This week, thousands of emails belonging to National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Anthony Fauci were released after a Freedom of Information Act request was filed by Buzzfeed and the Washington Post.
The biggest revelations from the document dump include Fauci being told Wuhan coronavirus was "potentially engineered" in a lab, show him arguing drug store masks don't offer protection from the disease, that he frantically sent papers to colleagues about dangerous gain-of-function research and downplayed the need for a vaccine.
Publicly, Fauci was telling a different story, and in April 2020, he told the American people from the White House Brady Briefing Room that the disease was naturally occurring, meaning it jumped from an animal to a human outside of a lab. Facebook then removed information about the lab leak theory from its platforms before reversing course just one week before the FOIA emails were released.
"Tony: I wanted to send a note of thanks for your leadership and everything you're doing to make our country's response to this outbreak as effective as possible. I also wanted to share a few ideas of ways we could help you get your message out but I understand you're incredibly busy, so don't feel a need to reply unless these seem interesting," Zuckerberg wrote in an email to Fauci on March 15, 2020, adding that he wanted to help get "authoritative" information out to the masses.
Fauci responded, and it's obvious, given Facebook's censoring of the lab leak theory, that Fauci was heavily interested in squashing any kind of debate on the issue.
But new evidence and a year-long coverup by the Chinese Communist Party point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source for the disease. Looking back, officials are speaking out about receiving threats for daring to mention the possibility.
"For most of the past year, the lab-leak scenario was treated not simply as unlikely or even inaccurate but as morally out-of-bounds. In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab," Vanity Fair reports.
"I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis," Redfield told the outlet. "I expected it from politicians. I didn't expect it from science."
Why would Redfield get death threats for bringing up a valid lab leak theory? The answer is simple. Federal government scientists involved with gain-of-function research cannot afford to have the truth come out about a lab leak that led to a global pandemic. It would hurt their bottom line. After all, how can the United States continue funding dangerous research, both domestically and abroad, after millions of people have died?
Now that some of the layers of Fauci's response to the disease have been pulled back, showing NIH scientists and Fauci himself not "following the science" and lying about what they were seeing, it's crucial the issue of climate change is addressed with similar scrutiny. The Left, in the United States and abroad, plans to use government force for the sake of "science" and stopping climate change by controlling nearly every aspect of people's individual lives.
In the media, we see a similar pattern of censorship when the dogma surrounding climate change is questioned. Those who bring up different evidence and facts on the science are instantly called "science deniers," just as they were called "conspiracy theorists" for simply mentioning the lab leak theory. Big Tech, more specifically Facebook and its third-party "fact-checker" Science Feedback, are the worst offenders.
Most recently, Facebook and Science Feedback have rated a new book by former Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy Steve Koonin, a Democrat who worked for President Barack Obama, "false." His book and the arguments made within it about climate change, backed up by data and scientific study, aren't "false," they're simply different than what is accepted by Green New Deal-style climate zealots.
"Mr. Koonin is no 'climate denier,' to use the concocted phrase used to shut down debate," The Wall Street Journal writes in a review of the book. "The heart of the science debate, however, isn’t about whether the globe is warmer or whether humanity contributed…The important questions are about the magnitude of civilization's contribution and the speed of changes; and, derivatively, about the urgency and scale of governmental response. Mr. Koonin thinks most readers will be surprised at what the data show. I dare say they will."
Koonin is making a perfectly legitimate and sound argument, yet, it isn't "allowed." Why are so-called fact-checkers censoring experienced scientists with a different point of view?
Further, are scientists like the ones at Science Feedback, who are quick to censor and often reliant on government grants for research, actually interested in the facts of climate change? Or promoting a political agenda?
For more than a year, Facebook censored crucial information about Wuhan coronavirus and its origins. It's obvious it's doing the same with debate on climate change.
The censoring of scientific debate, whether it's on climate change or Frankenstein gain-of-function research or information on Chinese lab leaks, is not only anti-American, it's dangerous. Americans deserve to know the truth about science debate, whether on a life-altering pandemic or on climate change, which is increasingly used by government to punish and control individual behavior.