Predicting 2025: Covid Origins Revisited — Kit Knightly
"Lab leak theory has already come a long way from barely even a fringe idea to an acceptable alternative, but in 2025 we expect it to take the final step, becoming the majority view."
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
By Kit Knightly January 14, 2025
This spring will mark five years since the “COVID Pandemic” began in earnest. By late March 2020, most of the world was in lockdown or some variation of “anti-COVID measures.”
Two days ago China marked – or rather, didn’t mark – the fifth anniversary of the first official “Covid death”.
Our fifth prediction for 2025 is that “the establishment”, or whatever you want to call them, won’t let this anniversary pass without incident.
That’s the best kind of prediction because it’s vague enough that it can’t really be wrong. It’s also an easy prediction to make because they have already confirmed it’s true.
Today the UK’s Covid Inquiry launched the fourth of ten planned modules that will wrap up by the end of the year. Labour has also announced there will be a “National Day of Reflection” on March 9th…whatever that means.
But that’s all just general noise, and as much as it’s notionally about “Covid” it’s far more about reaping the benefits of Covid for future propaganda drives.
That’s looking forward, our real prediction is that they will also look backwards, tweak and retcon the Covid story to try and re-engage people who have begun to filter out anything “pandemic”-related as white noise.
This fits in with the theme of all our predictions – false concession. Replacing and updating the “official story” by incorporating some previously hidden “truth” to appease the sceptics. Controlling the narrative through fake revelations.
Throwing “conspiracy theorists” a bone.
And when you’re talking about Covid, there’s only one subject that fits that bill: The Lab Leak Theory.
We’ve talked about Covid’s “mysterious origins” at length, and our position on the lab leak theory (LLT) is well established, so we won’t go over it all again. In brief:
the Lab Leak Theory is a fallback narrative, served up by controlled opposition and believed by the gullible that serves to reinforce the idea that a dangerous new disease exists and something must be done about it.
The two essential foundational lies they will do anything to defend.
In fact let’s say that again in italics –
The lab leak story is just a back door way of getting people to believe there was a real deadly new virus and a real pandemic.
There was NO deadly new disease and NO real pandemic.
However, our prediction for 2025 is that Lab Leak Theory will become at least quasi-officially “true”.
The signs were already there in late 2024.
In early December, US lawmakers concluded a two-year commission on Covid, officially finding that the “virus” did indeed originate in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
What followed was a burst of articles suggesting the LLT had been the subject of a cover-up by the Biden administration.
On Boxing Day, the Telegraph reported that:
FBI ‘found evidence Covid was lab leak but was not allowed to brief president’
The same day, the Wall Street Journal published a long-form “exclusive” on “The Spy-World Scientists Who Argued Covid Was a Lab Leak”
Last week, UnHerd published a column headlined “China’s stooges: the real Covid conspiracy – The lab-leak theory is still being suppressed”
Bloomberg was more subtle, lending the LLT legitimacy by discussing it as a future possibility: “How a Lab Leak Could Cause the Next Covid-Like Pandemic”
On New Year’s Eve LLT received another injection of legitimacy from an unlikely source. The World Health Organization included this paragraph in its press release marking the 5th anniversary of Covid:
We continue to call on China to share data and access so we can understand the origins of COVID-19. This is a moral and scientific imperative. Without transparency, sharing, and cooperation among countries, the world cannot adequately prevent and prepare for future epidemics and pandemics.
Lab leak theory has already come a long way from barely even a fringe idea to an acceptable alternative, but in 2025 we expect it to take the final step, becoming the majority view.
That’s a majority view, not consensus. We’re talking about a cultivated 55-45 split. Because the natural vs lab-leak argument is too valuable ever to end.
Rather, as the “anti-establishment” Trump rises so too do “anti-establishment” ideas like lab leak theory, or ivermectin and other “alternative treatments”.
This will play into the multipolar world psyop by reinvigorating the supposed feud between Donald Trump’s administration and China.
That’s our theme for 2025. Scripted wins for the fostered “alternative”.
WILDCARD PREDICTION: There will be a high-profile legal case – either civil or criminal – regarding the “origins of Covid” by the end of the year.
Source: off-guardian.org
CIA releases new analysis on COVID origins favoring lab leak theory
The CIA has changed its assessment on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, now favoring the lab leak theory. Under its new director, John Ratcliffe, the agency released an assessment on the origins of COVID-19.
Related articles:
Lab leak is nonsense propaganda.
Earlier today I read Sars-Cov2 Origins – “Gain of Function” or “Claim of Function”?
by Martin Neil & Jonathan Engler. I found this article on Off Guardian. https://off-guardian.org/2024/06/04/sars-cov2-origins-gain-of-function-or-claim-of-function/
The authors write: Yet as regards the origin of SARS-CoV-2, we are presented with a choice between two competing stories: either it was the product of a lab-leak, or it leapt into existence by zoonotic transmission from animals to humans, and in both cases, this happened shortly before its first detection. The third possibility – pre-existing endemicity – is hardly discussed as a possibility.
Personally I find the "lab leak" theory to be a pointless diversion. The authors discuss the fallacy of the single cause (something new to me). And they suggest that it would be more apt to refer to ‘Claim-of-Function’ than ‘Gain-of-Function’ research.
The authors believe the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that the ‘covid pandemic’ was an iatrogenic phenomenon and was not caused by a novel and deadly virus.