Virologist Who Told Dr. Fauci Coronavirus Was Likely Engineered and Got Paid After Backtracking on Claims – Just Deleted 5,000 Tweets — Then DELETED ENTIRE ACCOUNT

  Kristian Andersen – Scripps Research On  February 1, 2020 ,  Dr. Kristian Andersen  emailed  Dr. Fauci  and passed on the  findings from s...

 

Kristian Andersen – Scripps Research

On February 1, 2020, Dr. Kristian Andersen emailed Dr. Fauci and passed on the findings from several doctors that the coronavirus had “unusual features” that “potentially look engineered.”

Fauci was notified that the virus was not naturally occurring.
But he denied this information pubicly for over a year!

Here is a copy of the email.

What was interesting is that two months later Dr. Andersen reversed course and published his “proximal Origin” paper where he helped shield NIH/NIAID and Dr. Fauci from potential probes into gain of function funding.

Also why did Dr. Fauci have such a need to promote the report promoting a report “Baric, Shi, et al – Nature medicine – SARS gain of function.pdf.” Fauci sent it out to colleagues as “IMPORTANT” to defend their actions with funding gain of function research.

And then five months after that Dr. Kristian Andersen received $1.88 million in CREID funding from the NIH.

Now internet sleuths have discovered Dr. Kristian Anderson is deleting his tweets — 5,000 of them!

Holy Smokes!

Via CHT:

AND NOW Dr. Kristian Andersen DELETED HIS ACCOUNT!

Read this entire report at Indeki.com:

A California virologist who told Anthony Fauci that COVID-19 looks ‘potentially engineered’ and ‘inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory’ – only to later reverse course and publish a ‘natural origin’ paper 8 weeks later (before receiving a multi million-dollar NIH grant) has deleted more than 5,000 tweets.

Kristian G. Anderson who runs the Andersen Lab in La Jolla, CA, wrote in a Feb. 1 email to Fauci “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, less than 0.1 percent, so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” adding that he and his team found “the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”