The NYT's "lab-leak" story: just part of the theatre.

One part of the false dichotomy - both sides of which lead to the same destination.

Those arguing that “a lab leak caused the covid pandemic” have been celebrating that the notably establishment mouthpiece of The New York Times appears to be coming round to their view, in the form of this opinion piece.

That is now pay-walled, though a sense of the piece can be gleaned from this tweet by the author Alina Chan, the text of which reads:

Ahead of today's hearing in Congress: my opinion piece with the @nytimes on why Covid-19 was likely caused by a lab accident.

My hope since 2020 has been for leaders, especially scientists, to lead the charge in investigating a plausible lab #OriginOfCovid - as opposed to shutting it down as a conspiracy theory or standing by while conflicted parties do so.

That hope has been revived repeatedly in the past 4 years by courageous scientists, journalists and individuals who took on considerable risks to do the right thing and push for a fair investigation.

In sharing this analysis of the available evidence with potentially millions of NYT readers, my aim is to undo some of the politicization of this issue - which has stood in the way of a thorough and bipartisan investigation of this global catastrophe, resulted in mis-reporting on origins for 4 years, as well as hindered the implementation of effective measures to prevent lab-based outbreaks.

A wholehearted investigation by US gov has the power to unearth more compelling evidence while spurring whistleblowers to find their courage and opportunity. And, regardless of whether the pandemic came from nature or a lab, the world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics.

To further propel the narrative (that she is just SO grateful to be taken seriously by this august journal), she goes on to tweet:

I never imagined publishing in @nytimes @nytopinion, not to mention receiving such overwhelming response. I want to thank the editors & team who worked day+night to vastly improve the piece, create compelling graphics & organize fact checks by experts.

..and there’s more:

I've been reading numerous emails, tweets & comments on NYT website. I'm heartened to see that people care about the #OriginOfCovid, that many are not letting identity or political affiliation decide on what is true, and an increased awareness of research with pandemic risks.

Most readers of this blog will know my views on this by now. If not, they are summarised here:

The only dangerous thing engineered has been a false dichotomy.

So, what of this latest NYT piece? I would suggest everyone asks themselves these questions:

1. How likely is it that the NYT just flipped overnight?

The view shared by all those sceptical about the establishment pandemic narrative has, for some time, been that:

“everything the NYT says about the pandemic is establishment-sponsored bullshit propaganda.

They printed exactly what they’re told to, on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines. They sold their soul.

They have never admitted that they were wrong on anything other than the occasional limited hangout”

Consider the recent “revelations” about President Biden’s dementia. Those who are awake to the role of “captured media” - which includes The New York Times - see this story as a planned deliberate reveal paving the way for a replacement, rather than a sudden realisation by media of what has been happening.

But in respect of “the pandemic”, we are now expected to believe that they just flipped, overnight, into a truth-telling news organisation?

How likely is that?

2. Why is the “truth-telling” so selective?

Let’s consider all the “pandemic” topics that aren't mentioned - and never really have been properly addressed.

There’s obviously a huge list, including:

• Lack of evidence supporting masks

• Massive over-use of ventilation in conjunction with sedatives and opiate drugs, and other harmful hospital protocols

• Differential treatments policies for vaccinated and unvaccinated

• Cash incentives for covid cases and for their ventilation

• Cash support for funerals if “covid” accepted as cause of death

• Censorship of any oppositional viewpoints

• The overuse of discredited modelling to stoke fear

• Remdesivir

• The lack of supporting evidence for “spread”

• The burying of stories and data about “pre-pandemic” presence of whatever SARS-CoV-2 was.

• The origin of lockdown policy

• The huge holes in the story around NYC being “hit hard”

• Vaccine mandates

• The disregard for safety on the part of captured Regulatory agencies, and the consequent harms caused by the injections known as covid vaccines

Part of the reason people are so cynical about the NYT suddenly “discovering” that President Biden might have cognitive issues is that they are well aware that the NYT has many reporters embedded into the White House. It was impossible that none of them would have noticed the cognitive issues which have been so apparent even to overseas occasional students of American politics like myself. Yet anyone raising this was treated with utter contempt and accused of spreading “misinformation”.

Essentially, therefore, the NYT is complicit in a cover-up, and everyone other than those deeply captured by what is looking more and more like a cult knows it.

So it is with “the pandemic”. The NYT has huge resources available for reporting all aspects of events since 2020. Concerned citizens and independent journalists must have been constantly trying to get them to “bite” on incredibly powerful counter-narrative stories.

But they never discovered anything else newsworthy to report on in relation to the above?

Put simply:

They have consistently ignored the pandemic narrative origin - while majoring on the origin of something which is at most just the “starting pistol”.

Or, as this tweet puts it: