There was a plan.

On March 28, 2020 - just 11 days after the Proximal Origin paper was published - Emily Erbelding emailed colleagues concerning early non-human primate (NHP) experiments being done in the context of the Moderna mRNA “vaccine”. Apparently the Integrated Research Facility (IRF) at Fort Detrick (NIAID’s high-containment BSL-4 laboratory complex) peeps weren’t in the know on this due to a “critical failure in communication”. Does that happen often?

Fauci, with his foot on their necks, was pushing to get the Moderna mRNA “vaccine” into phase 2 trials even though vaccine-related enhanced disease³ was not off the table. They needed to demonstrate that this wouldn’t be “an added risk” - in spite of the investigators being out of the loop - and thus acceleration of the NHP experiments became NIAID’s highest priority.

Perhaps those involved should have taken Fauci’s foot, broken it in a few places, and told the truth because the fall-out from the Moderna and Pfizer COVID “vaccines” is still being felt today. As one example of such fall-out, one simply needs to read the internal email sent from Drew Weissman (LNP COIs) to Anthony Fauci on February 8, 2021, and then look to VAERS and the literature.

VAERS is designed to detect safety signals in data. The anomalous number of reports in 2021 is a safety signal with documented PRR values greater than 2 (ie: foetal hypokinesia).⁴

The necessity of the Proximal Origin paper and Fauci’s role in getting it published

One of the reasons that the lies about the “wet market” and the “natural origin” story were so successfully embedded in the minds of the human population was the Proximal Origin (PO) paper. Its authors are Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes and Robert F. Garry and it was published on March 17, 2020 in Nature Medicine.

Anthony Fauci (and Francis Collins) made this paper happen, as per the February 1, 2020, conference call arranged by Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust.

I refer you to Chairman Brad Wenstrup’s opening remarks for the House Committee Hearing entitled: “Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover Up” to hear how everything changed abruptly when Anthony Fauci injected himself into the infamous February 1 call.

Just 45 days later, the PO paper was published. Forty-five days. Anyone who has published a peer-reviewed paper knows this is exceedingly and anomalously fast.

Who did the peer review, I wonder?⁵

Anthony Fauci needed to ensure that the lab-leak/engineering idea was absolutely abolished. In his diary entry on January 26, 2020 (page 8) he writes: “the market was not the source, it was the amplifier”.

I would be remiss if I did not introduce you to Matt Orfalea (ORF). Pure genius.

The PO paper had it all. The Nature label, the “experts” as authors, Anthony Fauci’s “endorsement”⁶, and that “answer” that all of us were waiting to hear from the “trusted authorities”.

Good thing it was naturally occurring, right?

→ That meant mad scientists definitely didn’t engineer SARS-CoV-2 in a lab using recombinant DNA techniques, right?

→ So the spike protein couldn’t possibly contain amyloidogenic sequences, human-homologous motifs (like TQLPP), or superantigenic sites, right?

→ And the spike protein definitely didn’t have an anomalous out-of-frame furin cleavage site (PRRA) that made SARS-CoV-2 more infectious to humans, right?

→ And therefore the nucleoside-modified mRNA “vaccines”, which code for [a version] of that same spike (double P mutations), were never going to be dangerous.

Do you see why it was so important to publish the natural origin story in one of the most prestigious journals in the world? There could be no room for doubt if the engineering of the plandemic was to unfold properly.

The PO paper did change everything, and the people covering up SARS-CoV-2 ‘s true origin - who themselves admit to being unsure as to its origin - have been using it as the backbone of their natural origin arguments for years.

Remember the gaslighting?

• Peter Daszak in The Guardian (9 June 2020): “Ignore the conspiracy theories: scientists know Covid-19 wasn’t created in a lab.”
  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/09/conspiracies-covid-19-lab-false-pandemic

• The Lancet statement (19 February 2020): 27 scientists (including Daszak) declared: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

• USA Today fact-check (21 March 2020, later revised): Titled “Fact check: Did the coronavirus originate in a Chinese laboratory?” and originally rated the lab-origin claim FALSE / conspiracy, stating overwhelming scientific evidence pointed to a natural (wet-market/zoonotic) origin.
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/21/fact-check-did-coronavirus-originate-chinese-laboratory/2881150001/

• Snopes (1 April 2020): “The Origins and Scientific Failings of the COVID-19 ‘Bioweapon’ Conspiracy Theory” — declared the lab-origin idea a conspiracy theory and stated the virus’s features were “a testament to natural selection, not bioengineering.”
  https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/

For a splash of cold water as an antidote to the gaslighting and “fact-checking”, Paul Thacker published this article in the BMJ entitled: “The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?”, where he points out that “several high-profile scientists who once denigrated the idea that the virus could have come from a lab have made small steps into demanding an open investigation of the pandemic’s origin”.

