Covid Origin: The Cover-Up — Science, Censorship, and Corruption
Below are parts 4 and 5 of our investigation.
You can read the first issue here.
Interactive Timeline: https://justinhart.biz/lab-leak-timeline/
Evidence Matrix: https://justinhart.biz/lab-leak-evidence/
February 1, 2020: The Secret Teleconference
Dr. Anthony Fauci convened a small group of virologists. Emails later released under FOIA show the private assessment clashed with the public narrative.
March 2020: The Proximal Origin Deception
Six weeks later, the same scientists published The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 in Nature Medicine, calling the lab leak “implausible.” The paper became the establishment’s cudgel to silence dissent.
2020–2021: Coordinated Censorship
Facebook removed posts mentioning lab leak as “misinformation” until May 2021.
Twitter suspended users discussing laboratory origin under its COVID policy.
YouTube deleted videos questioning the official narrative.
Reddit banned subreddits investigating origins.
September 2023: CIA Incentive Allegations
Whistleblowers told Congress the CIA offered monetary incentives to analysts to change their conclusions away from lab leak. The agency denied paying analysts for specific outcomes, but the allegation remains in the official record.
House Select Subcommittee (Sept 2023)
“A senior-level CIA officer allegedly offered financial incentives to six analysts to change their position on whether SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory.”
Part V: Documentary Evidence — What the Records Show
Scowcroft Institute · July 2025
“Kadlec continues to operate as a kind of one-man DRASTIC group, making maximum use of openly available information — virological literature, papers from Wuhan, contemporaneous news — to reconstruct what actually happened.”
— Roger Brent, Reactions to ‘A Critical Review of COVID-19 Origins’
House Select Subcommittee (Dec 2024)
“The Select Subcommittee has confirmed that the most likely origin of COVID-19 is a research-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Source: 520-page final report on the origins of the pandemic.
Evidence Weight: Laboratory vs. Natural
Part VI: Government Conclusions — Intelligence, Congress, Allies
Intelligence Community Reversal
Department of Energy (2023): Leaned toward lab accident based on technical analysis.
FBI (2023): Medium-confidence lab-leak assessment, public testimony by Director Wray.
CIA (2025): Shifted from “unable to determine” to “more likely” a laboratory origin.
ODNI: Declassified reports confirm BSL-2 practices and database removal.
Congressional Findings
House Select Subcommittee: Lab accident “most likely”; EcoHealth “failed repeatedly” to follow grant rules.
Senate hearings captured dueling expert testimony — Richard Ebright (lab incident) vs. Robert Garry (market spillover).
Appropriators demanded HHS suspend EcoHealth (now debarred for five years).
“I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory … escaped. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually settle it.”— Dr. Robert Redfield, Former CDC Director (House testimony, 2023)
International Echoes
Germany’s BND: Concluded in 2020 that a lab leak was likely with 80–90% probability; shared with CIA in 2024.
Australian intelligence: Questioned natural origin narrative, citing Chinese obstruction.
WHO’s 2025 panel: Still leans zoonotic but concedes critical data are missing.
Part VII: What This Means — Implications and Accountability
For Science
Peer review was weaponized to enforce a political narrative.
Gain-of-function research demands strict global oversight, not trust-me assurances.
Conflict-of-interest disclosures must be enforced, not optional.
For Media & Platforms
Coordinated censorship throttled legitimate scientific debate.
“Fact-checkers” parroted government talking points instead of investigating.
Platforms like Facebook quietly reversed bans once the narrative collapsed.
For Government
Intelligence analysis was skewed by politics and, allegedly, financial incentives.
Transparency was blocked through overclassification and stonewalling.
Taxpayer-funded collaborations lacked even basic biosafety audits.
Next Actions
🧪 Establish an independent, declassified repository of all SARS-CoV-2 origin evidence.
🧬 Freeze gain-of-function funding until compliance, reporting, and biosafety audits are public.
🌐 Demand international inspections of high-containment labs that accept Western grants.
🛡️ Protect dissenting scientists and analysts from retaliation.
Conclusion: The Evidence Is Overwhelming
Five years after COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, the evidence for laboratory origin is overwhelming, documented, and undeniable. Scientific signatures point to lab optimization. Funding records prove the work was planned, paid for, and executed. Intelligence agencies, congressional investigators, and international partners have shifted toward the same conclusion.
The question is no longer whether COVID-19 originated from a laboratory accident. It is now:
Will there be accountability for the cover-up that muzzled the truth?
Will we halt reckless gain-of-function pipelines before they trigger another disaster?
Will we rebuild public trust by making the full record transparent?
📂 Explore the interactive evidence dashboard →
Interactive Timeline: https://justinhart.biz/lab-leak-timeline/
Evidence Matrix: https://justinhart.biz/lab-leak-evidence/
Source documents, grant files, FOIA emails, and every chart referenced here.
