Forbes Caught in Blatant Censoring Act
Reproduced from original article:
- Forbes’ June 7, 2020, article on a Norwegian report that claims to present proof that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation was almost immediately altered to reflect the opposing view
- The 180-degree turnaround is being justified by citing “scientific consensus on COVID-19” — a consensus that does not exist
- There are many reasons for protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 is of a natural origin. If it is proven to be a lab creation, the public may demand biosafety/biowarfare research into dangerous pathogens be stopped
- Thousands of scientists involved in such research would lose their jobs if funding came to a halt and biosafety level 4 laboratories were to be shut down. Many could also potentially face life in prison for violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
- American scientists and health organizations would also be responsible, and the U.S. doesn’t want to implicate its own agencies in the creation of SARS-CoV-2
If you need further proof that the mainstream media is censoring truthful news, look no further than Forbes’ June 7, 2020, article on a Norwegian report that claims to present proof that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation.
The article was initially published with the headline “Norway Scientist Claims Report Proves Coronavirus Was Lab-Made.”1,2 Shortly thereafter, that headline was altered to “Controversial Coronavirus Lab Origin Claims Dismissed by Experts.”3
Forbes Pulls a 180
As revealed in the side-by-side screenshots below, the 180-degree turnaround is being justified by citing “scientific consensus on COVID-19” — a consensus that most certainly does not exist as of yet — and evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 is lab-created is being roundly dismissed as “rumor and conspiracy.” If this doesn’t show you just how complicit the media is driving a pre-established narrative, I don’t know what will.
Here’s a sample of the changes. The original article states:4
“The study from Sørensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted. They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery, which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans.”
The updated article now reads:5
“The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study6,7 — accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics — claim that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.
In their paper, the Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified ‘inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface’ that explains how the virus interacts with cells in the human body. Virologists, however, note that similar sections appear naturally in other viruses.”
Why All-Natural Narrative Is so Important to Maintain
Undoubtedly, the fear of exposure is real, and if you see the words “consensus” or “conspiracy theory,”8 you are likely seeing an attempt at a cover-up. What are they afraid of?
Well, there are many reasons for protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 is of a natural origin. If it is proven to be a lab creation, the public may demand biosafety/biowarfare research into dangerous pathogens be stopped.
Thousands of scientists involved in such research would lose their jobs if funding came to a halt and biosafety level 4 laboratories were to be shut down to prevent another global manmade pandemic from occurring. These laboratories pose probably one of the greatest of any threats to mankind, and we deserve to have a serious debate about their risks and benefits.
Aside from threatening the future of biosafety/biowarfare research in general, many could potentially face life in prison for violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.9
China, of course, has every reason to quell evidence that the pandemic originated in its first BSL4 laboratory, as it could be held legally responsible and restitution claims from affected nations would likely run in the trillions of dollars.10,11
According to tech analyst Ray Wang, founder of Constellation Research Inc., colleagues within the Chinese scientific community told him they were prohibited from discussing the “new strain of flu” that had emerged in China in January 2020, because the Chinese Communist Party wanted to prevent the outbreak from becoming publicly known. According to Wang:12
“Nobody wanted to talk about it because there was a dual-use lab. If you’re a government, you don’t want to hurt your own people either. Today, what’s actually happening is they are trying to cover up for that.”
But American scientists and health organizations would also be implicated, as the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded coronavirus gain-of-function research being done in Wuhan, China. So, to say there’s a lot at stake would be a serious understatement.
The U.S. doesn’t want to implicate its own agencies in the creation of this virus, which is why government officials focus on the source of the leak — China — rather than the fact that it’s engineered. Clearly, if it’s engineered, everyone associated with its creation, including those funding it, would be responsible.
So, when discussing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it’s important to be crystal clear on what the problem is, namely the existence of dangerous bioweapons/biodefense research. It’s not a condemnation of the Chinese population or its government per se, although critique of China’s handling of the outbreak is getting louder.
Even Fauci has stated, “I think the Chinese authorities that did not allow the scientists to speak out as openly and transparently as they could really did a disservice.”13 However, while we may eventually be provided with unequivocal proof that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan lab, genetic manipulation will undoubtedly continue to be denied past any point of believability.
If SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered manmade virus, it is proof positive that gain-of-function research poses tremendous risks to humanity and that those risks far exceed any potential gain. Virtually all other threats to humanity — environmental toxins, pesticides, GMOs, pollution — pale in comparison to the danger posed by biodefense/bioweapons research.
Natural Evolution Argument Fails for Lack of Evidence
What we’re seeing now is an ever-widening gulf between scientists and drug-industry-run media. While a majority of the press corps insist there is a “consensus” on the natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists keep publishing evidence to the contrary.
For example, a June 8, 2020, paper14 by Daoyu Zhang argues against zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, stating genetic analyses of pangolin samples used to support zoonotic transference appear to be contaminated:
“Recently, there were much hype about an alleged SARS-like coronavirus being found in samples of Malayan pangolins (Manis Javanica) possessing nearly identical RBD to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
Prominent journals cite the alleged discovery to claim that pangolins may be one of a possible intermediate host for the zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans.
Here, we report that all databases used to support such a claim, upon which metagenomic analysis was possible, contained unexpected reads and was in serious risk of contamination. Here we also report that the presence of unexpected reads are directly related to the presence of coronavirus reads.”
One nowadays rare mainstream news article15,16 that dares look at both the engineering and leaking issue was published in The Wall Street Journal May 29, 2020. As noted in this article, “New research has deepened, rather than dispelled, the mystery surrounding the origin of the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19.” Indeed.
In his article,17 “So Where Did Covid Come From?” foreign reporter Ian Birrell also points out “It’s not mere conspiracy theory to ask if this new coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab.” Meanwhile, CNN continues to push the zoonotic narrative by airing a special on the connection between bats and COVID-19.18
As noted in the April 2020 paper, “Is Considering a Genetic-Manipulation Origin for SARS-CoV-2 a Conspiracy Theory That Must Be Censored?” by Deigin and Rossana Segreto:19
“Theories that consider a possible artificial origin for SARS-CoV-2 are censored as they seem to support conspiracy theories. Researchers have the responsibility to carry out a thorough analysis, beyond any personal research interests, of all possible causes for SARS-CoV-2 emergence for preventing this from happening in the future.”
Deigin and Segreto go on to review evidence of a cover-up at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I recently interviewed molecular biologist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., about this as well. For the details of this story, see “Cover-Up of Wuhan Virus Exposed.” Deigin and Segreto’s paper20 is also an excellent read.
In short, SARS-CoV-2 may not be a new virus after all. A highly conserved close ancestor was already in the database under the name BtCoV/4991. The question is, why has this been covered up?
The fact that some scientific findings are being censored wholesale while others are being promoted as “consensus” is extremely dangerous and undermines the field of science as a whole.
When the press corps is no longer free to report facts and is instead used as an industry and political propaganda machine to the exclusion of truth, it can only lead to a devolution of society. Is that really what we want? The COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic and social disaster brought in its wake, is a wakeup call to the world in more ways than one.
What’s clear is we cannot afford to continue dangerous gain-of-function research on pathogens. We need to get to the bottom of its origin, so that steps can be taken to ensure something like this does not happen again. If we don’t, repeats are virtually guaranteed, and the next time, we may not be so lucky to get a virus with a mortality rate as low as SARS-CoV-2.
- 1, 4 Forbes June 7, 2020 (Archived, 1st edition)
- 2 Twitter David Nikel June 7, 2020
- 3, 5 Forbes June 7, 2020 (2nd edition)
- 6 QRB Discovery DOI: 10.1017/qrd.2020.8 (PDF)
- 7 QRB Discovery DOI: 10.1017/qrd.2020.8
- 8 MSN.com February 7, 2020
- 9 S.993 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
- 10 Warontherocks.com March 23, 2020
- 11 National Review April 6, 2020
- 12 Lochhead.com June 15, 2020
- 13 Newsweek June 7, 2020
- 14 Zenodo June 8, 2020
- 15 Wall Street Journal May 29, 2020
- 16 Breaking Views June 7, 2020
- 17 UnHerd So Where Did Covid Come From?
- 18 Twitter Peter Daszak June 11, 2020
- 19, 20 Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31358.13129/1