This week, the Wall Street Journal published an alarming report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting voices supporting laboratory theories about the origins of the coronavirus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from President Biden's important press conference, but government scientists were also reportedly warned that they were “going off the reservation” by endorsing the lab's theory. are.
The chilling suggestion is that despite the virus, ultimately killed over 1.2 million Americans Downplaying China's responsibility for the pandemic remained a top concern within the administration, despite more than 7 million people worldwide.
The journal explains how it unfolded, but the more disturbing question is why.
This article provides many examples of how dissenting voices have been marginalized and suppressed within government. After President Trump described the virus as the “China virus” and claimed it likely originated in a lab, rejecting the lab theory became a political and academic mantra.
The problem was that FBI researchers had concluded that the laboratory theory was the most reliable explanation. However, their lead researcher, Dr. Jason Bannan, was excluded from important meetings, and research they opposed was ignored or ignored.
They weren't alone. The magazine reported that Pentagon experts John Hardham, Robert Cutlip and Jean-Paul Chretien conducted a genome analysis and found evidence of human manipulation of the virus. It also concluded that the attack was carried out using a specific technology developed by the Chinese in a laboratory in Wuhan. They suggested that the Chinese appear to have modified the “spike protein” that allows the virus to enter the human body with “gain-of-function” surgery.
They were reportedly told to stop sharing their work and warned that they needed to collaborate effectively with their teams. The three then wrote an unclassified paper in May 2020, but they were prevented from publishing it outside the Medical Information Center.
At the same time, letters and articles denying the laboratory theory were organized for public consumption. The government worked with social media companies to censor people with opposing views.
Many media outlets displayed similar confirmation bias and intolerance. During the Trump presidency, many journalists used the denial of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden took office, not only certain government officials had invested heavily in zoonotic and natural origin theories, but so did many members of the media.
Reporters used the opposition to laboratory theory as another opportunity to beat the drum and tout their virtues.
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace ridiculed Trump and others for promoting their favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC's Casey Hunt claimed that “We know that this virus has been proven to be false, either man-made or modified.”
MSNBC's Joy Reid also calls it the lab leak theory. “The error was exposed” Meanwhile, CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized the promotion of a theory that has been “widely debunked.” CNN host Fareed Zakaria told the audience “The far right has discovered its own virus conspiracy theory'' from leaked information from the laboratory.
NBC News' Janice Mackey Freyer described it as “the centerpiece of a conspiracy theory.”
The Washington Post was particularly opinionated. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) brought up this theory, he said: chastised “Repeat”[ing] It's a fringe theory that suggests the ongoing spread of the coronavirus is linked to research in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the epidemic. ”
Similarly, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the laboratory theory, posttester Glenn Kessler said, laughed at him: “I'm worried that @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows it's virtually impossible for this virus to jump out of the lab. Or the many conversations with real scientists. We are dealing with facts and viewers can decide for themselves.”
When these efforts failed and more information supporting the lab theory came to light, many members of the media simply looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became even more enthusiastic. Even in 2021, New York Times science and health correspondent Apoorva Mandavili urged reporters not to touch on the issue. “Racist” Laboratory Theory.
In Kessler's case, the lab's theory had not been long supported by scientists, he writes, but “suddenly became credible,” as if it had sprung from the mind of Zeus. Many were canceled and banned.
But one fact is already well established. The suppression of laboratory theory and the targeting of dissenting scientists shows the true cost of censorship and perspective intolerance.
The very people who claim to fight “disinformation” were suppressing dissenting voices that have now proven to be credible. It wasn't just laboratory theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have been fired or disciplined by their schools and associations for questioning COVID-19 policies. I am.
Some experts questioned the effectiveness of surgical masks, the science behind the 6-foot rule, and the need for school closures. The government has now acknowledged that many of these objections were valid and that there was no hard science to support some of its policies. Other Western allies did not close schools, but the efforts of this coalition of academics, media, and government officials prevented us from having any substantive discussions.
Not only has the pandemic killed millions of people, but the United States is still grappling with the educational and mental health effects of the closure of all public schools. This is the true cost of censorship, when governments work with the media to suppress scientific discussion and disclosure.
Many still hope that Congress and the incoming Trump administration will conduct a long-needed investigation into the origins, allowing for a more authentic and open discussion. Those hopes were further heightened by the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharyya, one of the organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration, as the next director of the National Institutes of Health.
The suppression of laboratory theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never been successful. I have never stopped working on an idea or movement. It has perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of breaking out over time.
But as recent years have shown, they are successful in imposing costs on those who hold opposing views. Figures like Bhattacharya (who recently won the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) have been hounded and marginalized for years.
Some objected to Bhattacharya's right to express his scientific opinions, even under oath. For example, at one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Mr. Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as a “provider of COVID-19 misinformation.” expressed his feelings.
Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik denounced events related to Bhattacharya, saying “we are living in an upside-down world'' because Stanford University allowed scientists with opposing views to speak at scientific forums. did. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled, “The coronavirus lab leak claims are more than just an attack on science, they're a threat to public health.”
One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia, and media were not necessarily trying to protect China. Some are motivated by an investment in the story, while others are drawn to the political and personal benefits that come from joining a mob against a small number of scientists.
We have paid too much of a price for the media to just shrug and walk away. It's not just a question of whether China is responsible for millions of deaths, but also whether our own government helped effectively cover up China's responsibility.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of .An essential right: freedom of speech in a time of anger”