The lives lost and damage done by COVID-19 demand nothing less than complete accountability and structural reform.
You've forgotten the most likely explanation, which is that this entire thing was an artifact of the method being used (Sequencing, PCR, testing, etc.).
Here’s what I’ve learned over the years about sequencing and genomes:
1. No viral genome has ever been sequenced directly from a purified sample containing only the target virus. Patient samples always contain a mix of human, bacterial, and other genetic material, and total RNA is extracted from all of it together.
2. No viral genome has ever been read in one continuous physical read from start to end - not even with long-read sequencing, although technical feasible, and not even with Sanger sequencing (considered the gold standard). Every published genome is stitched together from overlapping fragments.
3. Published viral genomes are computational assemblies, not direct readouts. Software algorithms take millions of short fragments (~150 bases) of mixed origin and attempt to stitch them into a candidate sequence. The output is a statistical best guess - the algorithms cannot guarantee it corresponds to any single real biological entity.
4. The first published version of the SARS-CoV-2 genome actually contained confirmed human DNA (matching the "human genome" model) at the start and end - confirmed by Edward Holmes, a co-author - in writing. It was quietly removed in later versions.
5. There is no independent verification loop. Every subsequent study that "confirms" a viral genome uses primers and alignment references derived from the original computationally assembled sequence. If the original is wrong, every downstream confirmation inherits that error.
6. Both the US CDC and Germany's RKI have formally confirmed that they do not isolate viral genetic material from other genetic material before sequencing, and neither possesses a dataset where the complete genome was independently reconstructed from scratch.
7. The bottom line: what they call a "viral genome" is a computer model built from fragments of unknown origin, not a molecule that was physically observed or read end-to-end.
You can find all details & receipts on my substack. Cheers!
Justin, I challenge the findings and conclusions. I don't agree that the evidence points to what you say is undeniable. I have presented a thesis going back to 2020 when early reports of severe "covid" outcomes were pointing to the common denominator of having taken that year's flu 'vaccine.' Later expanded to those who had been exposed to shedding from that year's flu 'vaccine.' Those early reports are hard to find today, for, reasons. But I make a point of not forgetting things like that even though the internet often does.
It is a thesis that has been ignored and remained uninvestigated across all public debate platforms. Flu vaccine origin theory. The 'debate' has been limited to two possibilities that narrative creators (propagandists) deem permissible. Theses that are impermissible remain out-of-bounds in large debates. Be sure to note the dates of these stories; they are as, even more important in understanding the genesis of the early narrative creators than the curious/suspicious content itself.
And at this point it's a very plausible thesis...more plausible than wet market or lab leak. Yet without rigorous *real* science it will remain a theory/thesis. The search for truth is never a binary proposition.
Here's to exploring a theory that lurks in plain view of all willing to step outside conventional paradigms...like origin in the 2019-2020 flu vaccine? We know vaccines shed, even the mRNA ones - Fauci admitted, RFK Jr's Real Anthony Fauci book has global charts showing cases/deaths *followed* vaccination campaigns. This happens with the flu shots as well. What was in the 2019-2020 flu vaccine?
This publication describes a brand-new style of flu vaccine that came online for the 2019-2020 flu season. Mammalian cell-based instead of egg-based. Claims that it was studied for efficacy...but no mention of safety trials:
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/first-cell-based-quadrivalent-vaccine-available-for-2019-2020-flu-season
"A new cell-based seasonal influenza vaccine has been issued marketing approval by the European Commission and will be available for the 2019/2020 flu season.
Flucelvax® Tetra (Seqirus) is the first cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) to be made available in Europe and is licensed for use in individuals aged nine years and older.
To date, there have been no randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of QIVc and standard egg-based quadrivalent vaccines (QIVe)"
“This real-world study, along with other emerging evidence, indicates that cell-based influenza vaccines may result in better influenza-related outcomes compared to standard egg-based vaccine options in some seasons"
"In the UK, the potential advantages of QIVc, which is cultured in mammalian cells rather than eggs"
“We are pleased to be bringing Flucelvax Tetra to the UK next season and have sufficient capacity at our cell-based manufacturing facility in the US to also ensure supply in September 2019"
FF - This article is interesting. It says that they added live-attenuated influenza vaccines to the schedule. It goes on to say that flu vaccines most definitely, positively, absolutely don't cause the flu, and by that definition won't shed...even after all of the science on vaccines admit that live-attenuated vaccines do shed. Curious:
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/20192020-influenza-vaccine-update
"The 2019–2020 influenza vaccine recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have remained mostly the same, with the exception of adding the LAIV to the immunization schedule."
