Who Is Poornima Wagh? And Why Is The "Press" Doing Such A Poor Job Vetting Stories?
Who Is Poornima Wagh? And Why Is The "Press" Doing Such A Poor Job Vetting Stories?
Vetting the subject is Journalism 101. When you cannot corroborate a story, you halt, question each of the points put forward which lack verification, and lead with the lack of substantiation.
Brand new on the zero isolation scene, Poornima Wagh, who allegedly holds two Ph.D.s, one in Virology and one in Immunology, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (the WHO’s Tedros Ghebreyesus’s alma mater whose top donors include the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and the WHO), has hit the ground running as the new whistleblower “it girl,” whose lab studies allegedly blow the lid off of the entire virology lie.
The problem is Wagh is not exactly saying anything new. So, I have to ask… why Poornima Wagh, who is she, and why now?
What she does say has some rather gaping plot holes so far. Her backstory comes complete with a dramatic account of an alleged FBI raid of a lab on the campus of a Texas university on April 25, 2021.
Wagh won’t identify which university it was or name the people who were present at that time, and yet the press is relaying her story as if it were corroborated and verified fact set in stone.
Similar to both Eric Coppolino and Bill Huston, I have not been able to corroborate a single piece of this Texas university “FBI raid” story, so I wasn’t surprised to hear that their searches for corroborating info met with the same fate.
If it should happen that corroboration for this story does emerge, I am more than happy to put that forward; however, the truth of the matter is that I have been looking for DAYS just about non-stop, and I cannot find a single shred of proof of this alleged “FBI raid” on a Texas university lab at all... not from the FBI’s own news page on their website, not from college kids posting images of some alleged raid on a Texas campus lab on Twitter, not even in the local, regional, or national news, despite at least 22 universities being under heavy scrutiny right now for alleged ties to Wuhan, including the Galveston National Laboratory at University of Texas.
There was literally NOTHING THERE.
An FBI raid on a college lab on campus just up and disappears?
How is that even possible?
In fact, EVERY part of this story that I attempt to corroborate leads me to a massive bacon nothing burger with cheese.
But, how are we the only ones saying so?
Is everyone else’s Google finger broken?
Eric Coppolino’s assertion that Exposé News should have done a much better job with their due diligence is spot on. If Exposé News should choose to refer to themselves as "press," they will need to begin properly vetting the stories they put forward. EN even mentions they couldn't corroborate Wagh’s background, openly admitting to leaning on her own account of such as “proof” - while simultaneously propping up the story with an unquestioning headline, claiming this happened for rote and acting like it is straight gospel.
There is no excuse for that.
Vetting the subject is Journalism 101. When you cannot corroborate, you halt and question each of the points put forward which lack verification. You then look for any corroboration you might be able to find prior to publishing - at least, this is what we used to do in “the before times” when ethical rules of engagement still applied.
If there was so much trouble corroborating the story, why not lead with that rather than propping up the potential fabrication as if it were gospel with a diminished half-sentence of doubt buried somewhere in the commentary with zero impact on the presentation of the veracity of the story itself?
I say this to the rest of the so-called “press” as well: Apparently, there is no more Fourth Estate. There is barely a Fifth Estate left trying to make up for the failures of the Fourth to effectively circumvent the controllers’ flat out ownership of the media and orchestration of the vast majority of the censorship on mainstream social media platforms as well.
The Fifth Estate has been so heavily infiltrated by controlled opposition that we’d require a Sixth Estate to emerge, but other than a few seemingly abandoned websites espousing the idea, a la Dreamy Manifesto with a Side of Crickets and Pipe Dreams, most of our content creators are busy occupying the frogisphere, memeing the downfall of civilization while roasting marshmallows on its dying embers.
I’m not sure if McLuhan would be proud or rolling over in his grave.
The majority of "journalists" nowadays are seemingly incapable of either doing any semblance of investigative journalism or of retaining their positions at their publications if they have the audacity to make the attempt. (In fact, there were a wave of such journalists back in 2016 and 2017 who, like Caitlin Johnstone and David Seaman, were fired for their valiant attempts to perform actual investigative journalism; their struggles were instrumental in creating the self-publishing push we’ve seen a la Medium and Substack since then as a result.)
