Transcript · English → Indonesian
Lab Leak Theory and COVID Origins
Sebuah keajaiban terjadi. The New York Times memuat artikel opini
yang tidak hanya mengakui bahwa
virus COVID berasal dari laboratorium, tetapi pejabat
pemerintah dan ilmuwan bersekongkol untuk merahasiakan bukti
pendukungnya. Teori kebocoran lab disensor di media sosial
karena tekanan dari pemerintah. Kita seharusnya tidak melakukannya.
Oke, agar kalian semua tahu itu. Jadi ini kutipan dari...
Aku akan mu— Aku akan mulai, kubacakan sebagian isi artikelnya,
ya?
Jadi,
pada 2020, saat orang-orang mulai berspekulasi
bahwa kecelakaan
laboratorium mungkin menjadi pemicu mulainya pandemi COVID-19, mereka
diperlakukan seperti orang aneh dan gila.
Banyak pejabat kesehatan publik dan ilmuwan terkemuka menepis
gagasan itu sebagai
teori konspirasi, dan bersikeras bahwa virus tersebut
muncul dari hewan di pasar makanan laut di Wuhan, Tiongkok.
Dan saat organisasi nirlaba bernama EcoHealth Alliance, yang merupakan
kedok CIA, kehilangan dana hibah karena berencana melakukan
penelitian berisiko tentang virus kelelawar dengan Institut Virologi
Wuhan, penelitian yang jika dilakukan dengan standar keamanan longgar
bisa saja
menyebabkan patogen berbahaya bocor ke dunia luar.
Tak kurang dari 77 peraih Nobel dan 31
perhimpunan ilmiah berbaris untuk membela organisasi
tersebut.
Mm-hmm.
Jadi saat penelitian Wuhan t- Jadi, penelitian Wuhan
benar-benar aman,
dan pandemi ini pastinya disebabkan oleh penularan alami.
Itu memang tampak seperti konsensus. Ini kata New York Times.
Ya.
Namun, kita baru mengetahui bahwa demi menciptakan kesan
konsensus, sejumlah pejabat dan ilmuwan menyembunyikan
atau meremehkan fakta penting, menyesatkan setidaknya satu reporter,
artinya mereka berbohong—
Mm-hmm
… mendalangi kampanye dari suara
yang konon
independen, dan saling berembuk cara menyembunyikan
komunikasi
mereka agar publik tidak mendengar seluruh
ceritanya.
Ya.
Dan menge—
Mm-hmm
… soal penelitian laboratorium Wuhan,
perincian yang sejak saat itu
terungkap menunjukkan protokol keamanan mungkin saja
sanga- sangat longgar. Mungkin saja?
Kudengar mirip klinik gigi, tapi ya sudahlah.
Eh, ini—
Ya
… kenapa, kenapa kita belum memetik pelajaran?
Mungkin karena sulit mengakui penelitian ini berisiko sekarang,
dan mengambil langkah wajib agar kita tetap aman tanpa harus mengakui
bahwa itu memang selalu berisiko.
Mm-hmm.
Dan mungkin kita sengaja disesatkan. Mungkin.
Padahal kita punya banyak sekali bukti bahwa mereka membohongi kita.
Ya.
Wartawan New York Times ini masih mengatakan mungkin.
Benar. Benar.
Lihatlah kisah nyata di balik dua pub— dua yang sangat berpengaruh,
yakni publikasi yang di awal pandemi mencap teori kebocoran
laboratorium tak berdasar.
Omong-omong,
penulis ini berpura-pura bahwa dia tidak terlibat di dalamnya.
Mm.
Benar, 'kan?
Atau bahwa dia tidak melaporkan
apa yang diketahuinya saat itu, karena jika aku tahu, dia juga tahu.
Benar. Tepat sekali. Aku tahu.
Kau tahu.
Bagaimana aku tahu? Bagaimana Joe Rogan tahu?
Kami membaca sesuatu.
Benar sekali.
Ini agak mirip saat Jack— Jake Tapper menulis buku tentang
upaya menutupi demensia Biden.
Begitulah hal ini.
Yang per— eh, yang pertama
organisasinya adalah makalah Maret 2020 di Journal of Na— Nature.
Medicine, yang ditulis oleh lima
ilmuwan terkemuka dan menyatakan
bahwa tidak ada skenario berbasis lab untuk virus pandemi yang
masuk akal. Namun, belakangan kita tahu melalui
surat panggilan Kongres atas percakapan Slack mereka bahwa meski para
ilmuwan di depan umum menyebut skenarionya
mustahil, secara pribadi, banyak dari penulis menganggap
skenario itu bukan hanya masuk akal,
melainkan sangat mungkin. Jadi, Dr. Fauci dan para ilmuwan yang
menulis artikel itu, Proximal Origin, mereka berbohong.
Memang benar.
Mereka membohongi kita, dan siapa pun yang mempertanyakan dusta mereka
dicap sebagai
rasis.
Dan karier Anda dihancurkan, lalu dia mengirim email tentang cara
membungkam informasi ini,
yang telah dibahas, seperti oleh Jim Jordan
dan sidang-sidang Kongres itu—
Benar sekali.
…dan hal-hal semacam itu. Ya. Ya.
Jadi—
Dan, dan Peter Daszak, orang dari Di— EcoHealth Alliance, adalah bagian
dari penyelidikan WHO ke lab tersebut.
Mereka mengirim enam orang ke lab itu, mengirim mereka ke sana.
Mereka melihat-lihat sekitar, dan tahu apa yang mereka katakan?
Tidak ada apa-apa di sini.
Tidak ada yang perlu dilihat.
Dan tahu apa yang diberitakan media? Kebocoran lab kecil kemungkinannya.
Dan itulah yang diberitakan.
Jadi, aneh sekali aku mengetahui hal ini, lima tahun sebelum The New York
Times. Bukankah itu aneh?
Dan, dan aku. Dan aku bah— bahkan tak punya pekerjaan editorial,
dan aku membacanya, lalu
saat kuselidiki, kulihat artikel lain dan, dan makalah
ilmiah yang mengonfirmasi hal ini.
Itu, itu… Kau tahu, virus itu bahkan tidak berasal dari Wuhan.
Jenis kelelawar itu ada di provinsi Yunnan, yaitu 1.000 mil
di selatan.
Mereka bahkan tidak punya jenis kelelawar itu.
Jadi
salah satu penulis makalah itu, pakar biologi evolusi Christian
Anderson,
dia menulis di pesan Slack-nya—
versi kebocoran laboratorium dari ini sangat amat
mungkin terjadi karena mereka memang sudah melakukan
jenis pekerjaan ini, dan data m— molekuler sepenuhnya konsisten
dengan skenario itu. Itulah yang para ilmuwan
katakan sebenarnya, tetapi
mereka mengatakan hal yang sama sekali berbeda kepada publik.
Fauci membohongimu. The New York Times membohongimu.
The Lancet membohongimu.
Ya.
Majalah Nature membohongimu.
Ya.
Mereka membohongimu. Mereka bukan sekadar menyesatkan.
Namun, ini tetap sulit dipercaya.
Dan tetap tak ada yang kesal karena telah dibohongi.
Tak ada yang kesal.
Tak ada, tak seorang pun yang kukenal yang memilih Demokrat yang kesal— Itu
mereka dibohongi soal COVID, peristiwa terbesar yang pernah terjadi
Aku masih tak paham kenapa kau tidak mengundang dokter arus utama ke acaramu.
A-Aku kedatangan orang di acaraku dan berkata, "Jimmy, kau harus mengundang lebih banyak
dokter arus utama."
Seperti siapa? Peter Hotez?
Aku… Kau benar.
K-Ketakutan, para penulis meminta saran kepada
Jeremy F—
Farrar, kini kepala ilmuwan di WHO.
Oh.
Dalam bukunya, ia mengungkap membeli ponsel sekali pakai.
Oh.
Mm-hmm.
Apa yang dia—
Dan dia mengatur pertemuan untuk, untuk mereka untuk,
dengan para ilmuwan yang sedang
menulis makalah itu untuk membohongimu. Dia mendapatkan…
Jadi orang di WHO ini, dia membeli ponsel sekali pakai,
lalu mengatur pertemuan para ilmuwan itu dengan orang-orang seperti Francis
Collins, mantan kepala NIH, dan orang-orang seperti Anthony Fauci.
Dia membeli ponsel sekali pakai.
Ya ampun, orang-orang memakai Slack dan membeli ponsel sekali pakai?
Ponsel sekali pakai.
Ini yang mereka lakukan? Ini yang dilakukan orang yang in-…
Seperti orang-orang di Ashley Madison, kan?
Seperti, ya— ini yang dilakukan orang yang mau selingkuh,
untuk berselingkuh.
Aku, menurutku setiap otoritas tepercaya di
industri kesehatan harus ketahuan
memakai ponsel sekali pakai. Tak ada yang lebih menunjukkan integritas
selain ponsel sekali pakai.
