The COVID Lab Leak : The Question Isn't Whether It Came From a Lab, the question is why was it being covered up?

Resources:

X Article

X Highlight

Spreadsheet System

Google Doc

Spotify

Youtube

Did COVID Escape a Lab? – The Question Isn't Whether It Came From a Lab, the question is why was it being covered up? From the Perspective of Johnny Harris

Sources

Harris investigates the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores the likelihood of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), presenting evidence and arguments supporting the lab leak hypothesis. From expert opinions to political implications surrounding this theory, Harris provides compelling evidence for the theory while acknowledging the ongoing debate and uncertainty surrounding the issue, aiming to provide a balanced perspective on a highly debated topic. The video begins by discussing the initial narrative that the pandemic originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, however, Harris points out that the first known cases had no direct connection to the market, suggesting that it may not have been the source of the outbreak. He starts by outlining the origins of the lab leak theory, noting that it initially emerged as a fringe idea but has gained more attention over time and is now unanimously regarded as probable. He explains that the theory suggests the virus accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research facility not only known for studying coronaviruses, but THE BIGGEST COVID LAB IN THE WORLD. Harris then delves into the proximity of the WIV to the outbreak's epicenter and its research on bat coronaviruses, highlighting the fact that the WIV had been studying RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and that the lab had engaged in gain-of-function research, which involves manipulating viruses to make them more transmissible or virulent.

At around the 11-minute mark, Harris admits the lab leak hypothesis is valid as this Wuhan lab was quite literally the epicenter of Covid samples, “If the outbreak had happened in some other city where there was no lab with a freezer full of COVID samples, we wouldn't be having this conversation but Wuhan is literally the epicenter of coronavirus samples on Earth”. He then introduces a quote likening the situation to chocolate and Hershey Park, “Oh my god, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened? Like, oh, I don't know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean, or maybe it's the fucking chocolate factory”, suggesting that if you find chocolate near Hershey Park, it probably came from the chocolate factory. This analogy is used to illustrate the logical reasoning behind considering the lab leak theory given the Wuhan Institute of Virology focus on coronaviruses and its location. He then gets into the expert opinion of Shi Zhengli AKA The Batwoman who made her career going into caves and getting COVID samples from bats so she can study them… and she works in the Wuhan lab, “From the batwoman’s extensive study in this, she knows that it’s actually Southern China where all the bats are (and where SARS broke out in the early 2000s), not Wuhan, where COVID is most likely to jump from animals to humans''. He notes that Shi never expected an animal to human transmission to happen in central China and that her first thought was that the health officials got it wrong – “could it have came from our lab? It’s either not coronavirus, or if it is, it probably came from our lab. Not that it jumped from animals”.

Harris delves deeper into the evidence and expert opinions at 23:30, discussing various pieces of circumstantial evidence that support the lab leak theory. He points out that while there is no definitive proof, several factors make the theory more than just plausible: A - The Wuhan Institute of Virology's close proximity to the outbreak's epicenter and its research on bat coronaviruses raise legitimate questions. B - Reports of safety concerns and previous incidents at the lab add to the suspicion. C - Despite extensive searches, a direct animal source for the virus has not been identified. Then he moves onto the utterly biased opinion of ‘expert’ Peter Daszak, a key figure in the WHO's investigation into the pandemic's origin who had been framing the lab leak hypothesis as a ‘conspiracy’ from the very beginning, “but here’s the thing, this guy has skin in the game. His NGO gets loads of funding to perform research at, wait for it, the Wuhan lab”. Which makes it all the more obvious that “Members of the scientific community have said that Daszak has a conflict of interest due to his close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its leading scientist, Shi Zhengli…” Harris analyzes straightforwardly, “Yes of course, he doesn't want the Wuhan lab or gain of function research to be smeared, like this is his home turf where his livelihood and his life's work comes from. And he's the guy we're listening to? Like we're letting this guy lead out on the inquiry??” But it gets even worse… the WHO sent a team to investigate it and Daszak was literally the one leading the team and of course he concludes what he had already predetermined, but eventually a journalist calls him out, “Given that this report rules out the leak, isn't your credibility on that a little undermined by the fact that you've been saying that even before you came here?” At 23 and a half minutes, Harris highlights the lack of scientific credibility and objectivity given that it was Daszak leading the charge, “you can't go into an investigation with your mind already made up. Especially when millions of dollars of funding for your organization is on the line, that's not science that's self-interest and tribalism”. Even more significantly, Harris points out that the literal head of the WHO who commissioned the study admitted that the investigation into the lab leak theory “wasn’t extensive enough and too hasty” essentially conceding the fact that they didn’t actually even look into it. Harris discusses the US State Department's claims about the WIV's research on bat coronaviruses and the lab's alleged lack of transparency, mentioning that the US intelligence community's assessment that a lab leak is a plausible scenario. So yeah, it’s crystal clear that the main investigation by the WHO is eery of the Warren Commission's report on the JFK assassination – they had their mind made up before conducting the investigation because of the self serving biases and politics at stake, labeling the not just possible but probable hypothesis as a ‘conspiracy’ and then trying to cover their tracks.

