Glenn Greenwald

But she still has to preserve the idea that the only trustworthy views are found in places like the New York Times, not in that dirty sewage of independent media. So she has to say, even though they were right- They kind of had bad motives and were trying to discredit institutions. Obviously, the people who discredited these institutions, these scientific institutions, are the people who led them.

And it wasn't just that they got it wrong. It's that the whole thing, starting all the way back in 2020 with that Lancet letter, that was engineered by Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance who had a financial interest and a reputational interest in ensuring that nobody thought it was a lab leak since he himself had money to work with Wuhan on the very research that likely caused the leak.

And it wasn't just that they got it wrong. It's that the whole thing, starting all the way back in 2020 with that Lancet letter, that was engineered by Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance who had a financial interest and a reputational interest in ensuring that nobody thought it was a lab leak since he himself had money to work with Wuhan on the very research that likely caused the leak.

And it wasn't just that they got it wrong. It's that the whole thing, starting all the way back in 2020 with that Lancet letter, that was engineered by Peter Daszak at EcoHealth Alliance who had a financial interest and a reputational interest in ensuring that nobody thought it was a lab leak since he himself had money to work with Wuhan on the very research that likely caused the leak.

They allowed that person to be the sort of objective source. They hid his key role. And that's the letter that said, anybody suggesting a lab leak is engaged in racist disinformation and conspiracy mongering against our Chinese colleagues.

They allowed that person to be the sort of objective source. They hid his key role. And that's the letter that said, anybody suggesting a lab leak is engaged in racist disinformation and conspiracy mongering against our Chinese colleagues.

They allowed that person to be the sort of objective source. They hid his key role. And that's the letter that said, anybody suggesting a lab leak is engaged in racist disinformation and conspiracy mongering against our Chinese colleagues.

And they pretended to have a certainty about the origins of the COVID virus that they knew they didn't have because internally, all these people, including some of the ones who signed that, were saying, actually, I think a lab leak is more likely. And Fauci convinced them all that for the sake of science or something, they have to lie to the public. And that's exactly what they did.

And they pretended to have a certainty about the origins of the COVID virus that they knew they didn't have because internally, all these people, including some of the ones who signed that, were saying, actually, I think a lab leak is more likely. And Fauci convinced them all that for the sake of science or something, they have to lie to the public. And that's exactly what they did.

And they pretended to have a certainty about the origins of the COVID virus that they knew they didn't have because internally, all these people, including some of the ones who signed that, were saying, actually, I think a lab leak is more likely. And Fauci convinced them all that for the sake of science or something, they have to lie to the public. And that's exactly what they did.

And even though I'm not going to sit here and say I knew from the very beginning that it was a lab leak, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist, I did observe and complained about the fact that there was no permission to debate these questions. If you had raised the issue of a lab leak,

And even though I'm not going to sit here and say I knew from the very beginning that it was a lab leak, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist, I did observe and complained about the fact that there was no permission to debate these questions. If you had raised the issue of a lab leak,

And even though I'm not going to sit here and say I knew from the very beginning that it was a lab leak, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist, I did observe and complained about the fact that there was no permission to debate these questions. If you had raised the issue of a lab leak,

including from Wuhan lab, you would have been censored off the internet by every major big tech platform. They didn't permit any questioning or debate about them. They destroyed people's reputations. And as it turns out, they were the ones who were wrong and not just wrong, but corruptly wrong. Now, this particular op-ed writer

including from Wuhan lab, you would have been censored off the internet by every major big tech platform. They didn't permit any questioning or debate about them. They destroyed people's reputations. And as it turns out, they were the ones who were wrong and not just wrong, but corruptly wrong. Now, this particular op-ed writer

including from Wuhan lab, you would have been censored off the internet by every major big tech platform. They didn't permit any questioning or debate about them. They destroyed people's reputations. And as it turns out, they were the ones who were wrong and not just wrong, but corruptly wrong. Now, this particular op-ed writer

has had some instances where she was deviating from COVID orthodoxy, but you cannot write an op-ed like this in the New York Times without acknowledging that the leading institution preventing this discussion, destroying people's reputations based on their correct opinions, was itself the New York Times and corporate media outlets like it. It's this attempt to rewrite-

has had some instances where she was deviating from COVID orthodoxy, but you cannot write an op-ed like this in the New York Times without acknowledging that the leading institution preventing this discussion, destroying people's reputations based on their correct opinions, was itself the New York Times and corporate media outlets like it. It's this attempt to rewrite-

has had some instances where she was deviating from COVID orthodoxy, but you cannot write an op-ed like this in the New York Times without acknowledging that the leading institution preventing this discussion, destroying people's reputations based on their correct opinions, was itself the New York Times and corporate media outlets like it. It's this attempt to rewrite-

history and say oh we're here to tell you the truth now so you can trust us when it's very easy now to say all this now that intelligence agencies have come out and said they think it's a lab leak and that's what's going on is an attempt to salvage reputations not to be truthful