The Governments Lied about the Origin of the Covid Pandemic

[Yagoda]

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-they-knew-it-was-a-lab-leak

 

Thank god we have accountability and transparency now.

[SunnyinBangrak]

On 3/15/2025 at 3:29 AM, Yagoda said:

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-they-knew-it-was-a-lab-leak

 

Thank god we have accountability and transparency now.

So to clarify, those people able to rationally process the known facts at the time and come to the obvious conclusion it was a lab leak, are they still "conspiracy theorists" or in a cult?

 

It is a disgrace our best and brightest minds were consored by out of control lefties. And judging by the laughing emoticon used on factual posts the left are refusing to take the L and intend to stay down their fetid rabbithole.

 

Seriously, are there any times the left cried "conspiracy theory" and were correct about it?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503159/Labour-Wuhan-lab-leak-pandemic-Boris-johnson.html

[Kinnock]

Many people, including myself and many AN posters, said at the time that the lab leak was the most plausible cause  -  but it was politically incorrect to voice this theory in case we upset China.

 

Now both the US CIA and the German Intelligence organisation back the lab leak theory.  The only reason it's still a 'theory' is because China has suppressed the evidence to ensure nobody can be certain.

 

But even in 2020 the signs were clear.  Earliest cases were never linked to the market. 

The market had been selling wild animals as food for many years, so if it was the source there would be some natural immunity in the region. 

There was no natural immunity, so it had to be a totally novel virus.

The Wuhan Institutute is situated in the epicentre and they were involved in gain of function experiments on  corona viruses.

The Wuhan lab had a known history of poor biosecurity.

 

That should have been enough to make the lab the prime suspect.

 

These newer reports about the origin are just saying what we all knew years ago.

 

[stevenl]

54 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

but it was politically incorrect to voice this theory in case we upset China.

 

These newer reports about the origin are just saying what we all knew years ago.

 

 

Totally not true. This has always been a plausible theory, voiced by many.

 

And no, there's a big difference between 'knowing' and 'presuming'.

[richard_smith237]

One of the worlds top virologists, Dr. Shi Zhengli, was studying Corona Viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.... 

 

IMO, not only is the the 'lab leak' theory plausible, is most likely.

 

 

I am quite surprised the rest of the world has not pushed China on this, had this been any other less powerful nation the response may have been somewhat different. 

 

That said, it is also theorised that the study of Corona Viruses was in part sponsored by the US.

 

 

Given the knowledge that there were (previously six known human Corona Viruses (listed below) - it would have made sense to study the virus due to the 'recent' outbreaks of MERC's and SARS which had high case fatality rates, but fortunately were less contagious.

 

I suspect studies included synthesising the SARS-Cov-2 Virus because there were great concerns about the potential for a natural outbreak and 'they' (Governments) wanted to get ahead of the game and prepare (i.e. synthesise the virus so they can created vaccines)....

 

... However, the Lab Leak occurred and their studies of course backfired in a monumental fashion.

 

 

 

No significant fatality rate

HCoV-229E / HCoV-NL63 / HCoV-OC43 / HCoV-HKU1 

4 Viruses that contribute to an estimated 10-30% of common colds.

 

Severe Human Coronaviruses (High Pathogenicity)

SARS-CoV (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)

Outbreak: 2002–2004 / CFR: ~9.6%

Total Cases: ~8,098 / Deaths: ~774

 

MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)

Outbreak: Ongoing since 2012 / CFR: ~34–35%

Total Cases: ~2,600+ / Deaths: ~900+

 

[blaze master]

45 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

Totally not true. This has always been a plausible theory, voiced by many.

 

And no, there's a big difference between 'knowing' and 'presuming'.

 

Seems more and more likely it was a lab leak. And to think you called me tin foil hat guy for saying it a week ago. 

[TedG]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

One of the worlds top virologists, Dr. Shi Zhengli, was studying Corona Viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.... 

 

IMO, not only is the the 'lab leak' theory plausible, is most likely.