At the end of the video, Harris argues that while there is no definitive proof, the evidence suggests that a lab leak is more likely than the initial narrative of a natural spillover event, highlighting the need for an impartial investigation and transparency to uncover the truth about the pandemic's origins. Throughout the video, Harris presents a well-researched and balanced perspective on the lab leak hypothesis acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive evidence while making a compelling case for the probability of a lab leak. He emphasizes the importance of an unbiased and thorough investigation to determine the true origins of the pandemic, as understanding how it began is crucial for preventing future outbreaks.

In summary… the narrative that COVID-19 originated from a wet market in Wuhan, China, quickly became the prevailing explanation disseminated by mainstream media and public health officials in the early days of the pandemic positing that the virus jumped from animals to humans in the crowded conditions of the wet market. However as time has passed and more analysis has occurred it’s clear that this narrative was a strategic media cover-up to divert attention from more controversial possibilities, particularly the lab leak theory. From the outset, there was a conspicuous absence of direct evidence supporting the wet market origin as no definitive animal host was identified despite extensive searches, and the earliest cases of COVID-19 included individuals with no direct links to the wet market. Conversely, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located near the outbreak's epicenter, was conducting research on bat coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2; this proximity and the nature of the research undertaken at WIV made the lab leak theory a plausible alternative that warranted serious consideration, however, instead of investigating this possibility rigorously, media outlets and some public health officials quickly coalesced around the wet market narrative, framing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy. The swift and uncritical acceptance of the wet market origin by the media can be seen as a deliberate attempt to control the narrative. By focusing on the wet market, media coverage effectively deflected scrutiny from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the potential implications of a lab leak serving multiple interests: it alleviated immediate geopolitical tensions, avoided public panic over the safety of scientific research facilities, and prevented backlash against the Chinese government and international scientific collaborations. Furthermore, the alignment of this narrative with official statements from Chinese authorities and international health organizations further entrenched the wet market story. The coordinated messaging created a consensus that was hard to challenge, despite the glaring gaps in evidence. As a result, any mention of the lab leak theory was often dismissed as fringe speculation or conspiracy, stifling legitimate scientific inquiry and debate. Over time, as more information surfaced and independent investigations gained traction, the lab leak theory has regained massive credibility as reports of safety concerns at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with the discovery that early cases of COVID-19 had no connection to the wet market, have fueled calls for a thorough, unbiased investigation into the virus's origins. The fact that the wet market theory was accepted so readily and promoted so widely, despite initial evidence, underscores the role of the media in shaping public perception and covering up the inconvenient truths.

So… let’s get things straight. When you combine the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was quite literally the biggest covid lab in the world with prior reports of safety concerns and previous incidents at the lab, alongside the fact that the main WHO investigation led by the unambiguously biased Peter Daszak was completely fraudulent with the head of the WHO admitting they didn’t even look into the lab leak hypothesis AND the head researcher at Wuhan (the Batwoman) claiming that her instinct was that it came from their lab and that an animal-human transmission would occur in Southern China, not Wuhan, the answer is self evident – Covid came from the lab. The real question now shifts from the virus's origin to the reasons behind the cover-up. The media's initial dismissal and censorship of the lab leak theory as misinformation raise alarming concerns about the narrative surrounding the pandemic. Drawing parallels to the opioid crisis, where pharmaceutical companies played a significant role in creating and profiting from the epidemic, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that Big Pharma may have had a hand in creating the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for intentional creation or manipulation of the virus for financial gain and/or increased government control cannot be ignored. As we delve deeper into this issue, it becomes crucial to investigate the motivations behind the suppression of the lab leak theory and to determine the extent of any potential involvement by pharmaceutical corporations. The striking similarities between the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of media manipulation and corporate influence, demand a thorough and transparent examination. Only by unraveling the truth behind the origins of this global health crisis can we hope to prevent future catastrophes and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.