The True Origins of COVID-19: Science Over Misinformation

Many federal government websites with legitimate information on COVID-19 were redirected to this website on April 19, 2025. It is full of lies. I’ve embedded a PDF of the website as an archive.

I’m going to debunk this propaganda piece by piece. I will be using AI intermittently to speed this along

The Lies of the Origin Inset Box

1. Lie: “The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.“
   • The genetic makeup of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, closely resembles other coronaviruses found in bats and pangolins. This similarity supports the theory that the virus evolved naturally through zoonotic transmission, rather than being artificially engineered.
   • If the virus had been artificially created, it would likely exhibit genetic markers or signatures indicative of laboratory manipulation. Extensive genomic analyses have not identified such markers in SARS-CoV-2.
   • Previous pandemics, such as the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003 and the MERS outbreak in 2012, were caused by coronaviruses that also originated in animals. This pattern aligns with the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2.
   • The majority of virologists and infectious disease experts agree that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a natural origin for the virus. While the lab-leak theory remains a topic of investigation, it does not imply that the virus possesses unnatural characteristics.
2. Lie: “Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.”
   • While initial data may suggest a single introduction, the dynamics of viral transmission are complex. Subsequent mutations and adaptations in the virus could lead to diverse strains, making it difficult to definitively trace all cases back to one event.
   • The assertion relies heavily on the available data, which may not capture the full picture. Undetected spillover events or incomplete genomic sequencing could skew the conclusions.
   • Previous pandemics, such as the 2009 H1N1 influenza, also had dominant strains that appeared to stem from a single introduction but were later found to involve multiple spillover events upon deeper investigation.
   • The origins and transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 remain subjects of ongoing research and debate. While some studies support the single introduction theory, others highlight the possibility of multiple spillover events, especially given the virus’s zoonotic nature.
     • Role of Spillover and Spillback in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and the Importance of One Health in Understanding the Dynamics of the COVID-19 Pandemic: This study highlights examples of SARS-CoV-2 spillover, spillback, and secondary spillover, demonstrating the breadth of variability in hosts and transmission events. It emphasizes the importance of animal hosts as potential reservoirs and sources of variant emergence.
     • Spatial spillover and COVID-19 spread in the U.S.: Research on spatial spillover effects in the U.S. shows how vulnerability factors influence the spread of COVID-19 across counties. While this study focuses on human-to-human transmission, it underscores the complexity of spillover dynamics.
     • COVID-19 under-reporting: spillovers and stringent containment strategies of global cases: A study on global COVID-19 cases examines spatial spillover analysis and containment strategies. It highlights how under-reporting and spatial dependencies can affect the understanding of spillover events.
3. Lie: “Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.”
   • The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is known to adhere to international biosafety standards. While concerns have been raised about biosafety practices, there is no conclusive evidence that these standards were violated in a way that directly led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.
   • Gain-of-function research is conducted globally, including in the United States and other countries, under strict regulatory frameworks. The focus on WIV may overlook the broader context of such research and its oversight mechanisms.
   • Extensive genomic analyses of SARS-CoV-2 have not identified markers indicative of laboratory manipulation. This supports the theory of natural zoonotic transmission rather than a lab-related incident.
4. Lie: “Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.”
   • Reports of WIV researchers falling ill in late 2019 describe symptoms that are non-specific and could be attributed to a variety of illnesses, including seasonal flu or other respiratory infections. This makes it difficult to conclusively link their illnesses to COVID-19.
     
