In the Spring/Summer 2020 edition of Columbia University’s eponymous print magazine, the cover story – What We Have Learned from the Pandemic (So Far) – the Manhattan-based ivy league school strangely touted the fact that its faculty members helped mold China’s response to the coronavirus.
On the third page of the eight-page spread, written by “The Editors of Columbia Magazine” the article states:
In late January, when most Americans were hearing about the novel coronavirus for the first time, the Columbia epidemiologist W. Ian Lipkin was in Beijing, advising the Chinese government on its response … After meeting with health and science ministers, fellow epidemiologists, and physicians working on the front lines, Lipkin delivered a series of recommendations to senior Chinese leaders.– Columbia Magazine, “What We Have Learned from the Pandemic (So Far),” Spring/Summer 2020 Edition
Lipkin, according to the piece, “endorsed” Chinese efforts to lock down Wuhan and “urged them to close hundreds of live-animal markets like the one at the center of the outbreak.”
Well, well, well.
So, is this piece meant to inform us that Columbia, which by the University’s own admission was involved in early stages of coronavirus response in China, was also involved in the virus’ suppression from the world dialogue until it became a known and feared medical entity in mid-February? By some reports, the virus was first detected in China November 2019. If Columbia was involved from the beginning, why was knowledge of the “novel coronavirus” delayed in reaching global ears until two months after its first instance?
The beginnings of COVID-19 are dark and shadowy; stories run rampant of brave Chinese doctors who had the courage to speak out against the suppression of information and were subsequently arrested or made to “disappear.”
Even The New York Times ran a story about the late Dr. Li Wenliang. In January, he issued a warning about a new virus in an online chatroom to his medical school classmates. Dr. Wenliang would later tragically die of the virus.
The Wall Street Journal echoed China’s serious virus misgivings in a scathing critique of early Chinese response to COVID-19. “China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures,” write authors Jeremy Page, Wenxin Fan and Natasha Khan.
We do know that as the virus first spread in China, the Chinese government quarantined the entire city of Wuhan, which has a population of about 11 million people. The quarantine was extreme; people were basically forced into their apartments and prohibited from leaving.
Yet, even as the quarantine kept Wuhan residents isolated, restricted from traveling anywhere in China, there was no such quarantine in place when it came to international travel. Flights from Wuhan to destinations in Europe, the United States and other countries were allowed to continue business as usual during this quarantine in Wuhan. Why would Chinese citizens be protected from the virus’ spread but not the international community? This dichotomous lock-down/not lock-down continued throughout January and February. We all know what happened next …
But the precarious evidence stacking up against China doesn’t end there; it’s widely known that viral research was going on at not one but two Wuhan medical labs. Institutions in the United States such as Harvard University and the University of Texas actively participated in the research at these Wuhan laboratories as did the NIH. And now, by their own admission, we know Columbia University was involved, too.
However, Columbia’s statement in the newly published cover story that the virus originated in the “ wet market” in Wuhan has been widely debunked by American intelligence agencies. Earlier this month, Forbes published a story stating the reasons COVID-19 most likely originated in one of the Wuhan labs.
Why in the world would a prestigious institution like Columbia University disclose in print that they were even involved with this tyrannical Chinese communist government? It must be a case of cognitive dissonance; there’s no other reason to explain why Columbia would be proud of associating its historic reputation with the way the Wuhan virus was handled in China.