{"id":269065,"date":"2023-07-24T11:25:54","date_gmt":"2023-07-24T09:25:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269065"},"modified":"2023-07-24T11:25:56","modified_gmt":"2023-07-24T09:25:56","slug":"who-ordered-the-lab-leak-cover-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269065","title":{"rendered":"Who Ordered the Lab Leak Cover-Up?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0WILL JONES<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Who instigated the cover-up of the lab leak theory of Covid\u2019s origins? Many of us have assumed it was\u00a0Anthony Fauci<\/a>, then-Director of the\u00a0U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). However,\u00a0newly released<\/a>\u00a0emails<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0messages<\/a>\u00a0indicate that initially Fauci was open to investigating the possibility of a lab leak properly. Following his now infamous February 1st 2020 teleconference with leading virologists Kristian Andersen, Eddie Holmes and others, Fauci wrote to several Government officials to inform them that Jeremy Farrar, the Director of the Wellcome Trust, and Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, had been tasked with contacting the WHO to set up an international investigation group into virus origins with \u201cno judgement at all\u201d on the outcome. \u201cWhere that leads remains to be seen,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Fauci writes that some of the scientists on the call deemed a lab origin possible or likely, doing so even \u201cmore strongly\u201d after the call, while just two said they believed such a scenario could be ruled out (these were Ron Fouchier and Christian Drosten). Fauci thus presents the matter to Government colleagues as an unresolved scientific argument, with a number of scientists favouring a lab origin. The main course of action he proposes is to organise a group under the auspices of the WHO to look into it in an impartial way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following day, Collins wrote to Farrar to confirm he was following this up with WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Collins told Farrar he was \u201ccoming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely\u201d but said it needed to be looked into by the WHO \u2013 though also added that he \u201cshares your view\u201d that this is mainly to be a \u201cconfidence-inspiring\u201d initiative to pre-empt \u201cvoices of conspiracy\u201d that would otherwise do \u201cgreat potential harm to science and international harmony\u201d. This does suggest a non-neutral political agenda being pursued, much more so than Fauci\u2019s email of the day before, an agenda apparently being driven by Farrar.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

What happened next is crucial. The impartial investigation Fauci proposed never took place. What happened instead was that on February 3rd \u2013 two days after the teleconference and Fauci\u2019s email \u2013 another teleconference was convened, this one hosted by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS). This was in response to requests from the U.S. Government for scientific advice on the origin of the virus. Fauci was invited to give the \u201cperspective from NIH\/NIAID\u201d ahead of an open discussion. The proposed output prior to the meeting appears to have been a \u201cbased on science\u201d web posting, not unlike what Andersen and others were already working on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

However, the following day an email went out from Andrew Pope, an official in the NAS, saying the \u201cplans have changed\u201d and in place of a \u2018based on science\u2019 web posting there was now to be a statement signed by the Presidents of the three National Academies and sent to the Government. It appears that this change was what was agreed at the teleconference, though that is not completely clear as the email doesn\u2019t specify who the \u201cwe\u201d are who now think the original plan is not \u201cappropriate\u201d. What makes it likely it was agreed at the teleconference is that the email does not seem to expect anyone to object to the change and assumes all are on board with the new proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

As can be seen below, the statement from the NAS (in the form of a letter) claims to have consulted relevant scientific specialists (this presumably was what the teleconference was doing) and reports from them a consensus that the available genomic data are \u201cconsistent with natural evolution\u201d and there is \u201cno evidence\u201d the virus was engineered. This is not a fair summary of the conversations the scientists were actually having at the time, of course. Rather, it represents a political effort to shut down the lab origin theory \u2013 the beginning of such an effort, in fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Kristian Andersen was involved in both the Fauci teleconference of February 1st and the NAS teleconference of February 3rd, and interestingly his contribution after the latter was to push for the statement to be stronger on rejecting the idea that the virus was engineered, claiming that the \u201cdata conclusively show\u201d that it wasn\u2019t. This is despite him being a\u00a0key voice<\/a>\u00a0both before and after this arguing that a lab origin can\u2019t be ruled out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Andersen seemed to take a very different attitude two weeks later, when\u00a0Nature\u00a0<\/em>rejected the\u00a0first version<\/a>\u00a0of the \u2018Proximal Origin\u2019 paper because one of the reviewers (who was never publicly identified) said it was\u00a0not strong enough<\/a>\u00a0on dismissing a lab origin. Andersen responded (on February 20th) with a\u00a0robust\u00a0defence of not dismissing the possibility of a lab origin,\u00a0saying the evidence didn\u2019t allow ruling it out and it \u201cmust be considered as a serious scientific theory\u201d. It seems odd that this is the same scientist who was urging the NAS to go further in dismissing a lab origin. The most likely explanation is that Andersen is making an obscure distinction between an engineered virus and a virus that originated in a lab from serial passage through cell culture. This is a distinction that will be lost on most people, and indeed some of the scientists in the email discussions themselves said the distinction was not valid in this context. Andersen\u2019s arguments ruling out engineering are also\u00a0not sound<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018Proximal Origin\u2019 paper was then amended to reject a lab origin more strongly before being accepted for publication in\u00a0Nature Medicine<\/a><\/em>. Andersen told the House Pandemic Subcommittee that he had changed his view on the possibility of a lab origin between the rejection and re-submission, which must therefore have occurred between February 20th and 27th. However, as the team at\u00a0Public<\/a><\/em>\u00a0have shown, it\u2019s clear that Andersen did still think a lab origin (including engineering) was plausible after this date. On April 16th he wrote to his co-authors: \u201cI\u2019m still not fully convinced that\u00a0no\u00a0culture was involved. We also can\u2019t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).