5.9k Share this
Tuesday, Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson took a swipe at scientists advising Google on COVID-19 during his broadcast’s opening monologue.
Carlson explained how those scientists supported what had been deemed “human engineering” and warned it was what science looked like when “completely decoupled from wisdom, and from decency, and from Christianity.”
CARLSON: A few days ago, The Wall Street Journal had a really interesting event you may have missed. It was called the Tech Health Conference. During that event, one reporter had a question for the head of Google’s Health Division, a man called David Feinberg. Why, that reporter asked, was Google censoring searches for information about the possibility that COVID had in fact escaped from a laboratory in China.
Feinberg began by admitting the premise of the question. Yes, Google was in fact hiding information from its users, he effectively conceded, but it was for their own good. According to Feinberg, Google didn’t want to quote, “Lead people down pathways that we would not find to be authoritative information.”
“Authoritative information,” you’ve heard that phrase a lot in the last year and phrases like it. Authoritative information is the opposite of misinformation or disinformation or worse, a conspiracy theory. It’s really important. All you’re allowed to see is authoritative information. So, it is worth knowing in this and many other cases what is it, and in this case, where did Google get its so-called authoritative information?
Well, in this case it got that information from a group led by a noted man of science called Peter Daszak. If the name sounds familiar, Peter Daszak is the person who almost single-handedly stopped all public speculation about the lab leak early in the pandemic last year.
Daszak did this in one swoop by organizing a letter to The Lancet, that’s one of the top scientific publications in all of science, stating as a known fact that there was no possibility this virus, the coronavirus, COVID-19 could have come from a lab in Wuhan. There was no chance.
Well, many people believed him and they stopped looking. It was in The Lancet after all.
Almost no one asked, unfortunately, why Peter Daszak particularly might be saying this, and of course, we now know the answer. Peter Daszak himself was funding research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan and he was doing that using American tax dollars supplied to him by Tony Fauci.
According to one grant that Fauci approved, Daszak was authorized to conduct, quote, “virus infection experiments” across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice. Why humanized mice? Well, because they mimic human beings.
Daszak and his collaborators wanted to make viruses more infectious to people. He didn’t hide this.
In December of 2019, Daszak appeared on a podcast on YouTube which is owned by Google by the way, to brag about how easy it is in the lab to manipulate bat coronaviruses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER DASZAK, FOUNDER, ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE: Coronavirus is a pretty good — I mean, you’re a virologist, you know all of this stuff — well they — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily and it is this spike protein that drives a lot of what happens with a coronavirus, zoonotic risk.
So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this — insert them to backbones of another virus and do some work in the lab.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So, really, in one of the great kind of head hitting moments in recent history, we learn that the guy directly tied to bat virus experiments in the lab in Wuhan was the very same guy telling the entire world that there was no possibility this virus could have come from the Wuhan lab.
Conflict of interest, anyone?
It is absurd. It is beyond belief.
What is amazing is that Google knew this. The evidence was right there on one of its own platforms, YouTube, which it owns.
So, why did Google continue to rely on Peter Daszak, of all people on Earth, to decide what the rest of the population could know about the origins of COVID? That is the answer.
Tonight we know why. It turns out that Tony Fauci was not the only one funding Peter Daszak’s research on bat viruses. Google was funding that research, too.
It sounds unlikely, but we know that. We know it from a new piece in The National Pulse, which published the evidence, and here is the evidence. Peter Daszak admitted it in print. We don’t need to speculate, it’s right there.
Beginning in 2010, several of Daszak’s research papers explicitly acknowledged that they were funded by Google. One of those papers was observational study that analyzed the transmission of viruses from bats to humans, in this case, in Bangladesh, quote, “Proximity of bats to human populations may facilitate the transmission of viruses either through direct contact or through food-borne routes.”
A decade later, Google was still paying him, in this case, Google paid Peter Daszak to take his study of bat viruses to Guangdong Province in China, home of the now famous bat caves.
