Dr. Phlip McMillan,  John McMillan

How does a doctor who reportedly saved every COVID-19 patient under his care end up facing a professional tribunal? This isn’t a hypothetical question. It’s the reality for Dr. Shankara Chetty, a clinician from a semi-rural part of South Africa. During the pandemic’s tumultuous early waves, working with limited resources, Dr. Chetty developed a treatment approach that appeared remarkably successful. His reward? Not commendation, but a hearing that challenges his medical reasoning and his outspokenness in questioning the pandemic’s official narrative and treatment protocols. Dr. Chetty’s situation highlights a disturbing trend: the silencing of dissent. But what is the information being suppressed? Enter Charles Rixey, a former US Marine Corps CBRN specialist whose detailed research provides a potential answer, suggesting the official story of COVID-19 is dangerously incomplete. Rixey’s testimony, offered in support of Dr. Chetty and in other investigations, paints a picture not of natural evolution, but of potential laboratory creation and deliberate obfuscation.

Unpacking the Narrative: Rixey’s Analysis

Rixey, a key member of the independent research group DRASTIC, brings a unique military and scientific lens to the pandemic’s origins. His work, compiled from thousands of documents, peer-reviewed studies, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, centers on the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself. He begins by clarifying “gain-of-function” research, referencing the US government’s own definition covering experiments that enhance pathogen danger. Rixey asserts that SARS-CoV-2 meets all seven official criteria, including enhanced transmissibility, altered host range (allowing broader infection), and features potentially disrupting immunity. This alone, he argues, flags the virus as highly unusual.

The core of Rixey’s analysis lies in specific, suspicious elements within the virus’s genetic code. He meticulously details the Furin Cleavage Site (FCS), a sequence absent in SARS-CoV-2’s closest known natural relatives. Rixey describes the FCS as akin to a “master key,” enabling the virus to unlock and infect a far wider array of human cells – explaining its rapid spread and severe, multi-organ impact. He points out that FCS sequences have long been studied in biodefense contexts precisely for their ability to increase pathogenicity. Beyond the FCS, Rixey identifies other anomalies: HIV-like genetic inserts, sequences resembling the potent Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B (SEB) superantigen (a former US bioweapon component), and prion-like domains in the spike protein. He states, “No other SARBECA virus has a polybasic furin cleavage site. No other beta coronavirus has an SEB analog sequence… In all of these ways, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is unique.” The convergence of these features, Rixey contends, strains the likelihood of a purely natural origin. His analysis, using criteria developed by NATO experts, led to the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 would rank as the fourth most attractive potential bioweapon among known agents.

The DEFUSE Proposal: Potential SARS-CoV-2 Blueprint?

Perhaps the most explosive part of Rixey’s testimony involves the DEFUSE proposal. This 2018 grant application, submitted by EcoHealth Alliance (a known collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology) to the US defense agency DARPA, was not publicly known until leaked documents surfaced—documents Rixey helped bring to light via Major Joseph Murphy. Rixey states the proposal explicitly outlines plans to create chimeric coronaviruses with features strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2, including the insertion of “human-specific cleavage sites” (like the FCS) and seeking viruses with high ACE2 affinity and immune-disrupting capabilities. “All five of these elements,” Rixey testified, referring to key DEFUSE goals, “which have never appeared before in the same coronavirus in nature, appear within the SARS-CoV-2 genome.” He argues the US intelligence community and health agencies subsequently hid the existence and contents of this proposal, constituting proof of intent.

Narrative Control and Obstruction

Rixey further details what he describes as a coordinated campaign to control the narrative. He points to the February 1st, 2020 teleconference hosted by Drs. Fauci and Farrar, convened shortly after the FCS and HIV-like inserts became known among certain scientists. Rixey alleges this meeting initiated steps to “censor and control public and scientific discussions” about these very features, leading to the influential “Proximal Origin” paper that asserted a natural source. He presents evidence of suppression in major journals, biased media reporting, and social media censorship, all favoring the natural origin hypothesis. The immense funding leverage of agencies like NIH, Rixey claims, was used to ensure compliance. He characterizes these actions bluntly: “obstruction of justice.”

Implications and the Path Forward

The implications extend to treatments and vaccines. Rixey questions why, against decades of standard practice in vaccine development (including stated Pfizer policy), the FCS was retained in mRNA vaccine prototypes. He notes similarities between the unusual IgG4 immune responses seen in some mRNA vaccine recipients and effects observed in past HIV vaccine trials, potentially linked to the HIV-like inserts Rixey identified in SARS-CoV-2. He raises concerns that these engineered features, combined with the resulting immune dysregulation, might be contributing to rises in aggressive cancers and neurodegenerative conditions.

Dr. Chetty’s ordeal, viewed through the lens of Rixey’s research, appears less an isolated case of professional disagreement and more a casualty of a larger, potentially orchestrated effort to suppress inconvenient truths about the virus’s origin and nature. Rixey’s sworn testimony, derived from years of meticulous investigation, challenges the foundations of the official pandemic narrative. His conclusions, he acknowledges, “involve implications that are horrific.”

As investigations continue, Rixey remains prepared to testify, asserting the veracity of his evidence. His work demands we ask uncomfortable questions: Was SARS-CoV-2 a product of lab research? Was there a concerted effort to hide its origins? Are current medical strategies fully accounting for the virus’s unique, potentially engineered features? For the public and the medical community, the path forward requires demanding transparency and supporting rigorous, unbiased investigation, no matter where the evidence leads. The truth, as Rixey’s efforts underscore, must be pursued relentlessly.

Reference:  Is silence better than the truth?