Is it any wonder why government and the media are so distrusted?
In recent testimony before Congress, Dr. Anthony Fauci refused to answer more than 100 questions, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Since he was previously pardoned by Joe Biden and is not at risk of prosecution, it appears that he is either protecting others or attempting to shield himself from public shame for his role in attempting to conceal the possible origin of the COVID-19 virus.
To recap, Fauci was the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a part of the National Institutes of Health, during the pandemic. He acted as the public face of the government in explaining the pandemic to a frightened public. Fauci enjoyed quite a bit of celebrity in his role as the “national explainer,” not an easy task when called to account for the sometimes wacky statements of a scientifically illiterate President Trump.
His pronouncements included assuring the public that this previously unknown virus most likely came from a natural source, and that any suggestion that it may have come from U.S.-funded laboratory research was a conspiracy theory. He characterized the possibility as “molecularly impossible.”
Many people suspect that it came from the Wuhan lab in China, since the city of Wuhan was the site of the first outbreaks and one of the few places in the world that did research in similar viruses. Some scientific experts believe that it was engineered. The actual source of the virus remains unknown, and a natural carrier of the virus has never been identified.
When Trump announced his belief that the virus had originated at the Wuhan lab, he was immediately denounced as an anti-Asian racist. The natural-source theory had become the politically useful Democratic party line.
A number of revelations came to light. First, that Fauci’s NIH had funded research at the Wuhan lab on similar viruses and that the lab had previously done dangerous “gain-of-function” research in which viruses are engineered to be more virulent. Then, after a letter by prominent microbiologists was published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet asserting that the virus most likely had a natural origin, it was revealed that this letter was orchestrated by the head of the nonprofit that commissioned the research on behalf of the NIH, Dr. Peter Dazak of EcoHealth, who has since been banned from any work for the NIH. This letter had been relied upon by many as evidence that the virus did not come from a lab. This self-serving conflict of interest was never disclosed by Fauci.
A study by government agencies reluctantly ordered by Biden resulted in both the FBI and the CIA concluding that a lab origin was more likely than a natural origin, although other agencies found otherwise. A review of Fauci’s diary revealed he had his own doubts about the natural-source theory.
Many suspected that Fauci had not been truthful, and the possibility of his criminal prosecution was considered. As Biden left office, he pardoned Fauci.
Fauci’s motivation is pretty obvious. The pandemic resulted in millions of deaths worldwide, as well as the worst economic disruption since the Great Depression. Who would want to be blamed? The urge to “cover your ass” and to avoid any accusations toward yourself and your agency would be strong.
But having been pardoned, Fauci has no right to assert the Fifth Amendment merely because his answers would be embarrassing and make him and the NIH look bad, or because others may have acted illegally. Avoiding shame is no justification.
Much of the media was also complicit in the effort to “shout down” the possibility that the virus came from the Wuhan lab in order to further their political agendas. Once Trump opined that the virus came from the lab, politics drove many to instinctively jump to a contrary position and push the natural-origin theory, despite being completely uninformed. Supporters of a natural origin painted lab-origin proponents as anti-Asian racists and xenophobes. For several years, news reports of any violent crime against any Asian person anywhere invariably included a reference to Trump and the lab-origin theory, implying an association between Trump and the lab-origin theory with hate crimes.
Some social media sites initially censored any discussion of a lab origin.
The pandemic was the greatest crisis of our era, and we are entitled to know how it started. A lab source always was a strong possibility. Fauci and much of the media should be ashamed of themselves for their dishonest and self-serving roles in the cover-up. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who is relieved to no longer be masked. Send a response for potential publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Autumn Arts Annual 2026.
Amazing article you wrote, thank you. I do take exception to this though:
“The pandemic resulted in millions of deaths worldwide, as well as the worst economic disruption since the Great Depression.”
Could it be that the “virus” served as a great scapegoat for something that was already occuring in the market that is actually responsible for collapsing the economy? I’m talking about overnight interbank lending rates.
“The benchmark Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), which typically tracked the Federal Reserve’s target rate of around 2.00%–2.25%, suddenly skyrocketed to a print of 5.25% on September 17, 2019, with intraday trading peaking as high as 10%”
This, sir, was unstoppable and required QE to save everything, Covid was a convenient distraction.
Speaking of dishonest and self-serving roles in the coverup, when is the DOJ going to release the Epstein files?
Beats me. Why didn’t Joe Biden release them during his term?
Darn, I had a bet with myself that Mr. Donegan’s next column would be about the Clancy murder trial. After all, it was the most covered story on Fox News for a few weeks. But, I guess it was too recent. The Fauci Senate hearings were covered wall to wall on Fox prior to that and since Donegan only has one or two columns a month, he must be a bit behind.
I haven’t commented on the Clancy trial because, unlike the emotionally-reactive liberals, I recognize the nuance in the case, and could see it reasonably going either way. The defendant doesn’t fall within the traditional standard of insanity (the M’Naughton test), but the murders were clearly caused by her deeply disturbed mental state, and not by any recognizable motive like greed, personal advantage or revenge. The jury was bound by the current state law defining insanity. Unfortunately, a horrible act like killing children, and the differing gender perspectives on post partum depression, both injected a lot of emotion into both the jury’s determination, and public reaction, causing many to “take sides”.