     No ‘Bombshell’ On COVID-19 Origins, U.S. Intelligence Rebuts Claims About ‘Sick’ Lab Workers”: “As we explained previously, the veracity and significance of these alleged reports is unclear, as Wuhan was experiencing a surge of influenza at the time. In October 2021, U.S. Intelligence indicated that such claims had not been confirmed, and in any event, the information was ‘not diagnostic of the pandemic’s origins.’”
   • While some intelligence reports suggest that a few researchers sought medical treatment, these reports are largely circumstantial and do not provide direct evidence that the illnesses were caused by SARS-CoV-22.
   • The majority of scientists and experts continue to support the theory of a natural zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2. Genomic analyses and epidemiological studies point to the Huanan Seafood Market as a significant early site of the outbreak.
   • The origins of COVID-19 remain a topic of ongoing investigation. While the lab-leak theory is one of the hypotheses being explored, it is not universally accepted, and more evidence is needed to draw definitive conclusions.
5. Lie: “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.“
   • The process of uncovering evidence for zoonotic origins is inherently complex and time-consuming. Identifying the exact intermediate host or spillover event requires extensive fieldwork, sampling, and analysis, which can take years or even decades. For example, it took over a decade to trace the origins of the SARS virus to bats.
   • The search for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has been hindered by limited access to data and samples from early cases, particularly in regions where the virus is believed to have emerged. This lack of comprehensive data makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.
   • Historical examples show that evidence for zoonotic origins often emerges long after an outbreak. For instance, the origins of the Ebola virus and other zoonotic diseases were not immediately apparent and required years of investigation.
   • While definitive proof of a natural origin may not yet exist, there is substantial evidence supporting this theory. The genetic similarity of SARS-CoV-2 to coronaviruses found in bats and pangolins strongly suggests a zoonotic origin. Additionally, the absence of genetic markers indicative of laboratory manipulation further supports this hypothesis.
   • The scientific community continues to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The absence of conclusive evidence at this stage does not invalidate the natural origin theory; rather, it underscores the need for continued research and collaboration.

Bottom line: There is ample evidence to suggest natural origins of SARS-CoV-2. The virus most likely first emerged in a mine in Mojiang in 2012. This supports the role of bats in the spread.

“Extensive epidemiological evidence supports wildlife trade at the Huanan market as the most likely conduit for the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin.^3,76…Although the species identity of an intermediate host between the likely Rhinolophus spp. (horseshoe bat) reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses and humans remains unknown, our analysis informs this open question by determining the mammalian species present in the market with species and subspecies resolution. These results show that multiple plausible intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 were present at the exact site within Wuhan to which COVID-19 was first epidemiologically linked.” Crits-Christoph et al., 2024

“After years of rumours that the virus that causes COVID-19 escaped from a laboratory in China, the virologist at the centre of the claims has presented data on dozens of new coronaviruses collected from bats in southern China. At a conference in Japan this week, Shi Zhengli, a specialist on bat coronaviruses, reported that none of the viruses stored in her freezers are the most recent ancestors of the virus SARS-CoV-2…’We didn’t find any new sequences which are more closely related to SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2,’ said Shi, in a pre-recorded presentation at the conference.” Mallapaty, 2024.

PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION

It’s somewhat telling that they never bothered to link to the study in question. I added the link to the quote from the administration website. I agree that all avenues of origins should be investigated, but much of what is being pushed related to the lab leak is politically driven, not scientific.

Already addressed above in the section on the origin inset box.

Ecohealth Alliance was guilty of violating terms of the NIH grant. However, these seem more likely a result of not having a robust Regulatory and Compliance department. It’s more symptomatic of lackluster leadership than intentional biological malfeasance.

• Failure to Report Gain-of-Function Research: EcoHealth conducted gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) without proper oversight. These experiments involved enhancing the transmissibility or virulence of viruses, which required strict reporting and approval processes that were not followed.
• Delayed Reporting: EcoHealth submitted a required research report two years late, which hindered oversight and transparency in their activities.
• Ignoring Oversight Requests: The organization routinely ignored government oversight requests, failing to provide timely updates or comply with reporting requirements.

• Oversight Mechanisms: The NIH has established rigorous procedures for funding and overseeing research, including peer reviews, compliance checks, and audits. While there may be isolated instances of procedural lapses, these do not necessarily indicate systemic deficiencies.
• Complexity of Research Oversight: Managing potentially dangerous research, such as gain-of-function studies, involves navigating complex scientific, ethical, and regulatory landscapes. Challenges in oversight are not unique to the NIH and reflect broader issues in global research governance.
• Accountability Measures: The NIH has taken steps to address concerns about transparency and accountability. For example, investigations into EcoHealth Alliance’s grant violations led to funding suspensions and debarment proceedings, demonstrating the NIH’s commitment to enforcing compliance.
• Individual Actions vs. Institutional Policy: Allegations against specific individuals, such as Dr. David Morens and Marge Moore, should be viewed separately from the NIH’s institutional policies. These actions, if proven, represent personal misconduct rather than systemic failures.
• Continuous Improvement: The NIH regularly reviews and updates its policies to enhance oversight and ensure the safety and integrity of federally funded research. Criticisms can serve as valuable feedback for further strengthening these processes.

