Who is hiding the Covid origin?

 In its September 2019 report, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board — a joint arm of the World Health Organization and the World Bank — warned that technological advances “allow for disease-creating micro-organisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories,” and that the release of such organisms could cause greater devastation than a natural outbreak

    On the Board are Sir Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust) and Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID), both of whom have defended the zoonotic origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 and helped suppress the lab-leak theory
    February 1, 2020, Farrar set up a confidential conference call with a dozen individuals, including Fauci. Two days later, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus made a public call for censorship of “misinformation”

    Five days after that call, Peter Daszak circulated the first draft of a scientific consensus statement that eventually got published in The Lancet, and thereafter was used by mainstream media and fact checkers everywhere to “debunk” any and all evidence of a lab leak

    Six weeks after Farrar’s group call, several of the participants published a commentary in Nature Medicine, in which they stated they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”

But according to James Meigs: "The dam is breaking. And with the surging floodwaters, comes a stunning realization: Almost across the board, our elite institutions got the most important question about COVID wrong"

    “The story of why the line of inquiry survived is not an account of leading scientists and health organizations dutifully parsing the evidence.

    Instead, it is largely the story of little-known researchers — many working outside the bounds of elite institutions — who didn’t let the political implications of their findings derail their efforts.

    Much of what we know today about the Wuhan Institute’s risky research is thanks to these independent skeptics who challenged the institutional consensus. Some risked their careers to do so.”