White House promises to reveal COVID-19 origins amid skepticism

White House promises to reveal ELbichito-19 origins to a skeptical public

Was it really necessary to wait for the White House to publish information about the origins of ELbichito-19 on its website to know what was already known? The promise of declassification, broadcast from the official US presidency domain, has reignited an issue that had been on ice for some time. The announcement arrives with a seal of maximum urgency that has been used so many times it has lost all its value. And while some are waiting for names and surnames, others remember that an investigative commission's report was already published last year.

The dominant reaction is not hope, but fatigue. The pattern repeats: first the leak, then the report, then oblivion. The novelty, if any, is that the focus is now on laboratories and gain-of-function programs in Wuhan, with Anthony Fauci's involvement as a central piece of the narrative. But even that sounds repetitive.

What the White House says and why no one is surprised

The official announcement promises to reveal the origin of the bicho from the White House website. The thread date, spanning more than 500 days, indicates that the conversation is not new: it has been circling the same issue for over a year and a half. What changes is the sender. Before, it was leaks and press articles; now, it is the US government itself putting the topic on its institutional page.

The most common response is that this adds nothing. "What's new? From the start, Trump said it was a Chinese bicho", summarizes an intervention that condenses the general skepticism. The underlying idea is that the origin was already known and that declassification is an image operation, not a scientific finding.

Some go further and argue that the announcement is part of a broader strategy. The thesis is that the US administration uses the origin of the bicho to divert attention from other matters and to rewrite the pandemic narrative. In this framework, declassification would not be an act of transparency, but rather another piece of political communication.

The Wuhan laboratory and gain-of-function: what was already on the table

The technical core of the matter focuses on two elements: the gain-of-function studies conducted in Wuhan and Anthony Fauci's involvement in their funding or supervision. Both points had already come to light in previous discussions, as noted in the exchange itself. Declassification, therefore, does not discover anything new, but rather institutionalizes what has so far circulated through less formal channels.

The consequence highlighted is twofold. On one hand, the confirmation that the bicho could have an origin related to laboratory research. On the other, and this is what carries the most weight in the analysis, the finding that the measures adopted afterward—restrictions, lockdowns, limitations of fundamental rights—were justified on a basis that is now being questioned. "What peine caused many deaths but also highly questionable measures that abusa individual liberties and fundamental rights", notes one of the most highly rated interventions.

The argument is not that the bicho did not exist, but that its management led to a control apparatus sustained by a narrative that is now faltering. The discussion about the origin thus becomes a discussion about the consequences.

The official narrative and suspicion regarding sources

Part of the exchange focuses on the credibility of sources. The sequence described is as trinc: during the pandemic, people were asked to trust official sources; now, when the US government changes political affiliation, people are asked to distrust those very same sources. "2021: Trust only official sources, Official is the Truth. 2025: Do not trust the USA government which belongs to Trump", summarizes an intervention pointing to the inconsistency of the criteria.

The criticism is not directed only at one side. It is pointed out that the institutional apparatus, regardless of who controls it, has used the origin of the bicho as a political weapon. The suspicion is that the truth is not at stake; what is at stake is who controls the version of the facts.

In parallel, the "onion thesis" appears: lies are structured in layers, and every time an outer layer is removed, another more elaborate lie is revealed. Fauci's sacrifice would be, in this reading, the removal of an intermediate layer to protect the core. The pangolin, the Chinese laboratory, the natural leak: all would be successive layers of the same mechanism.

The flu that disappeared and the local pharmacist

Among the most concrete arguments appears a recurring anecdote: the disappearance of seasonal flu during the pandemic. "On the day I told the pharmacist on my street that they had changed the name of the yearly flu, he looked at me in astonishment and said without hesitation that they indeed hadn't sold any flu medicine and that there was no flu that year thanks to the masks". The punchline of the story is the contradiction: if masks prevented the flu, it is not understood why they did not prevent the cobi19.

The episode is used to illustrate the ease with which a narrative is imposed over evidence. The conclusion drawn is that the population accepted a narrative that contradicted what they saw around them. It is not a scientific argument, but a daily observation, yet it works as an example of how consensus is built.

The discussion on excess mortality also appears. University studies are cited that place ELbichito deaths in Spain at more than 66,000, and questions are asked about the cause if the bicho was not serious. The response given from the other side is that mortality depended on multiple factors and that medicine is not synonymous with any specific policy.

Ayuso, political management, and the debate on responsibility

The conversation derives into an exchange about the political responsibility for the deaths. The example used is that of a doctor who has the capacity to save a life and does not do so. The question posed is whether the responsibility lies with the bicho or with those managing the response. The answer given is that the capacity to save lives does not equate to the capacity to prevent all deaths.

The argument becomes complicated because decisions are made at different levels: the central government, the autonomous communities (regional governments), and medical protocols. The conclusion drawn is that responsibility is diffuse and that attributing it to a single person is a simplification. But the discussion does not close: the question remains open as to whether the measures were proportionate or if antiestéticar was used to justify restrictions that lacked sufficient basis.

What remains to be known

The White House announcement promises to reveal the origin of ELbichito-19. What is being revealed, so far, is that the matter remains unresolved and that each new chapter reopens wounds that never fully closed. Declassification may provide documents, but it is not going to change the perception of those who already had their own version. The question is not what the White House says, but whether anyone is going to believe it. And with this track record, the most likely answer is no.