No, this isn’t some right-wing conspiracy.
And this isn’t some random person on YouTube dissecting the latest news.
This news comes from Nicholas Wade, who was once one of the top science journalists at the New York Times.
In other words, one of the sharpest minds for one of the most renowned (even if biased) news organizations is saying this.
So what exactly is Wade claiming?
Wade is claiming that COVID-19 not only escaped from a Chinese lab, but that evidence points to the fact that it was CREATED inside of a Chinese lab.
Of course, this goes against the narrative that the Establishment has been pushing.
Many experts and scientists have been ringing the alarm bells.
And Nicholas Wade is the latest of many high-profile, respected experts questioning the official narrative:
This piece from Nicholas Wade, who covered science for @nytimes for 30 years, is a must-read – it lays out in terrific detail the overwhelming evidence that #sarscov2 is the product of a Chinese lab accident. https://t.co/A7WANyV3YF
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) May 4, 2021
Origin of Covid — Following the Clues by Nicholas Wade
I spent the morning reading this and re – reading this.
The author makes many good points and I’d be interested in other peoples take on this provocative article.
Well worth the read with open mind https://t.co/6ytvFcf9Ki
— C. Michael Gibson MD (@CMichaelGibson) May 6, 2021
Per @nytimes #NicholasWade, "it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about #SARSCoV2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence." Must read story on #COVID19 origins. https://t.co/9EVF7paYhj
— Jamie Metzl (@JamieMetzl) May 3, 2021
Again, we want to emphasis who this is.
Nicholas Wade has written for the New York Times for 30 years.
He was once one of their top (if not the top) scientific journalist.
The National Review has more details on Wade’s theory on the origins of COVID:
Nicholas Wade is not an alarmist, and not a conspiracy theorist. He is one of the most eminent science journalists in the country, having done stints at Science and the New York Times, and he has released a very long, technical, and (if you’re into that sort of thing) riveting article on Medium weighing the evidence on the origin of COVID-19. Did it emerge naturally from an animal species to infect people in Wuhan, possibly at a wet market? Or did it leak out from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Where I think it is most convincing is in describing the lack of plausibility of natural emergence:
No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.
Wade weighed up what kind of evidence we do have about the virus itself, the lab, the safety protocols, and the grants funded by the NIH and NIAD, under Doctors Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci. They, and common sense, all point in one direction:
Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”). And this information would help predict the likelihood of “spillover,” the jump of a coronavirus from bats to people.
The methodical approach was designed to find the best combination of coronavirus backbone and spike protein for infecting human cells. The approach could have generated SARS2-like viruses, and indeed may have created the SARS2 virus itself with the right combination of virus backbone and spike protein.
It cannot yet be stated that Dr. Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so.
In other words, this is no longer really just a lab-leak theory; the evidence points to a lab-created theory, too. Now, before you go off, the evidence still also points to something like accident. But a reckless one and an eminently foreseeable one. One that virologists, and their sponsors, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, were warned about.
Wade also weighs in on the credulity of other science journalists, and the larger media — their inherent bias against theories floated by Donald Trump himself.
If Wade is right, this means that President Donald Trump (once again) was also right.
Trump floated this theory, but anti and never-Trumpers went all-in to debunk the theory.
But now more and more prominent scientific thought leaders are trying to get to the truth of what happened and how this started.
If you had expressed something approximating this theory a year ago, you were liable to be banned or censored from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Now a NYT journalist has written the definitive case for the lab-outbreak theory, and it's been republished by @BulletinAtomic https://t.co/y1NULJSg1x
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) May 6, 2021
Nicholas Wade left the NYT in 2012. I wonder why pic.twitter.com/UuA4AHuTD8
— Robert Silverman (@BobSaietta) May 6, 2021
Nicholas Wade chose not to publish this anywhere “official.”
Why?
Because with all the censorship going on, he probably didn’t want to risk it.
He wanted to maintain integrity and control over the story he was about to reveal to the public.
So he chose to self-publish the story on Medium:
The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted lives the world over for more than a year. Its death toll will soon reach three million people. Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain: the political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation, which the mainstream press seems helpless to dispel.
In what follows I will sort through the available scientific facts, which hold many clues as to what happened, and provide readers with the evidence to make their own judgments. I will then try to assess the complex issue of blame, which starts with, but extends far beyond, the government of China.By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.
The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. It matters a great deal which is the case if we hope to prevent a second such occurrence.
I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, I’m going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster.
We encourage you to read Wade’s full article here.
So what do you think?
Is the official narrative about COVID-19 legitimate?
Or do you think the truth has yet to come out?
Let us know in the comments below!
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!