For nearly two years, there was a complete ban on discussing the COVID-19 lab leak theory
Facebook reversed its censorship policy on the lab leak theory in June 2021. Now, mainstream media are forced to admit the pandemic was most likely caused by a lab leak
January 28, 2023, epidemiologists Colin Butler and Delia Randolph published a joint statement saying a lab leak is the most likely source of COVID-19. The two had previously authored separate reports for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which commissioned them to investigate the possibility of the pandemic being the result of “humanity’s abuse of nature”
February 26, 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Energy Department has now revised its assessment of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, concluding the pandemic “most likely arose from a laboratory leak”
The FBI also concluded a lab leak was the most likely scenario all the way back in 2021, yet played a central role in censoring anyone who suggested this is where COVID came from
For nearly two years, there was a complete ban on discussing the COVID-19 lab leak theory, and as noted by Robby Soave in a June 2021 Reason article,
this is a perfect example of why banning “misinformation” is a terrible idea. Often enough, what’s labeled as “misinformation” one day has turned out to be true the next.
I first raised the lab leak theory February 4, 2020, and it wasn’t until June 2021 that Facebook finally reversed its censorship policy on this particular topic, stating, “In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”
“Facebook’s concession that the lab leak story it once viewed as demonstrably false is actually possibly true should put to rest the idea that banning or regulating misinformation should be a chief public policy goal,” Soave wrote.
In a February 15, 2023, article
in the British Express, Angus Dalgleish, a professor of oncology at St George’s, University of London, recounts how he and his Norwegian colleagues, Birger Sørensen (a virologist) and Andres Susrud (a molecular biologist), were systematically silenced.
The trio had assessed the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, concluding a bat origin was “extremely unlikely … as it had inserts around the receptor binding region … that would make it more infectious.” But no matter how they tried, they couldn’t get the paper published.
They even sent their findings to the British government and Cabinet members, only to be told “quite categorically that there was no way it could have been a laboratory escape.”
“What was to follow was a complete suppression of any debate about the origin, which would appear to have been driven by Tony Fauci from the NIAID in America,” Dalgleish writes.
“Indeed, he was so intent on quashing any evidence of the origin that he commissioned a paper from a group of scientists, who we now know also had concerns that it may not be natural but nevertheless, they published the paper in Nature Medicine saying all the evidence showed it was completely natural and was not a laboratory leaked virus.
This paper was published in Nature Medicine and then used by Tony Fauci as absolute proof that it was not a lab leak. What was incredible was that this narrative was picked by governments throughout the world, all the mainstream media and the majority of scientists, who should have known better than to accept the narrative rather than look at the evidence …
China’s put-down was especially strong and it was so very obvious that they were covering up something as all specimens and databases were either altered or withdrawn. Very belatedly, China allowed a team of international experts to investigate the cause of COVID and a team were allowed into China to essentially come up with an official report saying that it was clearly of natural origin.
Now, more than two years later, two of the people involved with this, Professor Colin Butler from Australia and Delia Randolph from the University of Greenwich, London, have spoken out that it is clear now that all the evidence DOES support a lab leak and that there has been a suppression of the truth.
There has been secrecy and cover-up of this issue on a truly Orwellian scale … [In the] future, any new threat, infectious disease or pandemic, must be addressed with open scientific debate and not the complete suppression of the truth, secrecy and coverup …”
As noted by Dalgleish, Butler and Randolph have recently spoken out about the fact that evidence for a lab leak was there from the start. That’s why Butler signed an open letter
to the World Health Organization in March 2021 calling for a “full and unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of COVID-19.”
The letter was sent after the WHO’s team issued a clearly biased report dismissing the lab leak theory as unworthy of further investigation. January 28, 2023, Butler, along with Randolph, published a joint statement in the Daily Mail, noting that:
“[The] crucial debate over Covid’s origins has been shackled … And this refusal to discuss openly what everyone suspects to be true — or at the very least strongly possible — has the disastrous consequence of eroding public trust in science.”
Butler and Randolph are now trying to set the record straight. As explained in their article, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) commissioned each of them in early 2020 to investigate and write reports on the possibility of the pandemic being the result of “humanity’s abuse of nature.”
Randolph’s report, which came out first, ended up not addressing the possibility of a non-natural origin, even though it was “actively considered in the drafting.” “[E]ven in early 2020, it appeared that UNEP was averse to including anything so controversial as the lab-leak theory in the report,” the pair write.
Butler authored the second UNEP report. Early on, he’d been skeptical about a lab link, but “as circumstantial evidence in support of a laboratory pathway grew, thanks to the work of a few brave scientists, internet detectives and journalists,” Butler finally concluded that the lab leak theory had to be considered. Butler’s report therefore did include an extensive discussion about the possibility of a lab leak.
Butler’s initial drafts were strongly criticized by internal UNEP reviewers, and as the report neared finalization, Butler started suspecting that publication was being “deliberately stalled.” According to Butler and Randolph:
“The first report was published within weeks of completion, but the second one took ten months — and only appeared after an increasingly alarmed author contacted influential figures … It was eventually released with little publicity three months ago.
These two reports are substantial with a combined length of 152 pages, citing 387 scientific publications and with 94 reviewers. They cannot be dismissed as scientifically lightweight, nor the product of biased or naive authors.
Unlike some key players in the COVID origin debate, neither of us has been involved in ‘gain of function’ work that includes manipulation of virological structures to increase virulence. Nor do we have any history of collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Neither of us has received funds from the US National Institutes of Health, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or EcoHealth Alliance — all of which have been involved with funding work at WIV that falls within the definition of ‘gain of function.’
Nor have either of us been financially rewarded for work with the Wellcome Trust … whose director Sir Jeremy Farrar was, we believe, a key figure alongside US funding chiefs in the scandalous suppression of debate on this issue …
Most recently discovered pathogens ‘burn out’ in human populations. Some are then held in laboratories, including in Wuhan … Are some of these being experimented upon? Almost certainly, yes. Yet a pall of suspicious secrecy, deceit and conflicts of interest shroud this work …
We can see incompetence, too. A new report by the US Office of Inspector General found fault with both the National Institutes of Health, the world’s biggest public funder of biomedical research, and EcoHealth Alliance, which it was supposed to help monitor.
This report damningly noted that each organization failed to ‘understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas and take corrective action.’ It is of critical importance that these risks are better understood, that scientists accept the dangers and that this field is better regulated.
Our view is that, on current balance of evidence, a laboratory pathway seems the most likely cause of the pandemic … Irrespective of the origin of the pandemic, however, this debate has exposed that self-regulation of ‘gain of function’ research has been a dismal failure.”
February 26, 2023, one month after Butler and Randolph’s joint statement, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Energy Department has now revised its assessment of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, concluding the pandemic “most likely arose from a laboratory leak:”
“The shift by the Energy Department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines’s office …
The Energy Department now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory …
The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research.
The Energy Department made its judgment with ‘low confidence,’ according to people who have read the classified report. The FBI previously came to the conclusion that the pandemic was likely the result of a lab leak in 2021 with ‘moderate confidence’ and still holds to this view.”
So, in 2021, the FBI thought the lab leak theory was not only plausible but likely, yet the agency was instrumental in censoring public discussion about it. What’s more, the Energy Department reportedly prepared a study all the way back in May 2020, which concluded “that a lab-leak hypothesis was plausible and deserved further investigation.”
In other words, Big Tech was told to censor a truth that at least two different agencies within the intelligence community supported. In a February 27, 2023, Twitter thread,
investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker also points out that not just one but two separate teams of scientists at different Energy Department labs have concluded that a lab accident was the most likely source of the pandemic. So, we really have three intel community assessments pointing in the same direction.
“The FBI concluded a lab leak was the most likely scenario all the way back in 2021, yet played a central role in censoring anyone who suggested this is where COVID came from.”
Curiously, the FBI still appears hell-bent on continuing the cover-up, even as the fabricated narrative is crumbling. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone,
House and Senate Republicans who are investigating the origin of the pandemic have pressed the FBI for more information, in particular what kind of information made them suspect a lab leak.
But the agency is refusing to share those details, citing Justice Department policy on “preserving the integrity of ongoing investigations.” In other words, by claiming there’s an active investigation underway, the FBI doesn’t have to share any of the information Congress is requesting, which seems rather convenient.
The question is, just how long does the FBI need to conclude this supposed investigation? As noted by Malone,
“The FBI must divulge what it knows in a timely manner. We don’t have time to wait for their endless investigations to be concluded. Three years is already too long to wait. Congress and the American public deserve answers now.”
A string of mainstream media puppets are now reporting that a lab leak may be the most likely explanation for the pandemic.
We’ve yet so see apologies for their former unprofessionalism, however. One reason for this U-turn might be that they’re now trying to get ahead of an even bigger story, namely the absolute confirmation that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus that got unleashed on mankind.
Mainstream media need to make it look like they weren’t accessories to covering up democide (the intentional killing of unarmed civilians by government), because the lab leak theory leads directly to the intentional manipulation of viruses and government bioweapons development.
The globalist string-pullers are also starting to test out potential escape routes, from getting the public onboard with “amnesty” for COVID mistakes to pretending they’ve been the ones pushing for answers. As noted by Twitter user Clandestine:
“We have passed into a new phase of the COVID saga. The U.S. government is starting to slowly admit SARS-CoV-2 was a human-engineered pathogen that leaked from a lab in China. This is essentially the end of the road for the COVID narrative.
This is the death knell for the Globalists. Why? Because the broader public are now emboldened to ask more questions: Who made it? Who ‘leaked’ it? Why did the MSM/Tech lie? Why did the U.S. government censor anyone who suggested this over the last 3 years?
The Biden admin are already trying to get in front of it. NSA Jake Sullivan on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 today: ‘President Biden has directed, repeatedly, every element of our intelligence community to put effort and resources behind getting to the bottom of this question.’
Anyone with a pulse can tell you Jake Sullivan is lying through his teeth. Not only has the Biden admin NOT been pursuing the answers to SARS-CoV-2’s origins, the intelligence community conspired with Big Tech to censor the people who have been saying this for three … years.
Russia and China have been formally alleging that the virus was man-made by Western Oligarchs for over a year now. They have been calling for UN Security Council investigation into the US biological network in Ukraine. The West cried ‘disinformation’ …
The Biden admin are going to begin gaslighting their sheep that they have been looking for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 this entire time. When in reality, they brainwashed the planet and violated the Constitution to silence anyone who was actually looking for the origin.”
On the other side of this story, researchers have discovered COVID antibodies in blood collected and stored in European blood banks since September 2019, in the case of Italy,
and November 2019 in the case of France.
As noted by Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya,
the implications of these findings are “enormous,” because this means the lockdowns were implemented several months after the virus had already started spreading across the globe. Lockdowns have only a tiny effect, if any, in the first place, and locking everyone down after a virus has been spreading for months is less than useless.
Yet no one in government or mainstream media covered these findings, which were published in November 2020 and February 2021 respectively. If they had, it would have been clear by the end of 2020 that lockdowns were futile from the start and had to end.
If the COVID pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that genetic engineering of viruses with pandemic potential is one of the greatest threats to humanity and must stop.
A research proposal to DARPA dating back to 2018 described plans to create a virus that sounds eerily similar, if not identical, to SARS-CoV-2,
and while the proposal was declined, there’s no reason why it couldn’t have been done through some other program.
COVID-19 has allegedly killed nearly 6.8 million people around the world and the entire global economy has been decimated. If the kind of genetic tinkering that produced SARS-CoV-2 is allowed to continue, it’s only a matter of time before some manmade virus starts wiping out targeted populations, as they will eventually find a way to target specific genetic traits.
The only policy that makes sense going forward is a complete ban on gain of function research, and severe punishment for violations. The industry clearly cannot regulate itself, and regulations on this kind of research always ends up creating loopholes.
>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.
The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.
If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.