Plurality Now Believe in COVID Lab Leak Despite Media’s Coveup Attempts

You can’t fool all of the people all of the time — even if you try Very, very hard. This lesson is a powerful one. Morning Consult poll todayThis seems to be a coincidence, as the publication of intelligence assessments about the origins of COVID-19 coincides with the completion of a survey.

The Wall Street Journal published its reports on February 26, at 12:01 PM, Sunday. The current operating thesis of Department of Energy Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab leak. That came out with only hours left in a three-day polling effort by Morning Consult to determine what Americans think happened — and the lab leak garnered a wide plurality even before the WSJ report really broke into a national debate:

After three years of the pandemic — and three years of investigations, reports and rumors of its origins — a Morning Consult Survey A poll conducted just days before the Energy Department revelation revealed that 44% of Americans believe that the virus was spread from Wuhan, China’s virology laboratory. This share has roughly remained steady since. June 2021. …

Over 2/3 of Americans believe that the pandemic was caused by the virus being spread from Wuhan Lab. But, only 1/4 believe the virus has naturally moved from animals to humans. Since a June 2021 survey, both figures are almost unchanged.

2/3 of Republicans believe the virus originated in a lab. This is nearly double the percentage of Democrats (32%), which believed the same. Only 14% of Republicans, 39% of Democrats, believe that the pandemic started from natural transmission, while 39% of Democrats agree.

People will see this split as a sign that they are partisan, but it may not tell the story they want. First, it is clear that approximately the same number of Democrats rejected the mainstream media narrative about the lab leak theory. “debunked” It was also purchased by many others. This number has remained the same for 20 months; it was 32/40 June 2021, and is now 32/39. Two years of narrative enforcement from establishment media and government agency that labeled the laboratory-leak explanation as a “conspiracy theory” Even among Democrats who should be their target demo, it didn’t move them.

It had little impact on the independents. In June 2021 they split 41/22 to favor a lab leak instead of zoonotic transmission. According to today’s poll results indies split 38/19.

In other words, the collusion between establishment media and the government to label a legitimate hypothesis as “disinformation” It failed to stop the discussion. This was the end of it. Before The news broke that DoE intelligence experts and biolabs specialists concluded that a Wuhan lab leak was most likely the source. This is also an interesting fact. The FBI’s operational thesis Since about the same time that Morning Consult’s First poll. This has been a valid thesis for three years and was resolutely suppressed by the media and government elites.

But why? Talking heads in government and the media have tried to evade responsibility and hide their attempts to silence discussion about a laboratory leak for the past two days. It should raise serious concerns about their credibility and the motives behind the campaign silence this discussion. It’s not. Just Because “right wingers” It was obvious that he believed it. Lot Many people across the spectrum believed it was possible. Most plausible explanation. And it’s not because people conflated it with a bioweapons hypothesis, because the two are separable — and even then, that hypothesis still is open to rational discussion and debate, or should be.

This appears to be an attempt to conceal the US’ possible role in the Wuhan lab leak scenario. The US ended funding for gain of function research on novel pathogens in 2014 after the incident. The Cambridge Working Group Report Warning! These are the potential risks. After a series laboratory errors led to workers being exposed to smallpox, anthrax and H5N1 viruses, each of which could have caused a public-health emergency.

Three years later, however, the National Institutes of Health Lifted the ban. Marc Lipitsch, a member of the Founding Cambridge Working Group, offered a warning about what was coming:

Marc Lipsitch, Harvard University, MA, USA, is a founding member in the Cambridge Working Group. “I still do not believe a compelling argument has been made for why these studies are necessary from a public health point-of-view; all we have heard is that there are certain narrow scientific questions that you can ask only with dangerous experiments”He said. “I would hope that when each HHS review is performed someone will make the case that strains are all different, and we can learn a lot about dangerous strains without making them transmissible.” He also pointed out that every mutation identified as crucial by gain-of-function experiments has been previously shown to be so by completely independent studies. “There is nothing for the purposes of surveillance that we did not already know”Lipsitch stated that it was. “Enhancing potential pandemic pathogens in this manner is simply not worth the risk.”

The NIH defended this move in Make a statement Francis Collins, then-director

GOF research is crucial in helping us to identify, understand and develop effective countermeasures against rapidly changing pathogens that threaten public health. Today’s publication of the Department of Health and Human Services Framework to Guide Funding Decisions About Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Pandemic Pathogens (link external) prompted the funding pause to be lifted. HHS P3CO Framework describes the multi-disciplinary review process that involves the funding agency as well as a Department-level review panel. It considers both the scientific merits of the proposed research and the potential benefits. This framework provides strong oversight for federally funded research that has enhanced pandemic potential pathogens. This framework is the result of extensive deliberative work by experts from both the public and private sector. It aligns with the Recommended Policy Guidance to Departmental Development of Review Methods for Potential Pandemic Disease Oversight (P3CO).

Research with infectious agents requires that we exercise care and consider the risks to biosecurity and biosafety. The HHS P3CO Framework’s thoughtful review will ensure that this type of research can be conducted in a safe and secure manner while maximizing the public health benefits.

Collins made that statement on December 19, 2017. Collins published that statement on December 19, 2017.

If it was caused by a laboratory leak or mishandling of a deliberately mutated disease, everyone in the decision tree to restore funding would be held responsible. They were all repeatedly warned by the Cambridge Working Group that such research was dangerous and not needed for any potential benefits. They were also aware of the laboratory accidents that occurred in the past and the events that led to the suspension of GOF research. Those decisions by Collins, Anthony Fauci, and others need to have consequences applied and — most importantly — new safeguards to prevent the manipulation of such pathogens in the future.

We would have been working on this issue three years ago if we had a media sector that was committed. Instead, the media have chosen to suppress this debate in order to cover the incompetent elites that likely created the situation. And the broad suppression of the debate by media in collusion with government shows that they clearly understood that this debate would be devastating for that clique — otherwise, they wouldn’t have bothered to suppress it in the first place.

Andrew Malcolm, my guest on this episode, and I had the good fortune to discuss this issue. Podcast The Ed Morrissey Show. Today’s show: