Lab leak – evidence of the cover-up mounts

We may never have evidence of the lab leak (assuming it happened, which is seeming increasingly likely). As the ex-head of MI6 recently commented China will have long since destroyed all the records and evidence at the lab.

However – we are receiving proofs by a roundabout way. The evidence of an organised cover-up is increasing. It is established that China has not been forthcoming with data and records from the Wuhan lab. One year + into a global epidemic and in the context of a WHO investigation. Come on! Plus the other material about false trails – the virus was transmitted into China on chilled food, the fictitious link to Pangolins which has failed to stand up.

This serious article by ex Nature editor Nicholas Wade asked the question about how much the US Chief Doctor Anthony Fauci knew about possible gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab. He has denied that there were any – in work funded at the lab by the US NIH – but does this denial depend on semantics? Either way the NIH was funding the work of Shi Zheng-li (Dr. Bat) and if this irresponsibly conducted work (much of it was conducted in labs at a low level of security) did indeed lead to the pandemic then one can see why Dr Fauci might be part of the cover-up. Nicholas Wade characterises it amusingly:

One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says, “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?”

It now turns out that in a private email Dr Fauci was keener on the lab leak theory than he has been in public. “not convinced”. A second email released under US FOI has been fully redacted according to the BBC. [1] What part of the truth concerning a global pandemic which has killed millions do the US authorities not want us to see? It is hardly a military secret. – It looks like Nicholas Wade’s amusing imaginative sketch is rather close to reality.

Today Dr Fauci is reported as saying: “I don’t remember what’s in that redacted [email], but the idea I think is quite far-fetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves as well as other people. I think that’s a bit far out.”

But. Hold on. This is not what people are saying. People are suggesting that the virus (already ready-to-go and attach with optimal efficiency to human respiratory tracts from the moment it started circulating in Wuhan) was released accidentally as part of research that Shi Zheng-li was doing into how to make coronaviruses more infectious. He must know she was doing precisely this work because it was funded by the NIH. [3] So – his denial is strange. Is he denying this charge about a deliberate bioweapon (which is a conspiracy theory) to avoid responding to the very much not a conspiracy theory – accidental leak from dangerous research funded by his organisation? Is it like his denial about “no gain of function experiments at Wuhan” – it is a game with words?

We may indeed never find the hard evidence that that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab but the evidence of a cover-up – not just from the Chinese authorities – but also from the US Health establishment – is growing fast. And why cover up something which didn’t happen?



Lab leak theory is being suppressed for a solid reason

This is probably the reason why the (highly likely) scenario that Sars-Cov-2 was the result of a gain-of-function experiment which leaked from the lab in Wuhan is being suppressed by a concentred effort of the Western media and political classes. If established as true there will be difficult to manage public demand for sanctions and reparations which could lead to a collapse of the global economy.

At the same time – there is enough of a tendency left in the West (in the US) to base policy on something resembling the truth and it may yet be that the US administration is willing to face the (highly likely) reality that Sars-Cov-2 leaked from the lab and China has been engaged in a monstrous cover-up.

Of course the last year has seen massive control of populations by the State in the ‘free’ West – people have been deliberately frightened into ‘giving up their freedoms’ and then accepting that freedom is a gift of the state; rather than the idea that the function of the State is to guarantee freedom, which resides in free relations between people. People in this cowed stated may be willing not to demand reparations and may well be willing to accept a very muted response. It is not inconceivable that this is a planned strategy. At any rate having a submissive and cowed population is the dream of any state apparatus which works for a small private interest group but which requires mass acquiescence in its plans – as is the case with the states of the West. Once they have such submissive acquiescence they can do whatever they want. E.g. tell the people that the lab leak theory is a crazy conspiracy theory or tell them it is true but for various reasons we should not be too hard on China.

I think that the lab leak theory is highly likely – it looks to me about 95% for the lab leak theory and 5% for the evolved naturally via an intermediary animal theory at the moment. On the question of how likely – the more evidence emerges of concerted efforts by China not only to block and impede an investigation but also to spread ‘fake news’ in relation to the matter the more the likelihood of the lab leak gains ground: they stymied the WHO investigation [1], blocked journalistic investigations [2], released an obviously hoax theory about cold-food as a transmission vector [3], faked science about Pangolins as the source [4], and apparently prevented scientists speaking out [5]. All of which is difficult to connect with the idea that the virus emerged naturally.