\u201d It\u2019s apparent\u00a0from Andersen\u2019s messages<\/a>\u00a0that pressure to reject a lab origin came from \u2018higher-ups\u2019 and he was either feigning rejecting the theory or had artificially talked himself into it for a period of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So who did orchestrate the suppression of the lab origin theory? We can now see for the first time when precisely the cover-up began. It began with the NAS teleconference on February 3rd and not, as many have previously assumed, with the Fauci teleconference on February 1st. This is clear because while Fauci came away from his teleconference proposing an impartial investigation \u201cwith no judgement\u201d to see \u201cwhere that leads\u201d, the outcome of the NAS teleconference was an explicit plan to dismiss a lab origin and artificially claim consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who made that decision? It seems to have been something agreed at the NAS teleconference. But who pushed it in that direction, and why did scientists like Andersen endorse it despite not really being in agreement? Indeed, Andersen and Co were still trying to get a lab theory into\u00a0Nature\u00a0<\/em>on February 20th, only abandoning it because a hostile reviewer insisted the possibility be ruled out. So despite Andersen, Holmes and others stating at times in their private messages that they are keen to try to disprove the lab idea, they don\u2019t appear to be the instigators of the cover-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is possible Fauci suddenly changed his mind overnight, but it also seems unlikely, at least without some pressure put on him from elsewhere. So he does not seem to be the original source of the suppression idea, even if he soon became a ruthless enforcer of it \u2013 though we\u2019d need to know more about his role at the NAS teleconference to know for sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also seems unlikely to be the biodefence people like\u00a0Robert Kadlec<\/a>, as Kadlec was and continues to be a lab leak proponent, being the main author of the recent\u00a0Muddy Waters\u00a0<\/em>Senate report<\/a>\u00a0pushing the theory. U.S. security services are known to have been involved in pushing lab origin theories right from the start of January 2020. Why they were doing that is not fully clear, but it may relate to wanting to paint China as the villain and upping the fear of the virus as a potential biological agent to allow activation of biodefence protocols. It\u2019s fair to say that the clash between the security services pushing the lab origin theory and the suppression of that theory by other parts of the state, and even at times by the security services themselves, has been one of the more confusing aspects of the pandemic origin picture. It might be thought, for example, that the biodefence people would want to protect their biodefence research and not jeopardise it by convincing everyone that the virus could have come from such research. But this doesn\u2019t appear to be the case, at least not for all of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So whom does that leave? Farrar seems a prime suspect, as it was him who seems to have been persuading Francis Collins of the importance of avoiding \u201charm to science and international harmony\u201d by dismissing a lab origin. But a glance at the NAS teleconference invite list below indicates he doesn\u2019t appear to have been involved (unless he was blind copied). EcoHealth Alliance\u2019s Peter Daszak is on there, but why would he have authority to demand a cover-up? Ralph Baric is also there, whose\u00a0paper<\/a>\u00a0with the Wuhan Institute of Virology\u2019s Shi Zhengli on manipulating coronaviruses had so startled Andersen. But what authority would he have in this group?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps then it was just a groupthink that took over during the teleconference out of a misplaced sense of needing to protect \u201cscience and international harmony\u201d. But is groupthink really sufficient to explain such a powerful and sustained move to suppress the theory?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite all the effort that has gone into investigating Covid origins, this key question remains outstanding. Who ordered the cover-up?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Who instigated the cover-up of the lab leak theory of Covid\u2019s origins? Many of us have assumed it was\u00a0Anthony Fauci, then-Director of the\u00a0U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":269082,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691821310,691821311,691821312,691821313,691821314,691820304],"class_list":{"0":"post-269065","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-anthony-fauci-2","9":"tag-conspiracy-theories","10":"tag-covid-origins","11":"tag-lab-leak","12":"tag-sir-jeremy-farrar","13":"tag-united-states","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0UXZKXJET2ZHIBCPAMHQ7NLCYFM.jpg?fit=1600%2C1066&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-17ZL","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":258643,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258643","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":0},"title":"Pentagon Debunked Fauci\u2019s Anti-Lab-Leak \u2018Proximal Origin\u2019 Paper in May 2020, Leaked Document Reveals","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/22\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Researchers at the U.S. Department of Defence wrote a devastating\u00a0takedown\u00a0of the Proximal Origin\u00a0study,\u00a0which was used by Dr. Anthony Fauci as proof that the COVID-19 virus had come from nature.