Dan ini, dan New York Times masih menyebutnya
seolah mereka mungkin sengaja
menyesatkan kita. Mereka menggunakan ponsel sekali pakai.
Ya, ya.
Dan mereka bilang bah—
Ka… Mereka tak mau ketahuan. Sudah jelas sekali.
Itu, itu sudah sangat jelas.
Ya.
Eh,
dokumen yang didapat lewat permohonan catatan publik oleh organisasi nirlaba AS
Right to Know menunjukkan bahwa para ilmuwan akhirnya memutuskan untuk
melanjutkan
makalah itu, jadi akhirnya mereka memutuskan berbohong.
Itulah yang—
Ya.
Itulah yang… Aku bisa menulis ulang ini untuk penulis ini.
Ya, ya.
Ya. Jadi bekerja di balik layar, Farrar meninjau
draf mereka dan menyarankan kepada penulis untuk menepis teori kebocoran
laboratorium secara lebih lugas, lalu mereka menurutinya.
Mm-hmm.
Jadi mereka, mereka, mereka sengaja berbohong.
Jadi s— sekali lagi—
Benar.
Kau, kau p— kau pikir para ilmuwan dan dokter memiliki
semacam
integritas? Mereka bisa dibeli sama seperti orang lain.
Aku tahu.
Sama seperti orang lain, mereka dibeli.
Ugh.
Dan apa yang tak ditulis wanita ini di artikel ini adalah bahwa Dr.
Fauci memberi mereka sekitar delapan atau sembilan juta dolar dalam
dana hibah penelitian—
Benar.
dan lalu mereka sepenuhnya membalikkan cerita mereka.
Benar. Ka-ching, ka-ching.
Ya.
Ya.
Anderson kemudian bersaksi di Kongres bahwa dia hanya merasa yakin bahwa
kebocoran lab, meski secara teori memungkinkan,
tidak masuk akal.
Belakangan, riwayat obrolan yang diperoleh Kongres menunjukkan
penulis utama
makalah membahas cara menyesatkan
pria ini, Donald McNeil Jr., yang sedang meliput asal-
usul pandemi untuk The New York Times. Jadi mereka semua berkumpul—
Mm-hmm.
"Hei, bagaimana cara membohongi The New York Times?"
Mm-hmm.
Ini Dr. Fauci, semua orang itu.
Mm-hmm.
Untuk mengalihkan perhatiannya dari kemungkinan
terjadinya kebocoran lab.
Wah, berita yang menggemparkan.
Ya.
Ini… Maksudku, ini berita menggemparkan saat kulaporkan dua tahun lalu.
End of transcript · 1,312 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
A miracle has happened. The New York Times ran an op-ed acknowledging not only that the COVID virus originated in a lab, but that government officials and scientists conspired to keep the substantiating evidence secret. The lab leak theory was censored on social media
because of pressure from the administration. We shouldn't have done it. Okay, just so you, everybody knows that. So here's from the... I'll s- I'll start, I'll read some of it from the article, right? So
in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the COVID-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the
idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a non-profit called EcoHealth Alliance, which is a CIA cutout, lost a grant because it was planning to conduct
risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, research that if conducted with lax safety standards could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world. No fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31
scientific societies lined up to defend that organization. Mm-hmm. So when the Wuhan research was t- So the, the Wuhan research was totally safe,
and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission. It certainly seemed like consensus. This is the New York Times talking. Yeah. We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid
or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, meaning they lied- Mm-hmm ... orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent
voices, and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. Yeah.
And as- Mm-hmm ... as for the Wuhan laboratory's research, the details that have since emerged show that the safety precautions might have been
terrifyingl- terrifyingly lax. Might have been? I heard they were like a dental office, but anyway. Uh, this is- Yeah ... why, why haven't we learned our lesson?
Maybe because it's hard to admit that this research is risky now, and to take the requisite steps to keep us safe without also admitting it was always risky. Mm-hmm. And perhaps we were misled on purpose. Perhaps.
Even though that we have tons of evidence that they were lying to us. Yeah. This New York Times reporter still says perhaps. Right. Right. Take the real story behind two in, two very influential
publications that quite early in the pandemic cast the lab leak theory as baseless. By the way, this writer is pretending that she wasn't in on it. Mm.
Right? Or that she didn't report what she knew at the time, 'cause if I knew, she knew. Right. That's right. I knew it. You knew it.