Here are the opening remarks (with my kitty meowing) expanded where Chairman Wenstrup weighs in on the novelty of SARS-CoV-2 and how the origin question was “stalled”.

We’re examining whether scientific integrity was disregarded in favor of political expediency.

We do know some things for certain: that the drafting, coordination and publication of PO and downplaying the lab leak was antithetical to science.

---

N.B. Fauci was indeed on the February 1, 2020 call that changed everything and steered the PO paper with lightning speed right into Nature Medicine. [5] On January 31, 2020, weeks before Proximal Origin was even published, Fauci told Andersen directly to take his furin cleavage site concerns to the FBI, and in the U.K., to MI5. I wonder where those concerns landed?

Kristian Andersen was very concerned about the furin cleavage site, but for some reason, he published an entire paper that did not address this concern.

In the following days, Anthony Fauci personally coordinated Andersen and Holmes’ next moves while the public was told the question was closed. Off limits, no less. Fauci later even cited the paper publicly while downplaying or omitting his earlier involvement and the private doubts expressed on the February 1 call.

Never forget that the weasels have a weasel herder who has a weasel herder who has a weasel herder…

Weasels all the way down?

N.B. On February 8, 2020, Kristian objected to publishing the paper as it was.

---

Now that we’ve established the importance of the PO paper to the cover-up of the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, let’s take a closer look at one of the lesser known authors.

Ian Lipkin, the PO paper, the CIA and pangolins

Ian Lipkin is an American epidemiologist and “pathogen hunter” who serves as the John Snow Professor of Epidemiology and Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. He is best known for pioneering molecular methods to detect and identify viruses.

During the 2002–2003 SARS outbreak, Lipkin advised the Chinese government and the WHO on diagnostics, surveillance and response. His laboratory later contributed to research on related coronaviruses, including work connected to the origins and detection of SARS-CoV-2.

I received an email recently, linked to a thread which raised some interesting questions. One of those questions was concerning Ian Lipkin and his role an a CIA ‘informant’ in this treacherous COVID-19 debacle.

Here is the thread on X by Gilles Demaneuf - one of the early and most active members of DRASTIC - (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19).

In the first screenshot of this thread that portends that Ian Lipkin was a CIA “mole” inside the Proximal Origin author team⁷, Gilles points out that Ian Lipkin oopsied during his House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic interview, and almost blurted out that he was C__. Lipkin even states that it’s “obvious” that he works with the CIA.

The CIA and the intelligence community are no strangers to everything COVID-19/pandemic/SARS. As part of the House Oversight Select Subcommittee transcribed interviews, Ian Lipkin’s interview (April 6, 2023)⁸ contains at least 3–5 mentions of the CIA, Kristian Andersen’s interview (June 16, 2023)⁹ contains at least 8–12 multiple explicit references to “CIA and FBI” and “intelligence community”, and Robert Garry’s interview (June 9, 2023)¹⁰ contains 1–3 second-hand mentions of intelligence involvement.

Likewise in the Baric release, the Intelligence Community was in contact Baric years before the pandemic (Oct 30, 2025 letter + exhibits) where the CIA and intel/intelligence are mentioned 6 and 22 times. And in the Slack messages (AM and PM drops - July 21, 2026), although the CIA are not explicitly mentioned, intel/intelligence is mentioned 7 times.

The CIA are mentioned 14 times in Fauci’s Two-Decade Relationship with the Intelligence Community (June 6, 2026 package) and intel/intelligence are mentioned 47 times. Fauci also “received an extremely strange [and] unexpected briefing by the CIA related to the origin of the virus” on June 4, 2021, as written in his diary. I wonder what they told him that irritated him so badly to the point where he referred to the agent as “pathetic in her naivety” when she informed Fauci of “the transfer of Pangolin viruses from a group in Beijing to [Wuhan]”.

