VICTOR JOECKS: Lab leak reversal shows importance of free speech

Journalist Michael Shellenberger recently reported that the first people infected by the coronavirus were three scientists working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They included Ben Hu, “a researcher who led the WIV’s ‘gain-of-function’ research on SARS-like coronavirus, which increases the infectiousness of viruses,” he wrote. The other two scientists also worked at the Wuhan lab. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal had a similar report citing “current and former U.S. officials.”

Further, Chinese-TV ran a video of Hu watching a lab worker handle specimens. Neither individual had on protective gear. The video also included Wuhan scientists “hunting for bat viruses with little protective gear.” It’s a wonder a lab leak didn’t happen earlier.

Hu had worked on projects funded by U.S. grants, the Journal reported. One project was on the “risks of Bat Coronaviruses.” Dr. Anthony Fauci led one of the agencies that doled out millions to Hu.

It gets worse. The Times of London recently reported that the Wuhan Institute also received funding from the Chinese military. It found State Department investigators concluded the facility conducted “laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.” It’s possible COVID-19 came from the Chinese military’s pursuit of a biological weapon.

Even for a culture with a short attention span, these should be bombshells. For one, Fauci presented himself as the hero of the pandemic. History books may describe him as the man who indirectly funded the research that caused it.

This whole thing also serves as a reminder of why free speech and open debate are so important. During the pandemic, the national mainstream media and big technology companies colluded to prevent this discussion from even taking place. Shortly after the virus crisis began, many in corporate media dismissed the possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory, relying on “expert” opinion. Social media companies ruthlessly enforced the “expert” opinion by banning users or removing posts that disagreed dissented from the orthodoxy.

Now the public knows the “experts” included Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance. His organization had sent U.S. grant dollars to the WIV. No wonder he didn’t want anyone digging into the lab leak possibility.

There are important lessons. No person knows everything. As some of my readers delight in reminding me, that includes columnists.

“Experts” can be wrong. They can even work to obscure the truth if it reflects poorly on them or they have another ulterior motive. Expertise in one field doesn’t make someone an expert in another field. Some conspiracy theories are true.

But relying on experts is also a necessity. Scientists can spend years or decades studying a specific area. The public doesn’t have the time or capacity to know the intricacies of every subject. Authoritative voices are essential.

Traditionally, the American way to resolve this tension was free speech. Vigorous and open debate allowed people to make up their own minds. It also served as a self-corrective mechanism. Someone who disagreed with the consensus could continue to make his or her case. Experts had to defend their ideas, not rely on the veneer of their authority to silence their opposition.

But as COVID demonstrated, vast swathes of the left and major institutions no longer hold to that ideal. A censorious spirit infects many universities. Some on the left want to silence those who disagree with them on things such as global warming and transgenderism.

Be deeply suspicious of people looking to shut down debate. Those who think their best path to victory is silencing their opponents likely don’t have a winning argument.

Contact Victor Joecks at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on Twitter.