FF - These articles tell us about what the WHO's process is and what they decided the 2019-2020 vaccine recommendations would be. I'll note that the first link speaks to concerns with preparing for H3N2 from the prior year, while the second link says they ended up not developing that specific strain of vaccines, after all, and the third link says they went ahead and included the H3N2 variant, after all. H3N2 was a "very severe" variant:
https://elemental.medium.com/inside-the-making-of-the-flu-vaccine-c5d6f8cd174c
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/who-vaccine-recommendations-are-used-pharmaceutical-companies-develop-produce-and-license-influenza
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/918053
FF - Even the changes noted in this 2019-2020 UK flu 'vaccine' push:
‘What’s new for 2019?
https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2019/10/04/flu-vaccination-the-main-things-to-know-about-the-2019-programme/
"More people than ever are now eligible for the flu vaccine and 25 million people in England will be offered it for free by the NHS. For the first time, the nasal spray vaccine will be offered to all primary school aged children, which means an extra 600,000 children will be protected.’
FF - Now, this is an interesting story from CNN that came out in November, 2019, an important time frame in the evolution of the 'covid' story. Note the discussion about the need to develop a new type of all-purpose 'vaccin'e (mRNA?), a desire to test it widely, one that focused on a protein they link to a particular 'virus'...like, say, a spike protein. Fauci is frequently quoted in it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/health/universal-flu-vaccine/index.html
"But a universal flu shot would theoretically cover every strain of the flu using what’s known as an ice cream cone approach."
"Last spring, doctors at the NIH started testing universal flu shots on Sonn and other study participants to see how their bodies respond. [FF Note - There is no record anywhere of this Sonn character from deep searching of internet records. Often times narrative creators employ fictional characters to advance a storyline. This appears to FF to be the case of Sonn - the motivation seems highly suspect, A very distant emotional draw to evoke sufficient passion to 'volunteer' is a major flaw in it. The character does serve the useful purpose of psychological predictive priming, though - "be a good person, save grandpa!"]
“I have a personal connection to the flu,” Sonn explained. “My grandfather was orphaned due to the flu epidemic in April 1919.”
The 1918-1919 Spanish flu pandemic infected a third of the world’s population and killed 50 million people.
Losing his parents at 6 years old left a mark on Sonn’s grandfather, and subsequently on Sonn himself.
“He really had great trust in science and medical research, so I know he would be proud I’m taking part in this,” Sonn said.
One of the most useful things about the universal flu shot is that if it works out as hoped, it will also protect against flu pandemics like the one that killed Sonn’s great-grandparents.
In a flu pandemic, a new strain of flu virus emerges. Since very few people have immunity to it, it can spread quickly and easily.
There have been four flu pandemics in the past century: in 1918-1919; in 1957-1958; in 1968; and in 2009.
The research got an extra push in September when President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at developing a better flu vaccine.
Fauci said it could take less time – but still many years – to develop a semi-universal flu shot, which would protect against not all flu viruses, but rather a group of flu viruses."
"The faster and more precise method is not to grow the virus at all and instead just create the virus’ protein, he said.
“We clone the gene that codes for the specific protein we want,” Fauci said. “I don’t even want to see the virus. I just need the sequence of that virus, the genetic map of that virus. And you could send that to me by email.”
That’s the technology that’s being used to create the vaccines being trialed on participants like Sonn right now.
“We feel like we’re pioneers, and our volunteers are pioneers,” Ledgerwood said."
FF - How does the 2019 flu 'vaccine' development and selection read with 20/20 hindsight? And how does that CNN piece from November, 2019 read in hindsight? And motice the date of the story - same exact time as the first whispers of a dangerous virus in Wuhan were being reported. No such thing as coincidence.
And there is a strong correlation between the flu vaccine and Coronavirus susceptibility. This RTE Stack does a good job of trying to pull in some of the early reports of 2019-2020 flu 'vaccination' being common to severe outcomes:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/how-flu-vaccines-accidentally-reveal
FF - And in late 2020 as the 'covid' 'vaccine' was first being deployed into arms was another push in UK for flu 'vaccination' to younger cohorts than ever recommended to receive before, lowering the age from 65 to 50. To be taken in conjunction with the upcoming 'covid' 'vaccine':
Remember, by this time the flu had ceased being tracked in mortality statistics, only 'covid.' So it was just in time to bolster the ‘surge’ of reported ‘covid’ cases simply by increasing the number of arms to receive free flu jabs.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-flu-vaccinations-rolled-out-to-over-50s-from-december "
This, Justin, is compelling evidence of a much different origination of what ended up being called "covid" than either lab leak or wet market theories. Theories. Just like this one I submit to you and readers for consideration. As I challenge notions that the lab leak theory is 'undeniable.' How would one know what is undeniable without investigating ALL theories? Not just limited to the two permissible ones. Imagine the ramifications of this alternative theory being the most compelling, "undeniable" one of all? A whole lotta 'splainin to do. Criminal. Against Humanity level.