Thread by @BretWeinstein

Events since Nicholas Wade's lab-leak article look different to people who were tracking the story over 2020. Everything "new" is actually not new. What changed is that the official narrative has been forced into acknowledgement.

Damage control is clearly in full swing.

https://twitter.com/SharriMarkson/status/1396583693091622912

This paragraph is from @SharriMarkson's report, in March, in The Australian. Why does the @WSJ story read like a scoop? Why was it treated as one? Why was Nicholas Wade's article treated as if it cracked the case?

It's not like #DRASTIC's work isn't public.

It's not like @JamieMetzl, @joshrogin and I haven't explored the evidence with @joerogan. Not like @HeatherEHeying and I didn't discuss it with @billmaher. Not like @SteveHiltonx hasn't covered it repeatedly. Not like @mattwridley, @Ayjchan, @nicholsonbaker8 didn't survey it...

One should be very careful not to leap to the conclusion that a proper investigation is coming, and the truth is in sight. The sequence of pivots and admissions of the viability of the lab-leak hypothesis suggests the construction of a new 'less false' narrative. It's not organic

We have a right to know what happened to us. We are entitled to a full access to anything that might mitigate harm.

If SARS-CoV2 emerged from the Wuhan Institute, we NEED to know EXACTLY what protocols produced it, and we NEED a FULL accounting of the purpose of the research.

The likelihood that it came from the Wuhan Institute of virology is very high and going up. The evidence that staff were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms *could* be a false lead, or it could be indicative of a cover up. But of what? What's the full scope? What can't we know?

The lateness of the revelation of a cluster of illnesses is conspicuous. If it is as it appears, then it's clearly been an open secret in some circles. Were those circles entirely within China, or did some shutting down discussion in the west know it too? WHO? CDC? Fauci? Daszak?