 

 

I am quite surprised the rest of the world has not pushed China on this, had this been any other less powerful nation the response may have been somewhat different. 

 

That said, it is also theorised that the study of Corona Viruses was in part sponsored by the US.

 

COVID-19 started in China, and the CCP is not exactly the paragon of truth.  This, we will never know. There is evidence that COVID-19 began to around Oct 2019.   

 

https://health.ucsd.edu/news/press-releases/2021-03-18-novel-coronavirus-circulated-undetected-months-before-first-covid-19-cases-in-wuhan-china/

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

Now both the US CIA and the German Intelligence organisation back the lab leak theory. 

 

Can't speak for German intel, but the CIA based their decision on information from the Germans.

 

Slam dunk?

 

No.  It's a political decision to align with Trump's trade war.

 

The CIA's assessment is rated.......by themselves....to be of "LOW CONFIDENCE" meaning.......

 

Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.

 

To put that in perspective,

 

The FBI had only “medium confidence” in former British spy Christopher Steele and deemed his infamous anti-Trump dossier to be “minimally corroborated,” according to newly released government documents.

 

Based on official government assessments, It's yugely more likely that Trump paid hookers to pee on him in a Moskau hotel than the virus escaped from a lab.

[Dan O]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

So to clarify, those people able to rationally process the known facts at the time and come to the obvious conclusion it was a lab leak, are they still "conspiracy theorists" or in a cult?

 

It is a disgrace our best and brightest minds were consored by out of control lefties. And judging by the laughing emoticon used on factual posts the left are refusing to take the L and intend to stay down their fetid rabbithole.

 

Seriously, are there any times the left cried "conspiracy theory" and were correct about it?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503159/Labour-Wuhan-lab-leak-pandemic-Boris-johnson.html

So Trump was a lefty? 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The source for the OP post, Alex Berenson, is a serial COVID misinformation spreader, not surprisingly....  That's in part why the source here is his own Substack post, instead of any credible news agency source.

 

Re Berenson:

 

"Early in the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Berenson vocally argued that people and the media were overestimating the risk of the new virus, that it posed little risk to young Americans, and that it was being used as a cover for government overreach.^[8][29] Many public health experts have rejected his claims.^[8][29]:

^...

In 2021, Berenson tweeted that COVID-19 vaccinations had led to 50 times more adverse effects than flu vaccine. PolitiFact rated the claim "mostly false".^[12] The Atlantic called him "The pandemic's wrongest man", owing to what they termed his "dangerously, unflaggingly, and superlatively wrong" claims of the vaccine's ineffectiveness.^[10]

On January 25, 2022, Berenson appeared on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight declaring that existing mRNA vaccines are "dangerous and ineffective" against COVID-19, and further demanding that they be withdrawn from the market immediately.^[31] The Washington Post's Philip Bump denounced Carlson for "inviting Berenson on, despite his proven track record of misinformation and cherry-picking" and observed that "Berenson's claims went unchallenged."^[32]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson#COVID-19_pandemic

 

 

As for the claims of the OP, most scientists with expertise in the field continue to believe natural spillover is the most likely source for the COVID virus, and NOT from a lab leak. In addition, the majority of U.S. intelligence agencies (5) also continue to believe natural spillover is the most likely source.... even though a minority number (3) now believe a lab leak was the most likely cause.

 

New York Times - Jan. 2025:

 

• "Five agencies, including the National Intelligence Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed that natural exposure most likely caused the epidemic. But they said that they had only low-confidence in their assessment.
   

  Until now, two agencies, the F.B.I. and Department of Energy, thought a lab leak was more likely. But their theories are different. The F.B.I. believes the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Energy Department put its bet on another lab, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control.

•  

  Officials would not say if the C.I.A. believes one lab or the other was the more likely source of the virus."

•  

https://archive.ph/AeGpZ#selection-1087.0-1095.108

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

So Trump was a lefty? 

Nice try. But you are not going to get away with rewriting history. Not on my watch.

 

"I said it comes out of Wuhan - it comes out of the lab," he told his supporters, men and women dressed in red Make America Great Again hats, gathered at the rally, southwest of Cleveland.

