Skip to main content

Origin Of Covid Investigation And How Media Shut It Down

Image
By

The first person to take a serious look at the origins of the SARS2 virus was Yuri Deigin, a biotech entrepreneur in Russia and Canada. In a long and brilliant essay, he dissected the molecular biology of the SARS2 virus and raised, without endorsing, the possibility that it had been manipulated. The essay, published on April 22, 2020, provided a roadmap for anyone seeking to understand the virus’s origins. Deigin packed so much information and analysis into his essay that some have doubted it could be the work of a single individual and suggested some intelligence agency must have authored it. But the essay is written with greater lightness and humor than I suspect are ever found in CIA or KGB reports, and I see no reason to doubt that Dr. Deigin is its very capable sole author.

In Deigin’s wake have followed several other skeptics of the virologists’ orthodoxy. Nikolai Petrovsky calculated how tightly the SARS2 virus binds to the ACE2 receptors of various species and found to his surprise that it seemed optimized for the human receptor, leading him to infer the virus might have been generated in a laboratory. Alina Chan published a paper showing that SARS2 from its first appearance was very well adapted to human cells.

One of the very few establishment scientists to have questioned the virologists’ absolute rejection of lab escape is Richard Ebright, who has long warned against the dangers of gain-of-function research. Another is David A. Relman of Stanford University. β€œEven though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts,” he wrote. Kudos too to Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who told CNN on March 26, 2021 that the β€œmost likely” cause of the epidemic was β€œfrom a laboratory,” because he doubted that a bat virus could become an extreme human pathogen overnight, without taking time to evolve, as seemed to be the case with SARS2.

Steven Quay, a physician-researcher, has applied statistical and bioinformatic toolsto ingenious explorations of the virus’s origin, showing for instance how the hospitals receiving the early patients are clustered along the Wuhan β„–2 subway line which connects the Institute of Virology at one end with the international airport at the other, the perfect conveyor belt for distributing the virus from lab to globe.

In June 2020 Milton Leitenberg published an early survey of the evidence favoring lab escape from gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


More from Nicholas Wade

I'm a science writer and have worked on the staff of Nature, Science and, for many years, on the New York Times. nicholaswade@yahoo.com



Published in Science magazine, the report also slams the recent World Health Organization investigation for basing itself on faulty evidence and not sufficiently debunking the theory that the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

β€œThe information, data, and samples for the study’s first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as β€œlikely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as β€œextremely unlikely.” Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident.”

β€œWe must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data,” the letter posits. β€œPublic health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public,” it continues.

Among the signatories are professors from institutions including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. Dr. Ralph Baric – whose gain-of-function research record and ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were recently discussed in an exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Senator Rand Paul – also signed the letter.

American spy officials said Wednesday that the intelligence community is still unsure how the coronavirus first spread to human populations, though they are confident that the Chinese government has not been transparent about the matter.

β€œThe intelligence community does not know exactly where, when or how COVID-19 virus was transmitted initially,” Avril Haines, the director for national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing on global national security threats.

She had been asked by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the vice-chairman of the Senate panel, about the possibility that the virus emerged from a leak in a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (RELATED: Here’s Why The Lab Leak Theory Shouldn’t Be Dismissed)

Haines said that the intelligence committee has focused on two theories about the origins of the virus.

β€œThese scenarios are it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, or it was a lab accident,” Haines said.

A new report in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, most commonly known for operating the β€œDoomsday Clock,” suggests the left-dominated media and β€œTrump derangement syndrome” has led to critical questions about the origins of COVID-19 being avoided, ignored, and ultimately led more to suffer.

Writing this week, former science correspondent for the New York TimesNicholas Wade concluded:

To these serried walls of silence must be added that of the mainstream media. To my knowledge, no major newspaper or television network has yet provided readers with an in-depth news story of the lab escape scenario, such as the one you have just read, although some have run brief editorials or opinion pieces. One might think that any plausible origin of a virus that has killed three million people would merit a serious investigation. Or that the wisdom of continuing gain-of-function research, regardless of the virus’s origin, would be worth some probing. Or that the funding of gain-of-function research by the NIH and NIAID during a moratorium on such research would bear investigation. What accounts for the media’s apparent lack of curiosity?

He added:

Another reason, perhaps, is the migration of much of the media toward the left of the political spectrum. Because President Trump said the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, editors gave the idea little credence. They joined the virologists in regarding lab escape as a dismissible conspiracy theory. During the Trump administration, they had no trouble in rejecting the position of the intelligence services that lab escape could not be ruled out. But when Avril Haines, President Biden’s director of national intelligence, said the same thing, she too was largely ignored. This is not to argue that editors should have endorsed the lab escape scenario, merely that they should have explored the possibility fully and fairly.

Corporate Media Shut Down The Conversation and Called It False Without Investigating and Taking The WHO’s Word For It. 

CNN Jake Tapper dismisses it as conspiracy without evidence on February 16, 2020


AP who just discredited themselves by getting outted as shacking up with Hamas in Gaza has this fact check up currently. πŸ‘‡πŸ» 


Reuters Ran A Story Dismissing The Lab Leak as recent as March 29, 2021.  A few weeks later on May14, 2021 they changed their tune. 


NPR a government subsided media outlet that is supposed to deliver bi-partisan analysis and journalism calls the lab theory β€œA Bonkers QAnon Conspiracy Theory” without any investigation on the topic on December 31, 2020. 


Jack Dorseys Twitter banned ZeroHedge because of their reporting on the possibility that the Covid-19 was a lab made virus in January 2020 trying to shut down the conversation at the very start of it. 


Within the last week the corporate media is on twitter and wants to start getting credit for starting to look into this story. 

They also want to be given credit for realizing that labeling the story β€œdisinformation” and trying to shut down the conversation was a bad idea. 


New York Mag Story πŸ‘‡πŸ»

The Lab-Leak Hypothesis

For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if …?


MIT Technology Review πŸ‘‡πŸ»

Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19

A group of prominent biologists say there needs to be a β€œsafe space” for asking whether the coronavirus came out of a lab.

by Rowan Jacobsen
 

And I will also take the liberty of patting myself on the back since I was correct to follow this led from the start.


🚨🚨 It Came From The Wuhan Level 4 Bio Lab! 

- April 14, 2020 112 Comments112 Comments112 Comments

 

 It Came From The Wuhan Level 4 Bio Lab- Posted By June at the Bull Ring




UPDATE: From Josh Rogin Who Wrote About This in WAPO last year.

Fact Checked by his own and the papers current stance.  πŸ‘‡πŸ»

 

Popular posts from this blog

Supermarket duopoly:

By
Supermarket duopoly: What Nicola Willis’ adviser thinks about breaking up Foodstuffs and Woolworths – JenΓ©e Tibshraeny Hope Nicola delivers Kai costs too much https://t.co/67ud2Et75x β€” Shane te Pou (@PouTepou) March 30, 2025
Post a Comment
Read more