Brain worms
I had some time this morning, so I ran this piece through a fact-checker and came to the following conclusions about its accuracy. Sources are available upon request.
There are legitimate reasons to question how government agencies, scientists, and the media handled the origins of COVID-19. But several claims in this argument go beyond what the evidence currently establishes.
It is true that Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during his July 2026 Senate testimony, and that the Senate committee subsequently voted to hold him in contempt. It is also true that President Biden issued Fauci a broad preemptive pardon covering potential federal offenses related to his government service from 2014 through January 20, 2025. But whether that pardon eliminated Fauci’s Fifth Amendment privilege is a legal question, not an established fact. The Supreme Court has recognized that the relationship between a pardon and the privilege against self-incrimination is more complicated than simply saying that a pardoned witness must answer every question.
There is also a legitimate factual basis for scrutiny of U.S.-funded research in Wuhan. NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted roughly $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A subsequent HHS inspector general investigation found significant failures in NIH’s oversight of EcoHealth and its subawards. Congressional investigators have characterized some of the Wuhan research as gain-of-function, although NIH and other scientists have disputed that characterization depending on how “gain-of-function” is defined.
But that does not establish that the NIH-funded experiments created SARS-CoV-2 or that Fauci knew that the virus had escaped from the laboratory.
The same caution applies to the Lancet controversy. Peter Daszak helped organize the February 2020 Lancet statement defending Chinese scientists and criticizing claims that COVID-19 had a non-natural origin. Emails later showed that he helped organize and draft the statement. The original disclosure of competing interests was subsequently challenged, and The Lancet published an addendum expanding Daszak’s disclosures. That is a legitimate reason to question the process’s transparency, but it is not proof that the statement was knowingly false.
Perhaps the most important point is that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unresolved. The CIA and FBI have assessed a laboratory origin as more likely, although the CIA’s assessment was made with low confidence and U.S. intelligence agencies remain divided. At the same time, the World Health Organization’s independent scientific panel concluded in 2025 that the weight of available scientific evidence supports zoonotic spillover while acknowledging that important information needed to evaluate a laboratory accident has not been made available.
In other words, neither side has established the case conclusively.
It is reasonable to demand complete transparency about the funding of risky virus research, NIH oversight, what U.S. officials knew in early 2020, how competing interests were handled, and why some possibilities were initially dismissed so forcefully.
But if the goal is to restore public trust, we should be equally careful about our own claims. Saying that Fauci “covered up” the origin, that the lab origin has been established, or that his pardon proves criminal conduct goes beyond the evidence currently available.
The strongest argument for transparency doesn’t require proving what we don’t yet know. It requires insisting that the unanswered questions be investigated honestly and that the underlying evidence—not politics—determine the conclusions.
As I mentioned, the actual origin is unknown, and it certainly has not been proven that Covid originated in a lab. I lack the scientific background to offer a credible opinion one way or the other, although the situation (Wuhan being the site of the outbreak, and also one of the few locations where similar viruses were studied) make a circumstantial argument for a lab origin. My point is that a lab origin was always a strong possibility, and that it was dishonest of Fauci and others to work to suppress consideration of that possibility out of their own self-interest, especially when they relied upon fraudulent tactics like the Lancet letter. And the role of the media in smearing proponents of such a serious possibility as “racists” etc. was reprehensible.
Is it any wonder why I don’t trust John Donegan’s opinion articles?
Yours aren’t much better, honey.
“Honey”?!?
Hey Fly, Hugh Hefner called and he wants his misogyny back.
To address Michael Smith’s comment, if you talk to Hugh Hefner, ask if I can have his silk brocade smoking jacket. I would look great in it, and since he is dead he won’t need it. Thanks.
Have you followed the Allison Inquiry in Canada? Mostly it was a forum to give voice to the vaccine injured with the addition of medical professionals testifying. It was certainly newsworthy as many events have been including the congressional hearings that have occurred over the last few years. But these events have not been reported in mainstream media so the one comment above is a good example of this. I have been following the Covid- pandemic narrative from the beginning and the research by reputable medical professionals that contradicted the mainstream was never seen by most of the public. The egregious censorship that was imposed during the pandemic is nothing short of criminal. And it continues to this day.
Thank you for your writing and I hope you continue 😉
Michael S:
It was a toss up between “honey” or “toots” actually.
I also enjoyed the term “toots”. It sounds like something a 1930’s movie gangster would say.
It really enrages the libs, lol.
That’s it. The anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-abortion, pro trillion dollar military hard right in this nation delights in the absurdities of Trump ONLY because it infuriates the liberals. Who cares about the country? As long as Trump wins the day with his destructive attacks on democracy and his glutton-like corruption.
I’m really looking forward to hearing the freak out from libs and Dems when and if they retake Congress. They are in for one hell of a disappointment. How will their presence restore the dollar, eliminate our 40 trillion dollar national debt, balance the budget, rehire everyone fired by DOGE, etc, etc? Nothing will change other than a couple show trials where Dems get to grandstand.
It is our guilty pleasure. Trump says something crazy, and liberals all fly into hyperbolic ranting, and we get to mock and ridicule them while they try and explain why an open border, soaring inflation, defund and high crime, or men in women’s sports, are a good thing..
Humorless libs.
If the pajamas fit, wear them.
If they’re silk, I’m all in