The PO boys, on the other hand, thought the Pangolin story was quite important. I wonder why Fauci wrote it off with such … venom? Eddie secretly told his co-authors that they “might have dropped the ball with this pangolin virus”.

Kristian even tells the Senior Editor of Nature Clare Thomas that pangolins are not intermediate hosts and that the pangolin story - even if it was meant to - does not “refute a lab origin”. He writes that “the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory”.

This was February 20, 2020 - after the Fauci/Collins call - and before the paper was published.

Ultimately, the pangolin data were injected by “someone” in February 2020 because they were the best “available natural-origin candidate” at that moment. It seems obvious that these data were amplified and framed in a way that served the institutional goal of sidelining the lab-leak hypothesis.

Was that “someone” a CIA informant? If the pangolin story functioned mainly as narrative management, one plausible motive for intelligence-community interest would be geopolitical risk management. A confirmed or even strongly suspected laboratory origin at the Wuhan Institute of Virology carried immediate costs: it would implicate Chinese military-linked research, potentially expose U.S. funding or collaboration channels, and escalate U.S.–China tensions at a moment of already high friction.

An intermediate-host story centered on a trafficked wildlife species provided a clean, non-state explanation that could be amplified quickly through scientific channels. Intelligence agencies (including CIA) were already assessing origins in early 2020 and had prior contacts with key virologists. If some elements preferred a natural-spillover framing for diplomatic or operational reasons, quietly encouraging or amplifying the strongest available natural-origin candidate (pangolins) would be consistent with that preference.

Let’s return to Ian Lipkin. Interestingly enough, the Slack private messages from the Proximal Origin authors (which did not include Ian Lipkin, FYI), reveal that they themselves were confused about Ian Lipkin’s role and inclusion on the PO paper as an author.

Kristian writes: “WHO SUGGESTED ADDING THAT TURD AS AN AUTHOR??? WHO, HUH?”

N.B. It was Eddie Holmes who facilitated Lipkin getting on as author.

Interesting phrasing there with the “WHO” reference by Andersen. Lipkin directed the WHO Collaborating Centre on Diagnostics, Surveillance and Immunotherapeutics for Emerging Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases at Columbia University’s Center for Infection and Immunity. He was also invited by the WHO to assist during the SARS epidemic back in 2003. Apparently, he hand-carried 10,000 diagnostic test kits to Beijing, trained local microbiologists and helped with surveillance and containment strategies.¹¹

Why would Eddie Holmes facilitate Ian Lipkin’s authorship on the PO paper? I guess it was “a cunning way to draw some of the fire away from [Kristian Andersen]”, as he stated in the secret Slack message group. Interesting reasoning there, Eddie. And what fire, exactly? Fire from the people who you were on the February 1 call with who knew the natural origin hypothesis was just that?

In the end, they all (Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, Eddie Holmes and Robert Garry) agreed to include Ian Lipkin (aka “TURD”; “Butt Lesion”) as an author.¹²

Kristian Andersen even suggests that Lipkin might have “discovered SARS-CoV-2” and “patented it”.

“Maybe he did”. Was that a joke Kristian?

The PO boys hated The Yan Reports that link the origin to the CCP

The Yan Reports are three self-published scientific reports (preprints) released in 2020–2021 by Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist who fled Hong Kong and as a whistleblower. She co-authored them with a small group of collaborators, mostly under the “Rule of Law Society/Rule of Law Foundation” umbrella associated with Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui.

In a nutshell, the 1st Yan Report discloses how SARS-CoV-2 has unusual genomic features inconsistent with natural evolution and was laboratory-modified using bat coronaviruses ZC45/ZXC21 as a template. The 2nd Yan Report discusses SARS-CoV-2 as an “Unrestricted Bioweapon” created by CCP military scientists, supported by large-scale organized scientific fraud and intentional release. And finally, the 3rd Yan Report further validates the lab-origin conclusion and points to the failure and flaws of two uninvited critical “peer reviews.”

Pretty hot potatoes.

The PO boys were really concerned about the Yan Reports. In the private Slack messages, they avidly discuss and trash them, and on October 16, 2020, Robert Garry writes the following:

Robert Garry goes after the Third Yan Report as well, seemingly concerned about Lipkin’s association with the CCP.