This seems to be a very serious piece discussing the two competing theories. The author is a respected Science Writer. Particularly interesting is the section exposing as bad science the view that the genetic evidence is that Sars-Cov-2 cannot have been produced artificially. This view which has been much parroted by the media appears to simply not take account of the full range of techniques available to produce artificial viruses. Note that this specific point has been made previously by virologists (and reported on this website) – however it has been reported as an outlying view. It seems it is in fact mainstream. The article also points out that British scientist Peter Daszak who is linked to the Wuhan lab though a funding body has been a key player in spreading the notion that the pandemic cannot be traced to the lab.

The whole of the above linked article by science writer Nicholas Wade makes compelling reading. There are multiple threads in it each one of which alone would point more towards the lab leak theory than the natural evolution in the wild theory. Just as a highlight I rather like this:

“Steven Quay, a physician-researcher, has applied statistical and bioinformatic tools to ingenious explorations of the virus’s origin, showing for instance how the hospitals receiving the early patients are clustered along the Wuhan №2 subway line which connects the Institute of Virology at one end with the international airport at the other, the perfect conveyor belt for distributing the virus from lab to globe.”

He also points out that the Coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab was being funded by the US NIH. (It doesn’t seem to be clear if they knowingly funded gain-of-function experiments). This is also quite fun:

One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says, “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?”

In short; if the US was funding work which led to the pandemic (and they were certainly funding research into Coronaviruses and how they could infect humans) this would appear to be a very solid reason as to why they might be keeping quiet.

I’m also relinking to this: which is another more balanced piece (from March 21).

See also:



The new Cold War

Orwell was right. States which lie to and control their own populations need an external enemy.

The UK and the US are clearly intent on setting Russia up as the devil incarnate. There has been a slew of anti-Russia articles in the UK liberal press recently including one rather horrible one which rhetorically suggested that the sole purpose for the Sputnik vaccine was to enable Russia to play ‘soft power’ games around the world. But then, we already know that the lives of ordinary Russians matter not one jot to these people and they would be quite happy if there was no vaccine for Russian people and tens of thousands more died.

It seems that the UK wants to get as many possible countries as possible to gang up against Russia. That this move is a rather naked attempt by the UK to position itself as an important power post-Brexit does not seem to have registered with the Guardian’s diplomatic editor. (And of course predictably enough the only way the UK can do this is by attaching itself to the coat-tails of the US). In general it seems that one way the UK plans to ‘establish itself as a major independent power’ is by leading the way in Russia-bashing.

Raab presents a very lop-sided perspective on Russia:

Raab said the door to diplomacy was always open with autocracies, but also warned the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to end his “brinkmanship sabre-rattling on the border of Ukraine, the cyber-attacks and misinformation and the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, that was not just a human rights abuse but a use of chemical weapons on Russian soil”.

Point by point:

“autocracies”. Well; Russia has a democracy. The OSCE for example noted that in the 2012 Presidential election for example “candidates were allowed to campaign unhindered” [1]. The same mission also reported to have found evidence of vote tampering though they only mentioned a limited number of examples. Russian parliamentary and Presidential democracy is far from ‘perfect’ – but unlike many of the UK’s allies e.g Saudi Arabia it is not an autocracy.

brinkmanship sabre-rattling on the border of Ukraine“. Nothing here about the suppy of US arms to Kiev [2] or the UK military ‘training’ role. And I don’t recall any pressure from the Foreign Office on Kiev to implement the Minsk peace agreements it has signed.

cyber-attacks“. He may mean SolarWinds. That may have been Russia. Who knows – as usual even the intelligence agencies seem to lack any concrete proof. But assuming it was – it was not in fact a “cyber-attack”; it was a piece of espionage. I don’t know for sure but I would be very surprised indeed if the UK was not spying on Russia. In fact don’t they have a whole department under Mr Raab for just this purpose (spying on other nations)?

“misinformation”. I’m not sure what this means exactly but presumably anything which doesn’t mesh 100% with the propaganda line put out by the Foreign Office and its paid journalists on the ‘Integrity Initiative‘. If it means RT it is simply wrong. RT doesn’t (or very rarely) misrepresent facts. It does follow an editorial line which is clearly designed to sow discord in the West. But then, has Raab seen any ‘Radio Free Europe’ websites recently? This US State Department funded project available in Russia in Russian (and in the Tatar language) provides a constant stream of stories designed to stir up ordinary Russians against their government.

poisoning of Alexei Navalny“. To the best of my knowledge the only ‘evidence’ about this is provided by an unreliable and scientifically illiterate blogger and amounts to no more than a claim that Navalny was under FSB surveillance. At any event Raab seems to have what psychologists call boundary problems. He is the Foreign Minister of the UK not Russia. Meanwhile Assange rots in jail in London for the crime of reporting on US war crimes.