So, is this complete lack of proper vetting a product of journalistic incompetence or is this some kind of complicity in making sure that the tale is told even if the details cannot be corroborated?
Was the author told to run with the story in this manner by the publication itself or was the author looped in on exactly what was going on?
Why would the author agree to publishing a piece without corroboration?
I have questions. So very many questions.
You know, journalists and researchers and scientists are supposed to have questions. This is how we used to acquire answers before mass censorship… by asking questions and then reporting on the answers we observed or received. And then we asked more questions. This is how it works. So, unlike “the press,” I will ask my questions here….
Where did Poornima Wagh come from all of a sudden?
Why does her arrival on the scene coincide almost exactly with the announcement of the Virus Debate?
How did someone with a background in finance and economics end up landing a job as a clinical lab scientist with no prior science background?
How does someone end up with two Ph.D.s never having been published?
Is it normal for someone unemployed with a completely different educational skill set to just casually pop in and out of a biolab to help out with research?
Is someone providing funding in an attempt to propel her to the front of the discussion? If so, why?
How did this person we’ve never heard of before manage to generate SEVEN MILLION “organic” backlinks in one month never having been published and being just about a phantom online otherwise? Let’s put this into perspective: A campaign like that takes massive money or loads and loads of influencer level contacts. Something like this would be impossible for a no name without massive funds to do this, and that's not what I saw - the only semi-big names picking up the message have been the interviewers and their guests, and no offense - but frankly, none of these have reach enough to get the job done to accomplish these numbers in that very short amount of time without throwing money at the problem. Honestly, you’d have to be someone like Joe Rogan to achieve numbers like these - and not even Rogan does it organically.
Have you ever tried producing 7M organic backlinks in a month on zero funding? If you think you can do it, I challenge you to try. I, myself, have a background in digital marketing. If you can pull this off without funding, you should be making millions as the head of your own boutique marketing firm, because that kind of track record would be BEYOND IMPRESSIVE, especially in the current media climate, notorious for censoring all non-mainstream messaging that doesn’t fit the top-down propaganda constraints of the top five Hegelian dialectics currently in play (including the alleged existence of viruses and their alleged ability to spread contagion).
If there is funding behind propelling this story of the “FBI lab raid,” where is the money coming from? There's no way anyone prior would have been able to push this heretofore highly censored and gatekept message through this quickly with seven million “organic” backlinks and hits without a massive Operation Mockingbird-style campaign push. And surprise, surprise - if you start digging into the backlinks and the video reposts, this is exactly what you start to find... massive repetition of messaging and all of these little one-off accounts mirroring the same exact message with only 100-300 views apiece. It has the appearance of what one would see looking at the output from a bot farm.
So, who is she and how was she “chosen” for forward propulsion into a “debate” which already has a host of well-known, verifiable scientific veterans who have done the work and do not get the clinical lab processes incorrect in the retelling?
Why is she refusing to interview with the people who are already putting forward the same information? Would it not stand to reason that she would want to align herself with her allies? Why does she see these people as competition instead of allies, refusing their phone calls, and then, once capitulating to taking phone calls, altering the retelling of their tones in interactions with her in order to pit other allies against each other by claiming to have been treated unkindly? What would the goal be in doing that?
How did she end up in an interview with Fuellmich on her third time out the gate with zero scientific publications and no corroborating evidence for her FBI lab raid story?
Why is no one discussing Fuellmich’s ties to Soros and Open Society as well as the Gates Foundation?
0: https://bit.ly/3e39W8k
1: https://bit.ly/3sKS41S (scrubbed)
2 & 3: https://bit.ly/3swtZ60
4: https://bit.ly/3gOhcWU
5: https://bit.ly/3BlenGg
6: https://bit.ly/3JphShR
7: https://archive.ph/fEsow
8: https://bit.ly/3GH9Mj3
9: https://bit.ly/3gJmkvD
10: https://archive.ph/5838d
11: https://archive.fo/s2xtN
Why, instead of choosing to take interviews with people seemingly on the same side as she was, would she instead take interviews with people who have ties to Soros and Gates who ignored previously the people attempting to impart the same message?
