The Oxford Old Boys' Club

What do George Gao (Gao Fu - 高福, China DCD Director), Jeremy Farrar, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut (Prox O), and Michael Worobey have in common - apart from the obvious - that they were all key figures in prosecuting the PR war against lab-leak speculation?

They were all Oxford and/or Wellcome buddies together in the 90’s. 

George Gao: 1991-2004

Jeremy Farrar: 1994-present

Eddie Holmes: 1994-2004 

Andrew Rambaut: 199?-1997

Michael Worobey*: 1997-2003

(*Worobey attempted to mount a rescue mission for the failing natural zoonosis theory when he published his silly Patient-Zero paper claiming the first infection was a person who attended the market in early Dec. Nobody, not even CCP officials, think Covid began in early Dec. Frighteningly, Worobey got the usual blanket media promotion for this fringe-theory claim which was platformed by Science - one of the advantages of being part of a powerful Oxford old boys’ clique. You say it - doesn’t matter how illogical - they publish it - like it’s the word of God.)

All of the above cohorters remain good friends to this day. Together they leveraged their enormous power to plot, then prosecute the cover-up. 

Oxford appears to be HQ for the Covid Atrocity - but it doesn't stop there. Each of these actors have close friendships with other key experts from around the world who were integrally involved. For example, Holmes and Rambaut are regular collaborators with Kristian Andersen, who is good friends with Garry.  Farrar is good friends with Francis Collins and Fauci.  George Gao, in particular, is a very friendly guy:

Lipkin (Prox O) 27:40: I have so many close friends in China who I care about and who care about me and -  you know - when you break bread with somebody over a period of 17 years ..I’m confident that if I hear something from..(others &) George Gao - they’re telling me what they know. 

Great. So you all knew what George knew, right?  As George is head of China CDC - that's everything there was to know. How about release that scientific correspondence? Assuming you're all telling the truth it will help to restore the public's waning faith in the science experts! But you'll never do that, will you? Why not?