"Question Everything" (Except That Thing)
Two outlets with reputations for publishing COVID-dissenting articles have rejected our proposal for challenging dominant Virus Origin stories
We contacted two prominent 'alternative' media outlets well-known for elevating COVID-dissident views and championing free speech/free press rights with a proposal to spark a public debate about the SARS-CoV-2 origin story and accompanying pandemic narrative. We asked if they would publish our article presenting questions to the chief proponents of the lab leak theory - which we regard as one end of a false dichotomy with wet market/zoonotic leap being the other - and give the proponents a right to reply. They both declined to even consider our idea on its merits.
The Daily Sceptic (UK) and Brownstone Institute (US) said thanks but no thanks to emails we sent this week gauging their interest in initiating a written debate between ourselves and Alina Chan & Matt Ridley, co-authors of Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19.
Will Jones of Daily Sceptic said, “We don't publish articles that question whether COVID-19 was due in large part to a novel virus spreading because our editorial line doesn't regard this view as a theory with merit. I think people know where we stand on that and we've been consistent.”
Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone wrote, “…as described, I doubt we are the right venue. There is SO MUCH to learn and so much left to find out about precisely what happened. I don't want to get distracted from the larger picture of how precisely this coup against freedom came to be.”
Both Jones and Tucker dismissed the idea that Chan and Ridley would be interested in entertaining our views or responding to us.
“While I see huge value in this NYC research,” Tucker said, “I don't see that there is much to be gained by hammering Ridley and Chan on this topic really.”
Jones said, “I also don't think Matt or Alina would be interested in countering the theory as I imagine they will also not regard it as serious (sorry, I know that's not where you are, but I imagine it is where they are, as are we). “
We aren’t sure if either Chan or Ridley would respond but we do know that during a sponsored debate this past summer, Ridley opened with strong words for anyone who would limit inquiry and debate to those with relevant domain expertise:
"Who am I to have a go at answering this question [of whether COVID came from a lab]? I have a PhD in evolutionary biology from Oxford, an honorary degree from Cold Spring Harbor, I’m fellowship of The Academy of Medical sciences, and 40 years experience of writing about science, including as a columnist for three major English-speaking newspapers. Plus, I've written books on genetics and molecular biology. But it would not matter if I had zero expertise in biology. We all caught this vile virus. We all suffered bereavement in the pandemic. We’re all entitled to investigate this question. Scientists who do experiments that potentially put us at risk cannot expect to tell the rest of us to ‘stay in your lane’.” [1 minute, 31 seconds]
We feel there is value in the invitation and effort, even should Chan and Ridley decline to engage. In that or any case, we would welcome substantive responses from anyone who takes our arguments seriously and is motivated to write a robust riposte.
Daily Sceptic and Brownstone are generally regarded by anti-mandate and health freedom advocates as among the few media outlets that allow publication of dissenting and disparate viewpoints from ignored & much-maligned academics, professionals, and regular citizens who question or challenge government pandemic narratives. Both organizations were brave enough to unapologetically publish numerous articles that challenged popular views and official storylines during the COVID Era, including articles written by ourselves.
More recently, however, we get the impression that lines are being drawn and the Overton window is closing in, with questions about whether there was a pandemic and whether the virus was in fact novel or deadly becoming off-limits, if not verboten. This has a chilling effect on freedom of speech (and freedom of reach) throughout the alternative media. We are disappointed that these two safe-havens for alternative perspectives have apparently set editorial boundaries similar to those that mainstream, independent, and social media companies drew in 2020+.
Although we believe the prevailing duality of “it came from a lab” versus “it spontaneously leapt from nature” is a false dichotomy that continues to suppress key questions about and invigorating dialogue over the events leading up to and following the WHO pandemic declaration in 2020, acceptance of our views is not our only goal. We aim to instigate public discussion in relation to whether a pandemic occurred, assumptions about viral spread, and claims about a new cause of death seizing the globe that have too often been relegated to private channels or dismissed out-of-hand as “fringe” or “extremist," even when and where evidence is compelling or hard to ignore.
Our email correspondence with Mr. Jones and Mr. Tucker, respectively, is published below in the hope that one (or both) might reconsider.
In the meantime, we welcome suggestions for neutral and/or pro-liberty outlets that might be willing to take us up on our proposition.
Note: We didn't ask The Conservative Woman (TCW) because they have already published many articles that challenge the Lab Leak story.
Email to/from The Daily Sceptic
From: Jonathan Engler
Subject: Opportunity to shore up the "lab leak" theory.
Date: October 9, 2024 at 3:30:48 PM CDT
To: Will Jones
Cc: Jessica Hockett, Martin NeilHi Will,
As you know, Martin Neil, Jessica Hockett and I are part of a small but vociferous group of people who regard the “lab leak” hypothesis as full of holes, and a distraction to understanding the essential nature of the true “pandemic” – a propaganda and testing-driven staged event accompanied by much iatrogenic harm.
See here for an excellent article by Jessica asking a series of practical questions in relation to the “lab leak”.
This is my own piece questioning the true nature of the NYT’s “revelation”.
And this is the piece Martin and I wrote casting doubt on whether “gain of function” research could truly lead to a global pandemic.
Matt Ridley has been extremely vocal in promoting the lab leak as the “solution” to the “mystery of the origin of covid”, which (as you will know) we regard as one end of a false dichotomy.
We are minded to jointly write a piece asking some questions of Matt Ridley and Alina Chan. We were wondering if you might like to publish such an article in the Daily Sceptic? The idea would be that you then seek and publish a response from Ridley and Chan; an open debate could then ensue – as befits these incredibly important scientific questions.