 

People "went crazy" when he said it, he told his supporters. But not any more. "Now they're saying: Most likely it came out of the Wuhan lab." At this, the crowd roared their approval."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57616323

 

[Dan O]

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Nice try. But you are not going to get away with rewriting history. Not on my watch.

 

"I said it comes out of Wuhan - it comes out of the lab," he told his supporters, men and women dressed in red Make America Great Again hats, gathered at the rally, southwest of Cleveland.

 

People "went crazy" when he said it, he told his supporters. But not any more. "Now they're saying: Most likely it came out of the Wuhan lab." At this, the crowd roared their approval."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57616323

 

Nice try.  Look at the date on your link. 1 1/2 years after the outbreak. Go back and look at his statements when it actually started and after his direct call with Xi in February of that year alerting him to the situation. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests

6 Feb 2024

 

"...a group of risk experts has found a new angle on one of the most hotly contested science issues of our time—where the SARS-CoV-2 virus behind the COVID-19 pandemic came from—by conducting what it calls the first systematic survey of scientific opinion on the matter.

 

The report, posted online on Friday, suggests virologists and other scientists with relevant expertise favor the view that the pandemic began when a natural virus jumped from an animal to a human, not because of an accident in a research lab studying or manipulating coronaviruses..."

 

Respondents were asked to put a probability on each of three scenarios: that the pandemic was the result of a natural zoonosis; that a biomedical research-related accident was to blame; or that there was another cause. (The three probabilities had to add up to 100%.) On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests

 

[bkknirvana]

There was no pandemic. It was just the flu and many older people were bumped off by the state.

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests

6 Feb 2024

 

"...a group of risk experts has found a new angle on one of the most hotly contested science issues of our time—where the SARS-CoV-2 virus behind the COVID-19 pandemic came from—by conducting what it calls the first systematic survey of scientific opinion on the matter.

 

The report, posted online on Friday, suggests virologists and other scientists with relevant expertise favor the view that the pandemic began when a natural virus jumped from an animal to a human, not because of an accident in a research lab studying or manipulating coronaviruses..."

 

Respondents were asked to put a probability on each of three scenarios: that the pandemic was the result of a natural zoonosis; that a biomedical research-related accident was to blame; or that there was another cause. (The three probabilities had to add up to 100%.) On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests

 

 

 

Do you not find it hugely coincidental that Dr. Shi Zhengli, one of the worlds top virologists and leading expert on Coronaviruses was studying Coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time ?

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Genetic ghosts suggest Covid’s market origins

19 September 2024

 

"A team of scientists say it is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market, rather than a laboratory leak.

 

They were analysing hundreds of samples collected from Wuhan, China, in January 2020.

...

Prof Michael Worobey, of the University of Arizona, said ... this study, combined with other data – such as early cases and hospitalisations being linked to the market – all pointed to an animal origin of Covid.

 

(more)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8095xjg4po

 

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

8 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Nice try.  Look at the date on your link. 1 1/2 years after the outbreak. Go back and look at his statements when it actually started and after his direct call with Xi in February of that year alerting him to the situation. 

May 2020. You can't rewrite history. The liberal hivemind went all-in on a natural occurrence, which was clearly BS to any free thinking observer. It's embarrassing now I do understand, but sorry, you can't change what happened.

 

"Donald Trump claims to have seen evidence to substantiate the unproven theory that the coronavirus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the virus was “not manmade or genetically modified”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/donald-trump-coronavirus-chinese-lab-claim

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Do you not find it hugely coincidental that Dr. Shi Zhengli, one of the worlds top virologists and leading expert on Coronaviruses was studying Coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time ?

 

 

There are lots of different kinds of coronaviruses, including many that have nothing to do with the COVID pandemic. That the Wuhan lab was studying certain types of coronaviruses is undisputed. But there's no evidence or proof that lab was studying the specific version(s) that became or had the potential to become COVID.