While there, Daszak used Google’s money to study the quote, “Perceptions associated with transmission of pathogens with pandemic potential in highly exposed human populations at the animal human interface.” End quote.
So, yes, Peter Daszak knows an awful lot about bat-borne pandemics. In fact, it seems likely he is implicated in one, and Google is likely implicated in it as well.
So, together, Google and Daszak worked to keep critical, factual information from the public as nearly four million people from around the world died from the virus. It’s a horrible story and someday, perhaps soon, we will learn all of it.
But in the meantime, as we await the indictments we fervently hope are coming, the whole ugly story makes you wonder bigger things. For example, how many other dangerous potentially world altering experiments are going on right now in this and other countries funded by the secretive daisy chain of government health agencies and powerful NGOs? Experiments you have never heard of, but that could change your life forever.
If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious and whoops, they escape from a lab, what else are they doing?
You’re not supposed to ask that question. You’ve been commanded to trust the science and get back to watching Netflix, plebe. Only Neanderthals ask questions.
And honestly, that has been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it. It’s all good.
But why should that continue? Now, that we know that liars and moral pygmies, people like Tony Fauci and the soulless bots at Google HQ are running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.
For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the World Science Festival. A few years ago, the conference featured a Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy at New York University called Matthew Liao.
Liao was among the most influential bioethicists in the world and that’s a fact that will amaze you once you see this tape. Here is Liao explaining that climate change can be solved with something called human engineering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW LIAO, PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical — robust ethical framework, we can — I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically.
But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems. So, one thing is the climate change and there — I’ll just use, you know, sort of climate change is really a big problem. We don’t really know how to solve it, but it turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: OK, here is a tip. Anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with him, and you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”
Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause and take a deep breath. People are not bridge abutments. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul.
People are living beings. They are alive. They can’t be engineered.
Liao, the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this.
So, we outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in The Journal of Ethics Policy and Environment. In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers it turns out. How can we get them to stop eating hamburgers?
Well, not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something and if they believed you, they did it; and if they didn’t, they didn’t, because it was their country, it was their government. It was self-government.
But it turns out that’s too time consuming. The new model is, we just use pharmaceuticals to make people comply. If your kids are getting uppity, dope them out, and they’ll obey. And Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat.
Now, given that climate change is an existential threat that is limiting our time on Earth to 20 years or 12 years or six months or pick your exaggeration, it’s pretty hard to believe a pill like that would be optional. It would be mandatory pretty soon.
Does that sound like a dystopian fantasy? Oh it’s not, because Liao is deadly serious. Watch him explain at the World Science Festival.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIAO: So, here’s a thought, right? So, it turns out that we know a lot about — so we have this intolerance to, so I for example, I have milk intolerance and there some people who are intolerant to crayfish.
So possibly, we can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of bovine proteins. So, that’s something that we can do through human engineering. We can kind of possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.
But again, says the bioethicist, human engineering is the answer. But wait a second, you ask, human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we try this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again. True.
But bioethicists have short memories. In any case, climate change is a pressing emergency, so we don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.
So, here’s an idea says Liao at the World Science Festival, let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now, a race of dwarfs. They would eat less and they’d be cheaper to transport, and that would reduce greenhouse gases.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIAO: So, it turns out that the larger you are, think of the lifetime sort of greenhouse gas emissions that are required to sort of — the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people, right? But if we’re smaller just by 15 centimeters, right, that’s a mass — you know, I did the math and it’s about mass reduction of 25 percent, which is huge, and a hundred years ago, we’re all on the average, smaller, exactly about 15 centimeters smaller, right?
So, think of, jus, you know like lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children, right? And so that’s something that we could do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Imagine if we had smaller children, little tiny children? Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gases. Think about how easy be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children and we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. In fact, what you just heard is less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now. This is what science looks like when it has been completely decoupled from wisdom, and from decency, and from Christianity.
It is a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real.
In fact, Google might be funding it right now.