I hope very much that, as an outlet committed to open debate, this will be attractive to you, particularly as it would give the lab-leak proponents a perfect opportunity to demolish the counter-arguments and strengthen their case.
In principle, is this of interest?
Best
Jonathan
From: Will Jones
Subject: Re: Opportunity to shore up the "lab leak" theory.
Date: October 10, 2024 at 10:35:37 AM CDT
To: Jonathan Engler
Cc: Jessica Hockett, Martin NeilHi Jonathan
I don't think we can I'm afraid. We don't publish articles that question whether COVID-19 was due in large part to a novel virus spreading because our editorial line doesn't regard this view as a theory with merit. I think people know where we stand on that and we've been consistent. I also don't think Matt or Alina would be interested in countering the theory as I imagine they will also not regard it as serious (sorry, I know that's not where you are, but I imagine it is where they are, as are we).
I do agree with you that iatrogenic harm played a large role in deaths in 2020 and 2021, and we have published (and continue to publish) articles highlighting this scandal. But any such articles have to stay on the right side of the line and not involve what we would regard as a denial of the key role played by the virus.
Will
Email to/from Brownstone Institute
From: Jonathan Engler
Subject: Opportunity to shore up the "lab leak" theory.
Date: October 10, 2024 at 11:19:48 AM CDT
To: Jeffrey Tucker
Cc: Jessica Hockett, Martin NeilDear Jeffrey,
I don’t think we have ever corresponded directly, but by way of introduction I sit on the PANDA exec (chaired by Nick Hudson). I have co-authored a number of papers with Jessica Hockett, Martin Neil and Norman Fenton.
As you may know, Martin, Jessica and I are part of a small but vociferous group of people who regard the “lab leak” hypothesis as full of holes, and a distraction to understanding the essential nature of the true “pandemic” – a propaganda and testing-driven staged event accompanied by much iatrogenic harm.
See here for an excellent article by Jessica asking a series of practical questions in relation to the “lab leak”.
This is my own piece questioning the true nature of the NYT’s “revelation”.
And this is the piece Martin and I wrote casting doubt on whether “gain of function” research could truly lead to a global pandemic.
Matt Ridley has been extremely vocal in promoting the lab leak as the “solution” to the “mystery of the origin of covid”, which (as you will know) we regard as one end of a false dichotomy.
We are minded to jointly write a piece asking some questions of Matt Ridley and Alina Chan. We were wondering if Brownstone Institute might like to publish such an article? The idea would be that you then seek and publish a response from Ridley and Chan; an open debate could then ensue –as befits these incredibly important scientific questions.
I hope very much that, as an outlet committed to open debate, this will be attractive to you, particularly as it would give the lab-leak proponents a perfect opportunity to demolish the counter-arguments and strengthen their case.
In principle, is this of interest?
Kind regards
Jonathan Engler
From: Jeffrey Tucker
Subject: Re: Opportunity to shore up the "lab leak" theory
Date: October 10, 2024 at 11:29:24 AM CDT
To: Jonathan Engler
Cc: Jessica Hockett, Martin NeilI do appreciate your research, and my strong perception is that many people who have seized on the lab leak (which I do accept mainly because it makes sense of the timeline and all evidence) have done so as a fallback to failing to oppose the lockdowns (Ridley was AWOL back in the day). That's my impression in any case. For all we know, lab leaks are very common.
While I see huge value in this NYC research, I don't see that there is much to be gained by hammering Ridley and Chan on this topic really. I feel the same about those who argue that there was no pandemic: I'm agnostic on that and entirely focused on the policy response to any pathogenic wave, real or imagined.
So as described, I doubt we are the right venue. There is SO MUCH to learn and so much left to find out about precisely what happened. I don't want to get distracted from the larger picture of how precisely this coup against freedom came to be.
Jessica’s Post Script (20 December 2024)
Founder & Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Sceptic
has been awarded a peerage and will take his place in the House of Lords next year. As a U.S. citizen, I understand this is a high honor and congratulate Mr Young - also the Director of the Free Speech Union - but have no opinion on whether he meets the criteria, etc.On one hand, the peerage puts Young and DS in a good position to reconsider their rejection of the written debate
& I proposed in October. On the other hand, soon-to-be Lord Young and the publication he founded may be less likely than ever to “Question Everything” because their current position on matters COVID clearly has not interfered with gaining direct influence in the UK legislature.I replied directly to Mr. Young’s and The Daily Sceptic’s respective announcements on X.
UPDATE: Matt Ridley is still going strong with this version of events.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
I believe Bobbie Anne Cox is a Brownstone fellow. I’ll mention this on her Substack since censoring this inquiry of yours is patently absurd.
They are right to focus on the tyranny aspect but the baseless foundation for all the axioms, as I call them, that TPTB put forward on every subject needs to be exposed, or at least discussed. If people can come to understand that this is all a self-serving set of lies about zoonotic disease spread, deadly climate change produced by meat consumption etc., and the threat of domestic terrorism by people who just want to mind their own business and be left alone, and so on, we can start to unravel this collective slumber and throw off their yoke.
It seems like a lonely battle your group is waging but it is vital and thanks for doing it.
This narrow form of thinking seems to me to be similar to the ludicrous “science is settled” argument put forward by mainly the leftist hoax crowd. Shameful that others are now falling into that lie. I don’t see how they can latch on to any position regarding the “virus pandemic” era when there is so little truth, or facts yet available and seemingly many falsehoods propagated. From a non scientific standpoint, the last five years have shown us that if dissenting theories are forbidden for discussion and censored by the governing administration, scientific establishment, medical industry, and propaganda media, then there is likely a great deal of merit to those dissenting opinions, and the censors have a great deal to lose from the truth.