 

Per the New York Times:

 

"There remains no evidence that the Wuhan institute stored any virus that could have become the coronavirus and caused Covid, with or without scientific tinkering, researchers have said.

 

Scientists who specialize in tracing outbreaks have published analyses of early cases and viral genomes that they say point to the pandemic’s starting at an illegal wild-animal market in Wuhan. The presence of the coronavirus in samples from the market containing genetic material linked to raccoon dogs, they have said, is consistent with that scenario."

 

https://archive.ph/Ho5gO#selection-7189.0-7197.51

 

 

 

[TedG]

19 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Early in the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Berenson vocally argued that people and the media were overestimating the risk of the new virus, that it posed little risk to young Americans, and that it was being used as a cover for government overreach.^[8][29] Many public health experts have rejected his claims.^[8][29]:

 

 

Looking at the data, he was correct on this point. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

There are lots of different kinds of coronaviruses, including many that have nothing to do with the COVID pandemic. That the Wuhan lab was studying certain types of coronaviruses is undisputed. But there's no evidence or proof that lab was studying the specific version that became COVID.

 

But none zoonotic...  (with the exception or MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-1/2).

 

The CCP refused to release the research undertaken at the WIV - this raises suspicion IMO.

 

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Per the New York Times:

 

"There remains no evidence that the Wuhan institute stored any virus that could have become the coronavirus and caused Covid, with or without scientific tinkering, researchers have said.

 

Scientists who specialize in tracing outbreaks have published analyses of early cases and viral genomes that they say point to the pandemic’s starting at an illegal wild-animal market in Wuhan. The presence of the coronavirus in samples from the market containing genetic material linked to raccoon dogs, they have said, is consistent with that scenario."

 

https://archive.ph/Ho5gO#selection-7189.0-7197.51

 

 

Genetic material from raccoon dogs was found in environmental samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, where early cases of the virus were linked. The evidence supports the 'possibility' that the virus could have jumped from animals to humans at the market, though it does not conclusively prove the exact origins of the pandemic.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Looking at the data, he was correct on this point. 

 

 

 

More than 1,800 young people in the U.S. (up through age 18) died from COVID during the pandemic through mid-2023, per the CDC. And that's not counting the many tens of thousands who were hospitalized from it.

 

The above count also is just from the U.S., leaving out the rest of the world.  Berenson was simply wrong in his claims that young people were not at risk from COVID...  Lesser risk compared to adults and older people, yes. But not no risk or immune from risk. 

 

 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-years/xa4b-4pzv

 

 

[NoDisplayName]

23 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

"Donald Trump claims to have seen evidence to substantiate the unproven theory that the coronavirus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the virus was “not manmade or genetically modified”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/donald-trump-coronavirus-chinese-lab-claim

 

His claim was worthy of a Harris word salad.

 

“We’re going to see where it comes from,” Trump said at a White House event on Thursday. “We have people looking at it very, very strongly. Scientific people, intelligence people, and others. We’re going to put it all together. I think we will have a very good answer eventually. And China might even tell us.”

[TedG]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

More than 1,800 young people in the U.S. (up through age 18) died from COVID during the pandemic through mid-2023, per the CDC. And that's not counting the many tens of thousands who were hospitalized from it.

 

The above count also is just from the U.S., leaving out the rest of the world.  Berenson was simply wrong in his claims that young people were not at risk from COVID...  Lesser risk compared to adults and older people, yes. But not no risk or immune from risk. 

 

 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-years/xa4b-4pzv

 

 

 

The data does not lie.  Look at the death rates broken down by age group. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

More than 1,800 young people in the U.S. (up through age 18) died from COVID during the pandemic through mid-2023, per the CDC. And that's not counting the many tens of thousands who were hospitalized from it.

 

The above count also is just from the U.S., leaving out the rest of the world.  Berenson was simply wrong in his claims that young people were not at risk from COVID...  Lesser risk compared to adults and older people, yes. But not no risk or immune from risk. 

 

 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-years/xa4b-4pzv

 

 

 

Here's a global estimate for COVID deaths among youngsters -- more than 17,000 globally:

 

Child mortality and COVID-19

Last update: December 2023

 

How many children have died from COVID-19?