Further, this is evidence of profound hypocrisy by this administration. Don’t complain about inadequate oversight by the NIH and then try to cut its funding by 40%.

Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted a preemptive pardon by President Joe Biden as one of his final acts in office. The pardon was intended to shield Fauci from potential legal scrutiny under the incoming administration of Donald Trump, who had publicly criticized Fauci and hinted at possible actions against him. The pardon covered actions dating back to 2014, including allegations tied to U.S.-funded gain-of-function research and Fauci’s role during the pandemic.

The move was described as a precautionary measure to protect Fauci and others from what Biden referred to as “revenge” politics. Biden emphasized that the pardon was not an admission of wrongdoing but rather a safeguard against potential reputational and financial harm from investigations. Given Trump’s weaponization of the justice department, this was a smart move by President Biden.

Once again, they don’t cite specific instances for very broad claims. However, one likely candidate is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), where the FDA, not Pfizer, asked for decades to release Pfizer vaccine study documents. The FDA initially proposed a timeline of up to 75 years to release documents related to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA cited the sheer volume of documents—over 300,000 pages—and limited staffing as reasons for the extended timeline. This is again top-level hypocrisy from this administration when hoping to cut FDA funding by 18.6%.

There are a number members who are quacks and pandemic minimizers, one particularly standout being Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD, the Surgeon General for Florida. Lapado is particularly vile and almost seems like a sugar-coated version of Josef Mengele. “Ladapo set to denigrating the office with a perverse inversion of his expected responsibilities. His first action quashed all quarantine requirements for children exposed to COVID infection, and he refused to mask when meeting a state senator who was undergoing breast cancer treatment, despite her repeated requests to do so. What followed was a litany of directives and claims that were completely at odds with national and international public health advice, with vaccination the chief focus of his misinformation campaign. Ladapo insisted in March 2022 that children not be vaccinated against COVID. This marked Florida as the first state to openly contradict best practicefrom both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it and drew the ire of researchers who were furious that Ladapo has mispresented their work to make outlandish claims.” – Florida’s Surgeon General Shows the Danger of Politicizing Medicine

• There is no definitive proof that Dr. Daszak intentionally obstructed the investigation or doctored documents. Such claims often rely on circumstantial evidence and interpretations of actions rather than direct evidence.
• Managing document production and responding to oversight requests during a high-profile investigation is a complex process. Delays or perceived reductions in scope could be attributed to logistical challenges rather than deliberate obstruction.
• Dr. Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance have publicly emphasized their commitment to transparency and collaboration with oversight bodies. This stance suggests that any issues in compliance may have been unintentional rather than malicious.
• The matter remains under investigation, and conclusions should be drawn based on verified findings rather than assumptions or incomplete information.

• There is no definitive proof that Dr. Morens deliberately obstructed the investigation or unlawfully deleted records. Such claims often rely on circumstantial evidence and interpretations rather than direct, verified facts.
• While Dr. Morens admitted to using personal email for official business, this practice, while not ideal, is not uncommon in government settings. It does not inherently prove an intent to evade oversight or obstruct investigations.
• The matter remains under investigation, and conclusions should be drawn based on verified findings rather than assumptions or incomplete information.

• The assertion of privilege over certain documents is a common legal practice, often used to protect sensitive information. While some claims may be contested, this does not inherently indicate an intent to obstruct.
• The investigation likely involved extensive document requests, which can lead to delays or redactions due to the sheer volume of material and the need to ensure compliance with legal and privacy standards.
• Governor Hochul inherited the Executive Chamber from her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Any alleged actions taken during the transition period may not reflect her administration’s policies or intentions.
• Despite allegations, the Executive Chamber has provided substantial documentation and engaged with the investigation. Disputes over specific documents or privilege claims are not uncommon in such high-profile inquiries.

• The WHO operates within a complex international framework, balancing input and cooperation from 194 member states. While its response faced challenges, it played a critical role in coordinating global efforts, disseminating information, and providing technical guidance during an unprecedented crisis.
• The WHO issued early warnings about the outbreak, declaring COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020. This was a significant step in mobilizing global attention and resources.
• Independent reviews, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, have acknowledged both successes and shortcomings in the WHO’s response. These evaluations highlight systemic issues in global health governance rather than attributing failures solely to the WHO.
• The proposed Pandemic Treaty aims to strengthen global preparedness and response to future pandemics. While concerns about national sovereignty and U.S. interests have been raised, the treaty’s intent is to foster international collaboration and address gaps exposed by COVID-19.
• Criticisms of the WHO’s response often oversimplify the challenges of managing a global health crisis. The organization’s actions must be viewed in the context of limited authority, reliance on member states for data, and the unprecedented nature of the pandemic.

It’s worth mentioning that this was put in place at the beginning of the pandemic when we didn’t know the routes of transmission. In addition, the traditional dogma related to transmission placed precautions into contact, droplet, and airborne buckets.

There is a big problem in using categorical variables, especially those for droplet and airborne transmission. The theory was that some diseases were spread on large respiratory droplets the fell to the ground due to gravity within about six feet. Airborne spread was separated for things like measles and chickenpox because there was clear evidence of spread of longer distances.

The idea of droplet transmission originated in 1897 and was limited to visibly observed droplets at that time. Photographic studies further reinforced this perception.

It doesn’t take much thought to realize that respiratory droplets don’t come in just two sizes but exist along a continuum. As such, some diseases may exhibit a spread closer to the droplet end of that spectrum, but this may have also been influenced by transmission via fomites in that range where the droplets landed.

Influenza has traditionally been thought of as droplet spread, and the assumption was made that SARS-CoV-2 would follow that pattern, hence the 6-foot rule. These are decisions that have to get made under conditions of limited data using the precautionary principle. “The Precautionary Principle posits that, in the absence of certainty, the appropriate course of action is to err on the side of caution.”

As it turns out, COVID is an airborne disease, and these precautions were not adequate. Until recently, it was listed as a BSL-3 pathogen, when the guidelines were changed to BSL-2, likely under political pressure.

This is further misinformation from this administration. ALL masks help reduce transmission through source control. “When the simulators were front-to-front during coughing, masks reduced the 15-min mean aerosol concentration at the recipient by 92% at 0.9 and 1.8 m separation. When the simulators were side-by-side, masks reduced the concentration by 81% at 0.9 m and 78% at 1.8 m. During breathing, masks reduced the aerosol concentration by 66% when front-to-front and 76% when side-by-side at 0.9 m. Similar results were seen at 1.8 m. When the simulators were unmasked, changing the orientations from front-to-front to side-by-side reduced the cough aerosol concentration by 59% at 0.9 m and 60% at 1.8 m.” General masks clearly benefit those around the wearer.

Protecting the wearer requires the use of a respirator. There is plenty of evidence that both types of masks help reduce disease in the public.

This is a particularly ludicrous claim. Imagine what the Delta surge would have been like if there had been no lockdowns in place, if one can even call them that. They were haphazard in the US, which is part of the reason why the US had the highest incidence and mortality rate in the world. The idea of individualism and liberty became our Achilles Heel for disease.

It’s also insane to claim that these had a major mental and physical health impact “particularly on younger citizens.” In most states, they lasted for 1-2 months. It also ignores the extensive damage that COVID causes to children, which will remain occult for a number of years. Some of it is becoming evident within a year of infection. Dr. Jonathan Howard has a book and a podcast discussing just how badly some physicians and policy influencers failed children.

The nation has a used a massive amount of temporal discounting. The health, economic, and social costs are going to be FAR higher in the future than costs of having done more mitigation in the present and recent past.

This is another political hit piece. The nursing homes were the homes of these patients. Hospitals do not keep patients who are stable and can be cared for in other settings. The failure at that time was the lack of better guidance under the Trump administration on how to protect residents at these facilities, using respiratory protection that they claim doesn’t work.

This is the most disingenuous statement of all. The COVID pandemic started under the Trump administration, who kept pushing lies and misinformation throughout. He himself was one of the worst minimizers, even when knowing the truth. Who could possibly forget that he suggested injecting disinfectant or using ultraviolet light as a treatment.

There is no demonizing alternative treatments either. If a treatment works, it is supported. Medications like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin don’t work, no matter how many lies he pushes. Now Arkansas is making ivermectin available over the counter. The question is why so many legislative leaders in the state are infected by parasites to make such a science-illiterate law. You should avoid any physician who is suggesting it as a treatment for COVID. They are charlatans and grifters.

The Goal?

I don’t understand why, but there is ample evidence that this administration and Republicans want you dumb, deported, dismembered, diseased, or dead.