How did I know it? How did Joe Rogan know it? We read something. That's right. It's kinda like when Jack- Jake Tapper wrote a book on the Biden dementia coverup.
That's what this is. The f- uh, the first organization was a March 2020 paper in the Journal of Na- Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists and declared
that no laboratory-based scenario for the pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through Congressional subpoenas of their Slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately, many of the authors considered the
scenario to not, to be not just plausible, but likely. So Dr. Fauci and those scientists who wrote that article, the proximal orange, they were lying. They were. They were lying to us, and anybody who questioned their lies
was called a racist. And your career was obliterated, and he sent those emails of how to squash this information, which have been covered, like by Jim Jordan
and those Congress hearings- That's right ... and stuff like that. Yeah. Yeah. So- And, and Peter Daszak, the guy of He- EcoHealth Alliance, was part
of the WHO investigation into the lab. They sent six people into that lab, sent them in there. They looked around, and you know what they said? Nothing to see here. Nothing to see.
And you know what the news reported? Lab leak unlikely. And that's what was reported. This, so, so it's weird that I knew this, uh, five years before The New York Times. Isn't that weird? And, and me. And I w- didn't even have an editorial job,
and I read it, and then when I looked into it, I saw other articles and, and, and proper papers confirming this. The, the... You know that virus didn't even come from Wuhan. That type of bat is in the Yunnan province, which is 1,000 miles
south. They don't even have that type of bat. So one of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Christian Anderson,
she wrote in her Slack message- ... the lab escape version of this is so frigging likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work, and that the m- molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario. That's what the scientists
were actually saying, but they were saying something completely different publicly. Fauci was lying to you. The New York Times was lying to you. The Lancet was lying to you. Yeah.
Nature Magazine was lying to you. Yeah. They were lying to you. They weren't misleading. It's still unbelievable, though. And still nobody's upset that they were lied to.
Nobody's upset. Nobody, nobody I know who's a, who votes Democrat is upset- That they were lied to about COVID, the biggest thing that ever happened I still don't understand why you don't have mainstream doctors on your show. I, I had a guy g- come on my show and said, "Jimmy, you should bring more
mainstream doctors on." Like who? Peter Hotez? I... You right. S- spooked, the authors reached out for advice to Jeremy F-
Farrar, now the chief scientist at the WHO. Oh. In his book, he revealed he acquired a burner phone. Oh. Mm-hmm.
What is he- And he arranged meetings for, for them for, with those scientists who were writing that paper to lie to you. He got... So this guy at the WHO, he got a burner phone,
and then he arranged meetings for those scientists with people like Francis Collins, who was the head of the NIH, and people like Anthony Fauci. He got a burner phone. Oh my God, like people are using Slack and getting burner phones? Burner phones.
This is what they're doing? This is what people do who w-... Like, the Ashley Madison people, right? Like, the b- this is what people do who want affairs, to have affairs. I, I think every trusted authority in the
health industry should be caught using a burner phone. Nothing says integrity more like a burner phone. And this, and the New York Times still refers to it as perhaps they were misleading
us on purpose. They were using burner phones. Yeah, yeah. And they were saying the- You... They don't wanna get busted. It's clear as day. That, that's as clear as day.
Yeah. Uh, documents obtained through public records request by the nonprofit US Right to Know show that the scientists ultimately decided to move ahead
with the paper, so they'd ultimately decided to lie. That's what this- Yeah ... that's what... I can rewrite this for this writer. Yeah, yeah.
Yeah. So operating behind the scenes, Farrar reviewed their draft and suggested to the authors that they rule out the lab leak theory even more directly, and then they complied. Mm-hmm. So they just, they just, they just knowingly lied.
So a- again- Right ... it, you, you th- you think that scientists and doctors have some kind of integrity? They can be bought just like anybody else.
I know. Just like anybody else, they're bought off. Ugh. And so what this woman doesn't write in this article is that Dr. Fauci gave them, like, eight or $9 million in
research grants- Right ... and then they completely flip their story. Right. Ka-ching, ka-ching. Yeah.
Yeah. Anderson later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that the lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later, chat logs obtained by Congress show the
paper's lead authors discussing how to mislead this guy Donald McNeil Jr., who was reporting on the pandemic's or- origin for The New York Times. So they all got together- Mm-hmm
... "Hey, how do we lie to The New York Times?" Mm-hmm. This is Dr. Fauci, all those people. Mm-hmm. So as to throw him off the track about the possibility
of a lab leak. Wow, what a bombshell. Yeah. This... I mean, it was a bombshell when I reported it two years ago