So who is Ian Lipkin?

In short: Ian Lipkin was SARS besties with China in 2003¹³ and works with the CIA by his own admission.

What was Ian Lipkin’s relationship to Ralph Baric?

Lipkin collaborated with Baric on research and operated in overlapping networks involving coronavirus pathogenesis, surveillance and countermeasures. They were best buds according to an article in the The News & Observer where Lipkin writes:

“He’s a superb scientist,” Lipkin said of Baric, who he described as a close friend during an interview with The N&O this week. “I trust him implicitly and explicitly.”

The Slack messages of the PO boys appear to confirm some kind of allegiance between Ian Lipkin and Ralph Baric, as per a Washington Post article from May 18, 2021. Robert Garry states that neither Lipkin nor Baric seemed to “care what kind” of media attention they were getting. Sounds almost like an operation to me: Even bad press is good press? The end result is the same: confounding of the truth and confusion of the public.

When Baric faced U.S. government funding suspension/debarment proceedings in 2024 related to gain-of-function descriptions and reporting, Lipkin publicly defended him, calling Baric “a brilliant and principled scientist” whose work is important for pandemic preparedness. Brilliant and principled, eh? I might push back on that statement.

The PO boys didn’t seem to like Baric much either - referring to him and Peter Daszak as “fuckers”.

Baric got prickly when the PO boys simply suggested taking a look at the furin cleavage site issue.

To Kristian, Ralph Baric was a “two-faced bastard”. I almost get why he would say that.

The PO boys referred to Ian Lipkin as “Butt Lesion” - and no, I don’t know why, nor do I want to. Apparently, Butt Lesion was becoming a lesion in their butts because in May 2021 he started to wave a red flag about “dangerous” bat virus work being done in BSL-2 labs and the fact that the lab-leak idea was more likely.¹⁴

What’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? - keeps shifting in the direction of the latter. Ian Lipkin

Lipkin became ever more “skeptical” on the subject matter of natural origin. Perhaps he always was. What did he know as someone who worked for the CIA?

The PO boys also refer to Ian Lipkin as being on the “Lab Leak Bandwagon”. If I were to guess, the PO boys were also genuinely confused as to Lipkin’s role, and perhaps someone did put him on the PO paper. Perhaps he was under orders from a potential handler in order to “control the narrative” and/or to perhaps even discredit the paper? If so, why? Lipkin was very flippy-floppy, after all.

The question is: Was this by design? Was he a CIA mole?¹⁵

Perhaps there was a good reason why Ian Lipkin - aka Butt Lesion - was not invited to be in the Slack private message group. The PO boys later knew he was emailing Fauci but didn’t know why. Robert Garry mentions a recent U.S. Right to Know (RTK) FOIA as a possible reason.

They all knew the lab-leak/engineering idea was on the table

If we are to be honest, they all knew that SARS-CoV-2 was potentially engineered - none of them ruled it out.

Keep it secret. Keep it safe.

It wasn’t just Ian Lipkin who was flippy-floppy. They all were. The question is why? To save face? To internally confuse and create chaos? On May 26, 2021, Anthony Fauci reminds us in his diary that he was never 100% certain of the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

And don’t forget that Kristian was “really struggling” with the furin cleavage site issue.

The Relman paper

The PO boys also hated it when the infamous Relman paper came out. It made them all do backflips. This paper was published on November 3, 2020, by Stanford microbiologist David A. Relman, and it’s a very common-sense read.

Relman writes:

Sounds fair, right?

On February 28, 2023, even the FBI Director stated “COVID-19 leaked from a lab”. He meant SARS-CoV-2, but never mind.

The PO boys didn’t think so.

Robert Garry refers to Relman as “a piece of work”.

So what’s the dealio? And does it even matter what anyone’s intentions were? The outcome was the same. They were all complicit. Something Anthony Fauci said to the PO boys in early February demanded that the lab-leak/engineering hypothesis be forgotten. (I would love to get my hands on those private phone calls from those days - especially the ones between Fauci and Lipkin.)¹⁶

In a May 5, 2020 email, Lipkin wrote directly to Fauci: “We deeply appreciate your efforts in steering and messaging”.

