The dark backdrop of the new coronavirus remains unresolved: why the Xi Jinping regime has always refused to tell the world the complete truth

The new coronavirus has killed millions of people worldwide and has led to one of the worst public health and social crises in the history of China. Over the years, Wuhan, China, where the epidemic first broke out, has remained the center of global virus traceability, and the Xi Jinping regime has so far failed to open up to the international community enough to rebuild the early distribution chain, fully assess the probability of laboratory accidents and independently verify all the original data on critical timelines.

World Health Organization (WHO) New Coronavirus Origin Panel Report, June 2025The WHO has made it clear that assumptions such as laboratory accidents and wildlife transmission should continue to be reviewed, and again asks China to provide hundreds of genetic sequences of early cases, more detailed information on animal transactions in the Wuhan market, as well as research and biosafety conditions from Wuhan Labs.

This conclusion means that the controversy over the origin of the new coronavirus has not ended over time: Wuhan Virus Research Institute’s coronavirus studies, pre-epidemic laboratory health records and biosafety records are complete, and whether early cases and virus samples are all open, these questions remain key gaps in global traceability work.

U.S. Congressional House Coronavirus Special Panel to Release Final Report in 2024The report represents the conclusion of the U.S. Congressional Investigation Committee that unlike the global scientific community has formed a unified consensus, it shows that the assumption of laboratory accidents has entered the level of formal government investigation and policy assessment, rather than merely marginal speculation.

At the same time, there have been long-standing differences within the U.S. intelligence system. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has previously ruled that laboratory accidents are most likely to be the source of an outbreak; the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has also assessed laboratory sources as more likely than natural sources in 2025 but with lower levels of confidence. Other U.S. intelligence agencies are more inclined to spread natural animals, or believe evidence is insufficient to make a clear judgment.

When WHO experts traveled to Wuhan in 2021, their itinerary, scope of access and access to information has sparked international controversy.Reuters then.The expert group visited locations such as Wuhan South China Seafood Market, but visits were strictly arranged and journalists had limited contact with experts. Since then, the international community has continued to question the extent to which early cases, market samples, viral databases and laboratory data are open.

Focus on Chinese comments

The responsibilities of the Xi Jinping regime in the issue of the new coronavirus need to be pursued most, and does not need to rely on an unproven “proactive drugging” story to establish. really can be continuously pursued, is information suppression in the early stages of the epidemic, restrictions on independent investigation, and years later still not delivered to the international community enough to fully review the source of the virus.

A government that controls the outbreak’s initial site, medical system, virus samples, laboratory records and case data has the responsibility to provide independent research institutions around the world with raw material that can be verified repeatedly.If Beijing believes that a laboratory accident is completely unfounded, the most convincing way is not by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statements or propaganda machine repeated denial, but by opening up databases, experimental records, sample data, early cases and laboratory safety documents to third-party scientists for independent verification.

The problem with the Xi Jinping regime is precisely that it puts political security above public information transparency. Chinese media is controlled by the Communist Party’s propaganda system, local officials are first accountable to higher Party organizations, and sensitive research institutions are in a highly opaque institutional environment with national security and military systems. In the face of a global public health disaster, this system naturally produces a serious consequence: it is difficult for the outside world to judge which information is complete scientific facts, which are politically screened versions.

Which case data was not disclosed in the first few weeks of the new coronavirus? what coronavirus tests were carried out in Wuhan’s laboratories prior to the outbreak? why can’t the health records, experimental records and viral databases of laboratory personnel be fully independently verified? why did WHO still publicly declare that it did not get all the information needed to complete the trace of the outbreak years later?

It is worth emphasizing that laboratory accidents, laboratory accidental leaks and deliberate release are three different propositions. Existing public investigations and intelligence assessments are sufficient to support continued in-depth investigation of laboratory accidents, but accountability pursuit must rely on a chain of evidence, rather than deliberately write unproven subjects into established facts.

As long as key data is closed, laboratory records cannot be fully censored, early case data cannot be fully rebuilt, the question of political responsibility around Wuhan and Beijing will not disappear. The responsibility for this global catastrophe should not cease to be the search for a simple slogan, but should continue to ask: who has what data, who decides not to disclose, who has hindered independent verification, and what this information blockade has actually paid the world.