The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.
In early 2020, there was a lot of chatter about where the virus, later named SARS-CoV-2, actually came from.
In an excellent, detailed article written earlier this month for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade described how two short pieces published in March 2020 — one in The Lancet and one in Nature Medicine — determined how this chatter would be channeled to the public.
These two extraordinarily influential pieces, each published under the heading “correspondence,” were parroted by mainstream media for a year. Both were plainly intended to shut down any discussion of the possibility that the virus originated in a lab.
Listen here as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I discuss these issues:
As I read both the Lancet and Nature papers in March 2020, it became immediately apparent each was designed as a propaganda tool. Neither was based on science.
I was so intrigued by these articles, I searched the web to better understand them. That’s when I discovered Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who had blogged on March 26, 2020, about the Nature article, suggesting the article should put an end to conspiracy theories about lab origin.
“Either way, this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. And that’s a good thing because it helps us keep focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene, practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated health-care professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this major public health challenge.”
I wondered why five otherwise credible scientists would sign their names to the Nature article — and why Collins would endorse the article’s conclusion — when the arguments made in the paper were nonsensical, in my opinion.
I eventually concluded the authors had been put up to writing the paper by a “hidden hand.”
How had I reached that conclusion,