And wouldn’t you know, later on that same day May 5, 2020, Fauci publicly dismissed the lab-leak theory as described in this National Geographic article. Lipkin forwarded this email from Chinese official Chen Zhu in the same message and Zhu’s response is almost completely redacted.¹⁷

Final thoughts

From Lipkin and his potential role as a moley-mole, to the PO boys falling for his moley-moleness, to Fauci and Collins (NIH grants) ensuring the PO boys get their paper on the map, to the entire cover-up crew ensuring this went on for half a decade - in my opinion, it was all done to satisfy Bill Gates goal short-term goal to “vaccinate the entire world”,

with the ultimate goal to make “mRNA” “the technology that” will be used “in [all] future outbreaks”.

Bill Gates loves his own ideas about vaccines so much that he reached out to Fauci with his memo in hand to set his plan to “vaccinate the world” in stone. There had to be no room for doubt for this plan to play out the way that it did. The natural origin story had to stick.

We, the People, have no idea how high up this goes, but to pull off something of such epic and global proportions like the COVID-19 “pandemic” with all its “countermeasures”, a well-established network of powerful and influential individuals was certainly required. And they were well-funded.

There are far more culpable individuals than are mentioned in this piece.

To be fair, I think that there are good and bad people in all agencies - even the CIA - and I think that it must be very difficult for the good guys to be persistently and consistently undermined by the rogue jackals with ulterior motives who are likely incentivized by boundlessly rich lunatics.

To the good guys, I send you power and energy to go the extra mile to shut-down those who conspire against us. Be brave. Be true. You have God on your side.

And to Chairman Rand Paul and Senator Ron Johnson, I personally thank you - from the bottom of my heart - for being among the good men. You will always have my pen and my sword.

Bill’s coming after your infants, by the way.

1. They needed to redefine the word vaccine so that could continue to refer to these experimental injections as vaccines, likely for legal reasons.

2. By the way, what did happen to Tiffany Dover?

3. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine (co-developed with NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center under Barney Graham) had just entered Phase 1 human trials (first doses given mid-March 2020). Leadership was under intense pressure to move as fast as possible toward larger trials. A major regulatory and scientific concern at the time was vaccine-associated enhanced disease (also called antibody-dependent enhancement or VAERD). Some earlier coronavirus vaccine attempts (SARS, MERS, and certain animal coronaviruses) had caused worse disease after vaccination when the animals were later exposed to the real virus. The FDA therefore wanted strong animal data showing this would not happen with the Moderna vaccine before allowing larger human trials.

4. Wiseman D. Startling omission of safety review: VRBPAC not informed that the US early vaccine safety warning system is effectively disabled because safety signals for all vaccines are masked by COVID-19 vaccine reports in VAERS: urgent action required. ResearchGate. Published May 28, 2026. Accessed August 3, 2026. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.75842

5. Discussion on who peer-reviewed the PO paper. https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.23_UPDATED-FINAL-FINAL_BARIC-TI_Redacted.pdf | Pages 75-77

6

7. Demaneuf portrays the scientists involved as naïve or self-important players who thought they were backing a sure political horse (“Trump MUST be wrong”) without realizing they were being used in a larger intelligence/access game. He ends by saying they “craved the fame,” became defensive when exposed, and should “stew” - specifically calling out “Angie” (Angela Rasmussen).

8. Source: INTERVIEW OF: WALTER IAN LIPKIN | COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. | Thursday, April 6, 2023 | https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.04.06-Lipkin-Transcript.pdf

9. Source: INTERVIEW OF: KRISTIAN ANDERSEN | COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. | Friday, June 16, 2023 | https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.06.16-Andersen-Transcript.pdf

10. Source: INTERVIEW OF: ROBERT F. GARRY | COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. | Friday, June 9, 2023 | https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y4_OV2-PURL-gpo214828/pdf/GOVPUB-Y4_OV2-PURL-gpo214828.pdf

11. Ian Lipkin was all over the SARS outbreak of 2003. His involvement included providing diagnostic support, advisory work and “capacity-building” in China at the invitation of Chinese authorities. Interesting.

12. They also make jokes about “islands” being built and named after “CCP supporters” and refer to Lipkin twice in the following way: “Lipkin lagoon” springing a leak - “something about a “lesion””.

Very classy guys, and professional.