Despite everyone's utter lack of ability to corroborate this FBI story, how is this person somehow the one being propped up as the voice of zero isolation after all of these other doctors and scientists with verifiable track records and backgrounds have been speaking up about zero proof of isolation of viruses for the past two years straight (in some cases even longer), putting their livelihoods on the line in order to do so, and the so-called press receives them with less than a chorus of crickets?
Why was it necessary for Fuellmich to engage with a person with an unverifiable story when other verifiable doctors and scientists have already presented the zero isolation data to Fuellmich himself? Why is Fuellmich suddenly open to taking this information in for consideration from an alleged scientist with a heretofore unverifiable story instead of considering the data presented to him by well-known verifiable science veterans who already provided him with this information months ago? Why didn’t Fuellmich take the data from widely respected virologist Lanka into consideration at that time? This information was already put forward to ALL relevant parties in the Corona Committee. Why choose NOW to adopt this position or explore it?
Did the controllers see there was no way to keep this argument out of the Overton window? Did the controllers choose to adopt the argument and then kill it in order to control it? Is this a push to prop her up on a false story in order to discredit her to tear down the entire zero isolation argument overall? Is this a play to offer up a sacrificial patsy to get crucified in front of everyone in the mainstream in order to get this zero isolation mess mopped up so that they can continue with their usual Hegelian dialectic programming unhindered?
What is the angle here? Why this person and why NOW?
And where is the proof that this alleged “FBI lab raid” even occurred?
Here’s the thing that really stands out: Wagh is not saying anything new. At all. Which is what makes the alt-media’s urge to glom onto her now, at this stage in the game, so unbelievably sticky and perplexing.
If anything, there are massive plot holes in the ways she recounts having done the lab work, and if you listen closely, she blatantly contradicts her own accounts of the history of virology on several occasions.
Sometimes as she’s talking you can tell she realizes she doesn't know enough about a topic, whether it’s differentiation between Koch’s postulates and Rivers’ criteria or it’s the flub of making the claim that she did a true isolation while in the next breath she admits to having used a medium that would alter the outcome of the experiment in a way that could no longer be considered a pure isolation, then she jumps into another topic rapid fire, seemingly hoping that no one will notice.
This is what we're up against getting the real messages out. Censorship is coming from a concerted push to keep the messages that are not gatekept out of the general public discourse. Only accepted narratives from either "side" get through and the false notion of even having "sides" at all is utilized to make any other argument that exists outside the parameters of the frame seem too far out in left field to entertain. Covering all of this for rote without questioning it is NOT journalism.
This is happening from all political angles. Even the alleged free speech sites are gatekeeping messages by inhibiting newcomers from growing their audiences unencumbered and offering their opinions unhindered.
In my opinion, the reason zero isolation is being dragged into the Overton window now is to bury a knife in its chest on mass display.
This situation, as well as those like it as, for instance, Huston has pointed out in reference to Gunnels allegedly having several different identities that he uses that no one vetted before propping up his story as unquestionable truth either, requires people like the rest of us, people who are not potentially gatekeepers and controlled opposition, to come forward and actually say what everyone else is thinking, especially when we are at our wits’ end with, at best, this display of sheer incompetence by the press, and at worst, the lack of any coverage whatsoever on a potential conspiracy to prop up people, or even fictitious characters, who might be serving as controllable no-names at the center of a "debate" that the Powers That Be are attempting to mop up having failed to keep clear of controlled public discourse.
And I use the term “debate” loosely. There is no debate. There is no proof that any biological matter that has ever been referred to as a “virus” has ever exhibited qualities proving that “contagion” exists to begin with.
Are you going to report on this correctly, Fourth and Fifth Estates? Still waiting. Tick tock. If you were competent or honest, no one would feel the need to get in your lane. And yet, here we are. In your lane. Having to call you out for not doing anywhere near what the responsibilities of your jobs entail. Yet again.
Here’s my last question, “press” - and perhaps it’s the most important one I have: Why don’t you do your jobs for once so that the rest of us don’t have to pick up the slack?
https://moonmaiden.substack.com/p/is-fuellmich-positioning-to-prop