In a revelation that has sent shockwaves through the conservative community, Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has acknowledged a significant lack of scientific underpinning for one of the most pervasive COVID-19 mitigation strategies: the six-foot social distancing guideline. This admission not only raises questions about the decision-making processes during the pandemic but also underscores concerns regarding governmental overreach and accountability.
Former NIH Director admits lab-leak theory of COVID origin is not conspiracy theory Video:
According to The Federalist, during the subcommittee interview, Collins also came clean on what the “scientists” relegated to the ramblings of the tinfoil-hat crowd, that the origins of the virus that is suspected to have played a part in more than 1.12 million deaths in the United States remains up for debate. In other words, the theory that the virus leaked from a lab in China is no conspiracy theory. The former top government health official had vehemently disagreed with the lab-leak theory, a theory that government agencies believe is not only plausible but “likely.”
Collins changed his tune in the January interview.
“All it’s calling for is a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Is the possibility of a lab leak a conspiracy theory?” a subcommittee staffer asked Collins, who briefly demurred, according to the memo.
“You have to define what you mean by a lab leak,” he said.
“Not at this point,” Collins said.
As the subcommittee memo notes, “The investigation into the origins of COVID-19 is ongoing and there is no incontrovertible proof of either a zoonotic or a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, this debate is so charged that Americans were censored on social media, and it led to a change in the way scientific debate was conducted.”
Collins is now acknowledging that the origin of the virus is still unsettled science.
The six-foot rule became a hallmark of COVID-19 prevention measures. It was touted as a necessary step to curb viral transmission and was adopted widely across various sectors. However, Collins’ recent admission suggests that this critical policy may have been more rooted in conjecture than concrete evidence.
The implications are profound. The enforcement of such guidelines had far-reaching impacts on society and the economy. Businesses were forced to reconfigure their operations or shut down due to capacity restrictions; schools had to redesign classrooms or shift to virtual learning; religious institutions had to limit attendance or move services online—all based on guidance that lacked robust scientific backing.
Moreover, Collins’ acknowledgment comes at a time when trust in public health officials is already tenuous among conservatives who have criticized what they see as inconsistent messaging and policies throughout the pandemic. The Federalist points out that “Collins’ admission confirms suspicions that many pandemic-related policies were based more on guesswork and fearmongering than science.”
This skepticism is further fueled by another controversy involving NIH’s involvement with gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Despite years of denials from public health officials about taxpayer dollars funding such research—which can make viruses more transmissible or deadly—documents obtained by The Intercept revealed otherwise. As reported by MSN, these documents show that NIH grants supported work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.
The conservative audience is likely to view these developments as vindication for their long-held doubts about both the origins of COVID-19 and the rationale behind restrictive measures imposed during the pandemic. They raise serious questions about transparency and integrity within top health agencies—a concern deeply resonant with conservative values centered around limited government intervention and individual freedoms.
Furthermore, these revelations could potentially fuel ongoing debates about how best to prepare for future pandemics while preserving civil liberties. They underscore an urgent need for rigorous scrutiny over public health directives and demand accountability from those who issue them.
As conservatives digest this information, it’s essential to consider not just what policies are implemented but also how they are derived. The expectation is not merely for sound decisions but decisions grounded firmly in empirical evidence—especially when those decisions affect millions of lives.
Dr. Collins’ statements serve as a reminder that even well-intentioned experts can err significantly when operating without transparent scientific validation. It’s a cautionary tale about placing unwavering trust in authorities without demanding data-driven justifications for actions that carry such substantial societal consequences.
As America reflects on its handling of COVID-19 and looks ahead toward future challenges posed by infectious diseases, it becomes increasingly clear that ensuring accountability in public health policy-making will remain at the forefront of conservative priorities—a stance reinforced by recent acknowledgments from figures like Dr. Francis Collins himself.
Sponsors:
Huge Spring Sale Underway On MyPillow Products
Use Promo Code FLS At Checkout
Inflation Buster: Freedom From High-Cost Cell Plans (50% off first month with promo code: FLS)
Freedom From High-Cost Cell Plans Same Phones, Same Numbers, Same Coverage For About Half The Price.
Eric Thompson