13

• Invitation: In early 2003, at the height of the SARS epidemic, Lipkin was invited by Xu Guanhua (Chinese Minister of Science and Technology) and Chen Zhu (then Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) to assess the outbreak, identify scientific gaps, and help develop a containment strategy. Some accounts also note involvement or coordination with the WHO.

• Diagnostic contribution: Lipkin’s team sequenced a portion of the SARS coronavirus directly from lung tissue and developed a sensitive real-time PCR assay for early detection. He personally hand-carried approximately 10,000 test kits to Beijing, trained local clinical microbiologists on their use, and helped implement better surveillance and contact-tracing methods.

• On-the-ground role: He and colleague Thomas Briese were among the few (or only) foreign scientists officially invited into China at that stage. They worked with Chinese counterparts on pathogen identification, research priorities, and public-health response planning.

• Aftermath: After returning to the U.S., Lipkin became ill and was quarantined (he later tested negative for SARS). He continued as a Special Advisor to China for Research and International Cooperation in Infectious Diseases through 2004 and assisted in building longer-term infrastructure, including support for the Institut Pasteur de Shanghai, expanded national CDC capacity in Beijing, and the Guangzhou Institute of Biomedicine and Health.

• Recognition: This work formed the basis for later Chinese government awards, including the 2016 International Science and Technology Cooperation Award (China’s highest honor for foreign scientists) and a 2020 medal marking the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.

14. I had originally guess that “Butt Lesion” was Ralph Baric.

Jessica Rose 🤙@JesslovesMJK

And perhaps "Butt Lesion" is Ralph Baric as per Eddie Holmes' naming?

1:40 AM · Jul 25, 2026 · 958 Views

---

4 Replies · 12 Likes

15. A CIA mole is an individual who is secretly recruited, controlled, or directed by the Central Intelligence Agency while appearing to work for, or be loyal to, another organization, government, group, or cause.In intelligence terminology, a mole is a long-term penetration agent - someone who has been inserted or turned inside a target organization (a foreign intelligence service, a government ministry, a scientific institution, a political movement, etc.) and who provides information, influence, or operational support to the CIA without the target’s knowledge.Key characteristics:

• The person maintains a cover identity or position of trust.

• They report to CIA handlers, often for years.

• Their true allegiance is to the CIA (or they are under CIA control), not to the organization they appear to serve.

The term is most commonly used for agents placed inside hostile or rival intelligence services, but it can also apply more broadly to any deep-cover penetration asset.

16. Documented connections between Anthony Fauci and W. Ian Lipkin

• NIAID funding: Lipkin (and his Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia) received multiple NIAID/NIH grants over years, including major awards for pathogen discovery, biodefense, ME/CFS research, and emerging infectious diseases. Fauci’s chief of staff listed Lipkin among “folks we fund” and “probably the world’s experts” in early 2020 coronavirus emails.

• Public praise: Fauci has publicly lauded Lipkin as a “master virus hunter” who “stands out from the crowd.”

• Northeast Biodefense Center: After 9/11/anthrax attacks, Fauci pushed a major biodefense initiative; Lipkin served as director of the Northeast Biodefense Center (consortium including Columbia) for 11 years.

• XMRV / ME-CFS study: In 2010–2011 Fauci asked Lipkin to coordinate a multi-center NIH study investigating claims of XMRV links to chronic fatigue syndrome.

• Proximal Origin paper: Lipkin is a co-author of the March 2020 Nature Medicine paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Fauci and Collins were involved in the early February 2020 discussions that prompted the paper; Fauci later publicly cited it.

• May 5, 2020 email: Lipkin wrote directly to Fauci: “We deeply appreciate your efforts in steering and messaging” the day after Fauci publicly dismissed the lab-leak theory. Lipkin forwarded an email from Chinese official Chen Zhu in the same message.

• 2016 Chinese award: Fauci emailed Lipkin “Congratulations! Very much deserved” after Lipkin received the China International Science and Technology Cooperation Award (presented under Xi Jinping).

• Ongoing professional relationship: Lipkin has described knowing Fauci “extremely well,” has spoken with him about research priorities (including ME/CFS), and has collaborated in the broader NIAID-funded network that included EcoHealth Alliance and related coronavirus work.

17. What I would give for the unredacted version.