Among the 4.4 million COVID-19 deaths¹ reported in the MPIDR COVerAGE database, 0.4 per cent (over 17,400) occurred in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Of the over 17,400 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9. [emphasis added]

 

Data correct as of December 2023.

 

https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/

 

[TedG]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Here's a global estimate for COVID deaths among youngsters -- more than 17,000 globally:

 

Child mortality and COVID-19

Last update: December 2023

 

How many children have died from COVID-19?

Among the 4.4 million COVID-19 deaths¹ reported in the MPIDR COVerAGE database, 0.4 per cent (over 17,400) occurred in children and adolescents under 20 years of age. Of the over 17,400 deaths reported in those under 20 years of age, 53 per cent occurred among adolescents ages 10–19, and 47 per cent among children ages 0–9. [emphasis added]

 

Data correct as of December 2023.

 

https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/

 

Look at the death rates per age group

 

Who is less likely to be impacted?  

 

0-4 years  0.08/100,000

 

Or 

 

75+  275/100,000

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

Look at the death rates per age group

 

Who is less likely to be impacted?  

 

0-4 years  0.08/100,000

 

Or 

 

75+  275/100,000

 

No one is or was arguing that older people weren't at greater risk, of course they were/are.

 

But that's irrelevant to the real, albeit lesser, risks that young people faced from COVID.

 

The low death "rate" numbers for young people don't somehow wipe away the 1,800+ American youngsters and estimated 17,000+ young people worldwide who died from COVID -- Alex Berenson notwithstanding.

 

 

[Dan O]

35 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

May 2020. You can't rewrite history. The liberal hivemind went all-in on a natural occurrence, which was clearly BS to any free thinking observer. It's embarrassing now I do understand, but sorry, you can't change what happened.

 

"Donald Trump claims to have seen evidence to substantiate the unproven theory that the coronavirus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the virus was “not manmade or genetically modified”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/donald-trump-coronavirus-chinese-lab-claim

Try reading your link again, "prior to this the the WH believed it was not man made"  

 

Try again 

 

 

[TedG]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

No one is or was arguing that older people weren't at greater risk, of course they were/are.

 

But that's irrelevant to the real, albeit lesser, risks that young people faced from COVID.

 

The low death "rate" numbers for young people don't somehow wipe away the 1,800+ American youngsters and estimated 17,000+ young people worldwide who died from COVID -- Alex Berenson notwithstanding.

 

 

 

Young people during COVID-19 had a very low-risk profile unless they had comorbidities.  

 

A total of 183 children 1 to 17 years old who died of COVID-19 were reported in the National Fatality Review-Case Reporting System. One-third (33%) were 15- to 17-year-olds, and 26% were 1- to 4-year-olds. Fifty-six percent were reported as male, 54% white, 24% Black, and 18% Hispanic ethnicity. Physicians declared cause of death in at least 82% of deaths. More than two-thirds (68%) had a medical condition (excluding COVID-19) at time of death. The most common conditions were nervous system disorders (19%), congenital disorders (14%), obesity (12%), respiratory disorders (12%), and neurodevelopmental disorders (10%). Of children with an underlying condition, 35% had 3 or more conditions. Less than half (42%) had contact with a health care provider within a month of their death; and three-fourths died within 14 days of exposure.

 

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/Supplement 3/e2024067043K/199735/Characteristics-of-Children-Ages-1-17-Who-Died-of?autologincheck=redirected

 

 Healthy young people had a low risk of dying from COVID.  I don't understand why this is so controversial. 

[Patong2021]

54 minutes ago, bkknirvana said:

There was no pandemic. It was just the flu and many older people were bumped off by the state.

 

How was it an influenza virus? The SARS virus  genome has been mapped and is  quite different from an influenza virus.

[Purdey]

I feel so confident that Alex Berenson is the guy who tells it like it is. 

"People started getting sick in Wuhan in December 2019. Or was it November? Maybe even October?"

Yeah this  is how to tell facts.