Archived X thread from 26 January 2025
Publication of content in a thread posted to X on 26 January 2025 under @JAHockett76. I departed X this week and am in the midst of experimenting with WordPress as an alternative to Substack, which I stopped using earlier this month.
Q: What did the CIA formally say on 25 January 2025 about the ‘origins’ of SARS-CoV-2′?
A: Absolutely nothing.
The agency’s statement was apparently sent by an unnamed spokesperson to reporters via email, per the L.A. Times.
The most complete version of quoted material I can cobble together is this:
“CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting. CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic remain plausible. [CIA has] low confidence in this judgement” [and will evaluate] “any available credible new intelligence reporting or open-source information that could change CIA’s assessment.” (NBC News, WSJ)
My full evaluation of the quoted statements is here.
I’m not interested in anything that isn’t a direct quote from the agency’s email because I do not trust media interpretation and fill-in-the-blank exercises.
The statement reveals nothing new and obfuscates much.
Predictably, there’s a mismatch between the quoted statements & what news reporters and social media commentators are saying the CIA said.
The statement refers to the ‘origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Not the origins of a virus.
Not the origins of disease [the WHO] called Covid.
Not the origins of an agent called SARS-CoV-2.
The quoted statements make no reference to China, a lab, a lab leak, animals, markets, or most of the terminology invoked in debate over what SARS-CoV-2 is and whence it came.
I have no idea why (for example) Michael Shellenberger and the NYT are saying things the CIA’s quoted statements did not say.
I would love to see the email that (selected?) reporters received.
Some people are celebrating the CIA’s strategically-evasive statements as victory for advocates of the Lab Leak Hypothesis – and for free speech/press etc – because Lab Leak was a disfavored and ‘suppressed’ view.
I see it differently.
With the benefit of #2020 hindsight, I can’t agree that “lab leak” was ever truly censored in the strictest sense.
It was always “out there”- and presented as one of two options in a false dichotomy, with the “wet market” scenario in the opposing position.
The fact that outlets like the BBC were giving full coverage to various “conspiracy theories” as early as January 2020 shows a lab origin for the alleged novel, highly transmissible virus was getting plenty of airtime.
It doesn’t matter that such theories were labeled “misinformation” etc, barred from scientific journals, or (in some cases) included very wild speculation.
All press is good press.
In all likelihood, the CIA & other agencies here and abroad played a non-trivial role in planting opposing narratives to help control and direct the conversation….and keep people from asking whether a novel coronavirus was suddenly spreading from person to person.
Skeptics can be expected to question everything.
But it’s fair to say most Americans don’t view the CIA as an institution worthy of trust.
Suddenly “trusting” the agency because they seem to agree with you is not exactly the stuff of ‘Dissidents’ – is it?
Michael Shellenberger is a skilled journalist and a smart man.
If he thinks the CIA has formally said something it hasn’t really said – and he feels satisfied in his own heart and mind about what happened in late 2019/early 2020 and is ready to move on – that’s fine.
For him.
As for me, I see no reason to claim the mystery has been solved and the case closed.
In my opinion, the CIA’s statement adds nothing of substance, and the agency is steering the world away from the most basic questions.
All serious analysts of the COVID event have certain specialties. With respect to mine, I must ask:
Has the CIA ever been publicly questioned about its role in or knowledge of the spring 2020 NYC mass casualty event?
Because the chances they weren’t involved are very low.
Analysis of the full statement was published to Wood House 76 Substack in two parts:
The CIA’s 25 January 2025 Statement About the ‘Origins’ of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Follow-up: CIA Assessment of COVID-19 pandemic origins vs. new CIA director John Radcliffe
Related:
Leave a Reply