\u00a0The\u00a0Epoch Times\u00a0has the story.","rel":"","context":"In \"COVID-19\"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=covid-19"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/02022.07.20-12.48-lifezette-62d7f987339a5.jpg?fit=1200%2C627&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/02022.07.20-12.48-lifezette-62d7f987339a5.jpg?fit=1200%2C627&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/02022.07.20-12.48-lifezette-62d7f987339a5.jpg?fit=1200%2C627&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/02022.07.20-12.48-lifezette-62d7f987339a5.jpg?fit=1200%2C627&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/02022.07.20-12.48-lifezette-62d7f987339a5.jpg?fit=1200%2C627&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250156,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250156","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":1},"title":"Stanford Blocking Wind of Freedom","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/29\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The evidence points to a para-governmental fusion of universities, social media companies,and the federal government, all working to censor free speech.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1239.png?fit=1200%2C514&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1239.png?fit=1200%2C514&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1239.png?fit=1200%2C514&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1239.png?fit=1200%2C514&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-1239.png?fit=1200%2C514&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329155,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329155","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":2},"title":"Jail the Deniers? British Environmentalist Demands Criminal Sanctions","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/15\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Andrew Doyle clashes with environmentalist demanding climate denial is criminalised: \u2018Tyranny by stealth!\u2019","rel":"","context":"In \"Andrew Doyle\"","block_context":{"text":"Andrew Doyle","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=andrew-doyle"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-15-155844.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-15-155844.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-15-155844.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-15-155844.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0Screenshot-2024-05-15-155844.png?fit=1200%2C602&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246342,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=246342","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":3},"title":"10 Times Covid Experts Failed Us","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives in the face of new evidence.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-37.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-37.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-37.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-37.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-37.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262649,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=262649","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":4},"title":"Covid \u2018Patient Zero\u2019 Was Wuhan Lab Worker Infected in November 2019, U.S. Government Sources Claim. Really?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/17\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Following the\u00a0Sunday Times\u00a0story\u00a0sourced from \u201cU.S. investigators\u201d that COVID-19 was an escaped virus from Chinese bioweapon research, now a leak to journalists\u00a0Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger\u00a0purports to name the three Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers who were \u2018patient zero\u2019 \u2013 the first to be infected with the virus in November 2019.","rel":"","context":"In \"China\"","block_context":{"text":"China","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=china"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0fc95afa5-03b2-441d-be51-b252465caa8f_2514x1742.jpg?fit=1200%2C832&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0fc95afa5-03b2-441d-be51-b252465caa8f_2514x1742.jpg?fit=1200%2C832&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0fc95afa5-03b2-441d-be51-b252465caa8f_2514x1742.jpg?fit=1200%2C832&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0fc95afa5-03b2-441d-be51-b252465caa8f_2514x1742.jpg?fit=1200%2C832&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0fc95afa5-03b2-441d-be51-b252465caa8f_2514x1742.jpg?fit=1200%2C832&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254261,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=254261","url_meta":{"origin":269065,"position":5},"title":"China \u201cBegan Developing Two Covid Vaccines\u201d Before Outbreak","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/23\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Chinese researchers may have begun developing two Covid vaccines in November 2019, before the official start of the outbreak, a U.S. Senate report has claimed. The Telegraph has more.","rel":"","context":"In \"China\"","block_context":{"text":"China","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=china"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0091843.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0091843.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0091843.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0091843.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0091843.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=269065"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269084,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269065\/revisions\/269084"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/269082"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=269065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=269065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=269065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}