The scientific establishments in the US and the UK connived together to prevent discussion about the origin of the Covid pandemic – the most lethally disruptive social, economic and political crisis since the Second World War.
It sounds fanciful, indeed impossible, in this age of transparency and accountability. But shamefully for those involved, the evidence strongly suggests that is what happened.
Five years on, the public needs to know – and to be provided with an explanation.
Thanks to my intelligence background, and with input from a crack team of experts in virology, Big Pharma and geo-strategy, we knew the truth as early as March 2020 and alerted the Government. They can’t say they did not know.
This elephant in the room has escaped most people’s attention – until now. Yet the Hallett Inquiry into the pandemic didn’t even seek to investigate how it started. Isn’t that strange?
By the spring of 2020, it was clear that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been laboratory enhanced in Wuhan, China, with some American academic assistance, to make it super-infectious by what are called ‘gain of function’ enhancements. A detailed paper trail in scientific publications back in 2012 recorded the linked experiments, and the virus itself showed compelling evidence of inserts into its ‘spike’ protein
The stated objective of this risky joint research, financed in part by money originally from US government grants, had been to investigate infectiousness to humans – a surprising cooperation in a laboratory that also had links to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
The chance that SARS-CoV-2 could be natural and had jumped species from bats to humans was many thousands to one against – quite apart from the fact it first appeared in the very spot where the Chinese laboratory carrying out these experiments was located.
By the spring of 2020, it was clear that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been laboratory enhanced in Wuhan , China, writes SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE
A nurse wearing full PPE on an NHS Covid ward. Leading US and UK scientists set about shaping the narrative to endorse the Chinese claim that the virus had jumped species from a bat to humans
I was able to ensure that Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, his then chief of staff, received a full virological and intelligence-style briefing in March 2020
By analysing the virus in January 2020, Birger Sorensen, a brilliant Norwegian virologist, was the first to document publicly its ‘chimeric’ lab-made nature. That statement is now accepted by the vast majority of western scientific and governmental observers.
Leading US and UK scientists, being aware of the likelihood that the virus was a Chinese laboratory escapee, nonetheless set about shaping the narrative to endorse the Chinese claim that the virus had jumped species from a bat to humans.
They also went on the offensive to suppress serious discussion of the laboratory leak theory. A total of 32 leading virologists signed a letter to medical journal The Lancet rubbishing that explanation.
Most influential was a paper in Nature Medicine, claiming that ‘the science is settled.’ It is known as the ‘Proximal Origins’ paper. Sorensen and colleagues wrote an article demolishing Proximal Origins.
It was refused publication in Nature Medicine and in every leading scientific journal where it could have been published – with no reasoned scientific argument ever being given for the rejection.
The virological community had closed ranks. Why? Was it to protect itself from allegations of causing the pandemic by the inherent dangers of its research? Did its close links with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (fully under the control of the Chinese Communist Party), whose funding flows through the arteries of global scientific research, possibly influence its judgment?
Researchers work in a lab at the Wuhan institute of Virology. Leading scientists suppressed any serious discussion of the laboratory leak theory
Boris was persuaded by the lab leak argument, but the weight of the Government’s scientific establishment prevailed, having already signed up to the Chinese narrative
Knowing what we knew, I was able to ensure that Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, his then chief of staff, received a full virological and intelligence-style briefing in March 2020. Boris himself was persuaded by its argument.
But the weight of the Government’s scientific establishment, already signed up to the Chinese narrative, prevailed.
It is clear now that the warning was correct.
In hindsight, that refusal then to listen to the team of experts with which I was associated –and to even consider that we might have been have been right – blocked a proper debate about the real nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
It also in part led to a sequence of poor policy decisions, perhaps even disastrous ones.
Today, we are still living with the consequences.