Mainstream Puppets Now Admit Lab Leak Caused Pandemic

    0
    304

    by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:

    STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    • 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

    TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

    • 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,1 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.2

    Scientists Told to ‘Shut Up’

    In a February 15, 2023, article3 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.4

    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.5

    “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 …”

    Evidence Supports Lab Leak and Always Did

    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 letter6 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:7

    “[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.

    Read More @ Mercola.com