Unveiling the Origin of SARS2
The truth of the origin of SARS2 turns out to be quite simple. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) collected 1000s of bat coronaviruses and conducted gain-of-function research on them for over a decade, creating new chimeric viruses. While conducting animal experiments on the novel viruses, growing them in "humanized mice" with human ACE2 receptors in the lungs, a researcher became infected with the virus that would go on to become famous as "SARS-CoV-2."
The first known case, Patient Zero, turns out to be none other than scientist Ben Hu, who had been granted $41 million by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to perform gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses. This vital information, originally met with vehement denial and dismissed as conspiracy, now stands as an alarming testament to the perils of unchecked scientific endeavor and the high cost of secrecy.
Astute and skeptical readers may have suspected the lab was the origin by early 2020. By the time Nicholas Wade published "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?" on May 5 2021, most people had figured out that the lab was the probable source of the "pandemic." By October 28 2022 when Vanity Fair published "COVID-19 Origins: Investigating a “Complex and Grave Situation” Inside a Wuhan Lab", believing in natural origins became an exercise in stubborn ignorance or apathy.
A simple yet sobering narrative has been pieced together in hindsight. It now seems embarrassingly clear how a chimeric virus, tweaked with a furin cleavage site and tested on 'humanized mice', managed to escape the lab and trigger a global catastrophe.
Deliberate Obfuscation by Authorities
The recent revelations tracing the origins of SARS2 back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and its research on chimeric coronaviruses have illuminated the lengths some leading figures in science and government went to in order to steer the narrative away from laboratory origin.
This saga unfolded during a critical night in January 2020, where a series of email exchanges took place involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Kristian Andersen, a respected virologist. This correspondence was later exposed via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
On January 31, 2020, Andersen sent an email to Fauci voicing concerns about specific features of the virus, specifically highlighting the unusual nature of the Furin cleavage site, a genetic element that significantly enhances the virus's transmissibility and virulence. He noted that some of the virus's characteristics, including the Furin cleavage site, potentially "looked engineered."
Fauci's response was swift, but it did not involve wider governmental consultation. Instead, Fauci initiated a series of communications with a select group of scientists, many (all?) of whom had received grants from the NIAID. This fact, later revealed, raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Despite the private concerns voiced by Andersen, the public narrative continued to favor a natural origin of the virus. The divergence between private apprehensions and public statements by authorities contributed to the widespread dismissal of the lab-leak theory.
By March of the same year, Andersen co-authored an article in Nature Medicine, asserting that SARS-CoV-2 was not a purposefully manipulated virus, thereby endorsing its natural origin. The change in Andersen's stance from his initial email to Fauci raises questions about the factors and influences that may have swayed his public position.
The course of these events underscores the extent of deliberate actions taken by authorities to control the public narrative around SARS2's origin. The handling of Andersen's initial concerns, particularly regarding potential manipulation of the virus, highlights the degree of obfuscation that took place within these circles of authority. This saga serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing need for transparency, scrutiny, and accountability within our scientific and governmental institutions.
It's worth noting that NIAID funding for Kristian Andersen's lab increased after these happenings.
Corruption in Scientific Journals and the Science Community
The revelations surrounding the origins of SARS2 have cast a long and dark shadow over the scientific community, specifically concerning the integrity and accountability of esteemed scientific journals such as The Lancet and Nature Medicine. Their traditional role as impartial gatekeepers of knowledge has been challenged, as they now find themselves at the heart of the accusations of collusion and corruption.
In February 2020, The Lancet published a statement condemning conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Later on, it was revealed that this statement was organized and orchestrated by scientists who themselves had close ties with the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the very lab under scrutiny for its potential role in the pandemic's origins.
Meanwhile, Nature Medicine published an article in March 2020 arguing against the lab-leak hypothesis based on the genomic comparison of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. However, in the light of recent revelations, these findings and their implications are being revisited with a more critical eye.
