Last September, Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan published a study claiming that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese government research lab. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy published a report debunking Yan’s work.
The Harvard group characterized Yan’s conclusion as a “misleading article masquerading as science.” It dismissed her assertion that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus was created in a Chinese lab.
But an investigation by The National Pulse revealed that the Shorenstein Center has extensive ties with the CCP, the political regime after which the virus is named. The CCP is currently spreading propaganda worldwide to shift the blame of the virus origin to other nations.
“The organization and report’s lead author is Joan Donovan, the Research Director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, which has a number of links to the Chinese Communist Party… The ties follow a Department of Education (DOE) inquiry into the Ivy League university for failing to disclose “hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts and contracts from foreign donors,” chiefly Chinese, according to The National Pulse.
Harvard’s Shorenstein Center has several CCP-linked fellows, including:
- Steven Dong used to be the Director of the Global Journalism Institute at Tsinghua University, the educational institution attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Tsinghua University’s journalism school dean has dubbed Marxist Journalism as the “correct political orientation.” Dong is also a political communication professor at the CCP’s Central Academy of Socialism and has lectured over 20,000 senior Chinese officials.
- Zhengrong Hu served as the Chair of the CCP State Council’s Discipline Evaluation Group of Journalism and Communication group. He has been given a special governmental award by the State Council of China and a Cross-Century Excellent Personnel award.
- Li Xiguang was a former senior editor at CCP-backed propaganda outlet Xinhua. He is a professor at Tsinghua University and a member of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy.
Shorenstein Center’s analysis points to a report by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to discredit Yan’s work. However, the John Hopkins report cites numerous studies that have also received funding from the CCP. The Shorenstein Center also quotes a report by MIT that lists its first researcher as Dr. Robert Gallo. Gallo received an award from the Chinese state-run University of Chinese Academy of Sciences last December. He is also the co-founder of the Global Vaccine Network (GVN), with several active branches in communist China. Given such strong ties to the CCP, it is unethical to cite these studies as proof invalidating Dr. Yan’s analysis.
Support for the lab COVID-19 origin theory
The lab origin theory of the Wuhan coronavirus has several supporters. One is Matthew Pottinger, who acted as the Deputy National Security Advisor during the Trump administration.
Last month, Pottinger revealed that the latest intelligence reports speculated that the CCP virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). It is located just 11 miles away from the seafood market where the communist regime claims it first spread.
Iain Duncan Smith, the UK’s former Tory Party leader, believes that the Chinese government’s refusal to allow experts to investigate the laboratory properly only supports the theory that the lab may have manufactured SARS-CoV-2.
“The truth is there are people who have been in those labs who maintain that this is the case… We don’t know what they have been doing in that laboratory… They may well have been fiddling with bat coronaviruses and looking at them, and they made a mistake. I’ve spoken to various people who believe that to be the case,” Smith said in a statement.
Over a year after the outbreak, the World Health Organization team visited WIV to investigate the CCP virus. However, they only spent three and a half hours in the lab, which is not enough time to conduct a thorough analysis.
Several WHO scientists complained about how the investigation was conducted.