The “rules-based order” which Raab wants to use apparently as a banner to unite the world against Russia is a synthetic concoction which has meaning in the context of propaganda not actions. Tens of thousands of Iraqis would attest to that if they were alive to do so. They ignore or circumvent the “rules” they claim to respect whenever and wherever it suits them. They organised a regime change in Libya with disastrous consequences – by twisting a UN Security Council Resolution which permitted limited action to defend civilians to mean “kill Gaddaffi”. (He was then brutally tortured and murdered on the battlefield – possibly with the help of British special forces). [4] They are currently breaking international law by carrying out military operations uninvited in Syria. During the Libyian debacle UK ally France blatantly dropped arms into Libya in flagrant violation of the UN embargo (Resolution 1970). [ 5] Arms which have fuelled subsequent conflicts in the region.

In reality the “rules based order” which Raab is talking about means “we make the rules and you obey them”. It is precisely not the “multilateral” world order he claims to be interested in.

Just as in 1984 Big Brother engages in double-speak as he dresses up the enemy in his own crimes. The Guardian plays its role broadcasting the propaganda to the people as “news”.


  5. /

Petrov and Boshirov in the news again. Why now?

I’m fairly doubtful about the official narrative concerning the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury in 2018. The main points for me which cast doubt on the official story are:

the rather unlikely idea that both Skripals (of different weights) touched the doorknob and then waltzed about town for a few hours before suddenly and immediately both falling ill at exactly the same time

the connections between Skripal, ex MI6 agent Pablo Miller, a private security company in which Miller and ex MI6 agent Christopher Steele were involved and the fake smear dossier on Trump produced by Steele for money. These connections – the fact of which was suppressed by UK gov via a D-notice – seem to bear further investigation. Was Skripal a source? Was he contacting his sources in Russia to help Steele get dirt on Trump?

the official narrative of the movements of the two Russians Petrov and Boshirov in Salisbury seems rather pat – and to leave some parts unexplained.

Incidentally I have no doubt at all that Petrov and Boshirov were lying when then claimed their trip to Salisbury was because they had a sudden urge to visit the Cathedral. Obviously. Nonetheless I think that the official British government narrative looks fishy.

It is interesting that today a new story has been released that claims to link Petrov and Boshirov to a 2014 explosion in an arms warehouse in the Czech Republic. The authors of the story in the Guardian are Luke Harding and Dan Sabbagh. This could all be true. It is claimed that the warehouse was supplying arms to Ukraine – and that (if true) might explain why a Russian military intelligence outfit would see it as a legitimate target. But I’m struck by this paragraph:

According to Czech media, detectives investigating the explosion initially assumed it was a tragic accident. Two men working at the depot – Vratislav Havránek and Luděk Petřík – died instantly when 50 tonnes of ammunition blew up. Last year, however, investigators from Prague’s counter-intelligence service and the national centre against organised crime received new information. They discovered Mishkin and Chepiga – using the Petrov and Boshirov passports – had been in the country when the explosion took place.

The explosion happened in 2014. The Skirpals were poisoned in March 2018. After the Skripals were poisoned the British government published passport photographs of Petrov and Boshirov. One would surely imagine that they would have shared the passport details with their colleagues across Europe. One would surely have assumed that all Western intelligence agencies would immediately have scanned the flight databases, immigration databases – and other sources – and identified the two, who we are told used the same passports as in 2018. But it has taken the Czech authorities another 3 years to make the connection. I don’t find that very plausible.

Note Rabb’s comment: “This shows a pattern of behaviour by Moscow, following the novichok attack in Salisbury,”. But, hang on; this claim by the Czech authorities relates to an event in 2014. So it is not following the Salisbury “novichok attack” at all. In fact it predates it by 4 years. Why has Raab make this mistake?

One possibility; the story is true. Petrov and Boshirov were in the Czech republic in 2014 and can be linked to this explosion. However the hazy details in which Harding claims “Last year investigators… received new information” are not. Czech authorities knew about this soon after the 2018 discovery and exposé of the Petrov and Boshirov passports, but they have sat on it until now. And today it is being released for political purposes – now is the time, just after Biden has issued yet more sanctions against Russia, and just as Kiev is trying to ramp up pressure on Russia over Donbass to max out the pressure on Russia. This theory would also explain why Raab (who will be in on this) makes that ‘little’ slip of thinking that the 2014 explosion happened after the 2018 Skripal poisoning.

At any rate I have no doubt that the West (in particular the UK) uses these events in a purely political game. Another example would be the Litvinenko episode. When he was assassinated in 2006 the British government gave only a very muted response. It was only after the 2014 coup in Ukraine and the secession of Crimea that a public inquiry was held which very publicly held Russia responsible.