The bitter twist in this tale is the stark realization that these publications, which should have been the bastions of scientific integrity, have been complicit in molding the public narrative away from certain hypotheses. This suggests an exploitation of the trust placed in these institutions, the very systems and structures designed to safeguard and inform humanity.
Furthermore, it's not just the scientific journals under scrutiny. The entire science community finds itself on shaky ground, with key figures alleged to have been part of the obfuscation. The crisis has exposed the potential pitfalls of an overly homogenized scientific consensus, which can stifle dissenting opinions and alternative hypotheses. It has underscored the urgent need for fostering a culture of openness, where debate and scrutiny are not just accepted but actively encouraged.
In this light, the silence of these organizations is deafening. There has been little to no acknowledgement of the potential shortcomings, nor any significant push for introspection and reform. This lack of response only serves to further erode the public's trust in these institutions.
It's crucial to understand that this is not just about assigning blame but about upholding the integrity of scientific research. Unveiling the truth about the origins of SARS2 is a matter of global importance, and all possible avenues of inquiry should have been pursued from the outset. Looking ahead, it is clear that a commitment to transparency, independent verification, and rigorous debate must be at the heart of scientific inquiry, to rebuild public trust and ensure that the response to future global health threats is more effective and less divisive.
The Control of Information and the End of Free Speech
The lab-leak theory was not only met with denial and dismissal from top authorities, but also encountered fierce resistance from big tech and social media giants at their behest. Facebook, Twitter, and Google, which collectively hold a significant sway over the flow of information, used their powerful platforms to control the narrative around the pandemic's origins.
From flagging and removing content discussing the lab-leak hypothesis to banning accounts of dissenting voices, these tech behemoths effectively shaped the discourse. They created an environment where the natural origin of the virus was positioned as a universally accepted truth, while any deviation was deemed as misinformation and promptly quashed.
Articles, scientific discourse, and personal experiences that pointed towards a lab-leak origin were pushed into the shadows of cyberspace, effectively silencing an essential debate. It was a blatant assault on free speech, casting aside one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society.
What followed was a sustained campaign of censorship and information manipulation, raising eyebrows and questions around the role of big tech in public discourse. The singularity of the narrative presented to billions worldwide carried a dangerous implication: it suggested an infallibility and unanimity in scientific consensus that simply did not exist.
Social media's systematic suppression of the lab-leak theory undoubtedly fostered ignorance and apathy towards its credibility. Even as evidence mounted and the narrative began to crumble, these platforms held fast to their doctrine of denial, further deepening the divide between truth and the propagated narrative.
Their actions have not only highlighted the alarming control big tech wields over public discourse but have also amplified the need for transparency, accountability, and freedom of information. The suppression of free speech and the enforcement of a single narrative raises serious questions about the role of these platforms in our society.
As we grapple with the aftershocks of the pandemic and its alarming revelations, the role of big tech and social media in information dissemination, censorship, and narrative control undoubtedly requires rigorous scrutiny. Without it, the world risks falling prey to yet another catastrophic failure of information control, the cost of which we are only beginning to understand.
Persistent Division and the Human Cost of Hubris and Deceit
Perhaps one of the most poignant outcomes of this calamity is the divisiveness it has wrought. Like the infamous Japanese soldier, Hiroo Onoda, who continued fighting World War II for three decades after its conclusion, there remain those who stubbornly cling to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2. Whether for political reasons, cognitive dissonance, or sheer obstinacy, the persistence of these claims serves to highlight the depths of the schism this crisis has carved within society.
Ultimately, this saga serves as a grim reminder of the potential human cost of hubris and deceit. The disturbingly straightforward origin of SARS2 has laid bare a tangled web of conspiracy, collusion, and cover-up at the heart of our scientific and governmental systems. As we grapple with the consequences of these revelations, it is clear that a thorough, transparent, and independent reassessment of our oversight mechanisms is required to prevent such a catastrophe from reoccurring.