Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance
Many of my subscribers first found me before the COVID narrative became mainstream, when I was ringing the alarm bells about the stock market in late 2019 and early 2020 and warning people that the virus was going to be a much bigger deal than people thought.
At the time, almost nobody cared about COVID. The consensus view was that it was a localized problem in China and that markets would continue marching higher as they always had. By January and February 2020, I was repeatedly warning that the market was dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus and that investors were ignoring what seemed to me like an obvious threat.
Looking back at my first major retrospective on COVID from 2021, what stands out isn’t that every prediction was correct. Many weren’t. What stands out is that I was willing to examine information that most investors, journalists, and policymakers either ignored or dismissed. Remember how hard it was to push back against the mainstream Covid narrative once it started? This is why I started asking critical questions about whether we were creating too much hysteria and reminding readers that Covid was over if they wanted it to be, all the way back in 2021.
Worse than the virus itself, I noted, was the continued incessant reminders and outright media propaganda to get vaccinated, two-faced mask requirements from hypocritical politicians, spurious and useless mandates and individuals and businesses who suffered personal or economic losses.
Months before COVID became the dominant story in America, I was warning that markets were dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus. I questioned China’s reported numbers. I argued that investors were assuming a best-case scenario despite mounting evidence that supply chains, travel, and economic activity could be severely disrupted. I openly criticized the World Health Organization’s handling of the crisis and questioned why obvious inconsistencies weren’t receiving more scrutiny.
I also raised questions that, at the time, were considered beyond the pale. When discussion emerged about a possible laboratory origin for the virus, now confirmed as the likely origin, I argued that simply asking questions should not be treated as misinformation. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from research activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory in early 2020. Today it seems to be the leading hypothesis.
The lesson I took away from that experience wasn’t that alternative explanations are automatically correct. It was that institutional consensus is often far less certain than it appears. That realization is largely why this blog exists.
Watching politicians impose restrictions that they themselves ignored, watching media organizations aggressively police discussion while frequently revising their own narratives, and watching legitimate questions become taboo convinced me that there was tremendous value in examining uncomfortable subjects that mainstream outlets either couldn’t or wouldn’t touch.
The purpose of my blog became clear: investigate the gray areas. I wrote as much in my “About” page:
Both myself and the people I read are not afraid to challenge the mainstream narrative or succumb to it when it serves the collective best interests of identifying objective truths on complex, important or fringe topics – the areas where the mainstream media and mainstream finance won’t shine lights.
I have spent years reading news that, in my opinion, often missed the point and buried the lede. Up until a couple years ago, I just thought it was because the mainstream media needed to be careful. Now, it has become clear that it is likely due to the mainstream media and financial media’s purpose to drive a narrative which serves the interests of a small minority, rather than the common citizen.
I write not because every fringe idea is true, but because some important truths begin their lives on the fringe. One of the clearest examples was ivermectin.
At the height of the pandemic, ivermectin became less of a scientific question and more of a political litmus test. A drug that had been prescribed billions of times to humans and had won its discoverers a Nobel Prize was suddenly reduced, in popular media coverage, to “horse dewormer.”
The issue to me wasn’t whether ivermectin was a miracle cure. The issue was that the public was being manipulated. Media organizations routinely blurred the distinction between veterinary formulations and human prescriptions. Public health agencies issued messaging that many interpreted as dismissing the drug outright. Anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative risked being labeled a crank, conspiracy theorist, or misinformation spreader.
I argued at the time that this wasn’t science. It was narrative management. The treatment of Joe Rogan became one of the most visible examples. Major media outlets repeatedly referred to ivermectin as horse medicine despite knowing that Rogan had been prescribed the human version by a physician. CNN’s own medical correspondent eventually acknowledged the characterization was inappropriate. I mean, look at this bullshit:
Years later, the FDA itself would acknowledge in court that physicians retain the authority to prescribe ivermectin for COVID treatment.
Whether one believes ivermectin was effective, ineffective, or somewhere in between misses the larger point. The public deserved an honest discussion. Instead, it received a coordinated campaign of ridicule, censorship, and oversimplification. That episode reinforced one of the core principles behind this blog: whenever institutions become more interested in controlling debate than encouraging it, it is worth paying attention.
Which brings us to the latest chapter in the Covid saga. The recent document release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard may ultimately prove to be one of the most consequential COVID disclosures yet.
The newly declassified materials reveal that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory assessed a laboratory origin as a serious possibility as early as May 2020. In 2022, I published an interview with Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University who claimed Covid was “much more easily explained” as a lab leak.
Contrary to the public perception that the lab-leak theory was merely a fringe internet speculation, one of America’s premier national laboratories concluded that a laboratory-modification scenario was plausible and deserving of equal consideration alongside a natural-origin explanation. The idea wasn’t nearly as batshit insane as the powers that be wanted us to think it was.
In fact, behind the scenes, many intelligent people thought it was the obvious explanation. How could you not? You could basically reach out and touch the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the Wuhan wet market.
The newly-released documents also shed additional light on the nature of U.S.-funded coronavirus research linked to EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and collaborating researchers. They describe research involving spike-protein modifications, receptor adaptation studies, experiments designed to evaluate human infectivity, and testing in humanized mice. These are precisely the types of activities that later became central to debates about whether SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from laboratory work.
Perhaps most strikingly, the release includes records indicating that Anthony Fauci participated in discussions involving intelligence officials, COVID origins assessments, and related research issues while later testimony and public statements created the impression that his involvement had been minimal or nonexistent.
Whether future investigations conclude that these inconsistencies amount to intentional deception or not, the documents unquestionably raise serious questions about how much the public was told, when they were told it, and whether key officials were fully transparent.
The released also showed:
-
The assessment stated that conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus existed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019.
-
Documents describe NIH-funded coronavirus research through EcoHealth Alliance involving spike-protein studies, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice with Wuhan collaborators.
-
The release highlights links to the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, which contemplated engineering bat coronaviruses and studying ways to increase their ability to infect human cells.
-
Internal emails show some scientists initially considered the possibility that certain features of SARS-CoV-2 could have resulted from engineering, though views evolved over time.
-
Government and intelligence officials debated evidence related to the Wuhan lab, the virus’s furin cleavage site, and competing lab-origin versus natural-origin explanations.
-
Documents include references to a 2016 Wuhan research paper describing techniques for large-scale viral genome reconstruction relevant to synthetic biology.
Equally important are the broader implications. The documents suggest that significant uncertainty existed behind closed doors while the public was presented with a far more confident narrative. They reveal that laboratory-origin scenarios were receiving serious internal consideration while public discussion of those same possibilities was often stigmatized. They demonstrate that intelligence officials, researchers, and policymakers were wrestling with questions that ordinary citizens were frequently discouraged from asking.
In other words, the fringe wasn’t inventing questions. The fringe was asking questions that powerful institutions were unwilling to answer. And that distinction matters. Because when legitimate inquiry is mislabeled as conspiracy, skepticism becomes important.
That’s the real reason this blog exists and I’ll never stop writing…because there’s tons to be skeptical about, not just in current events and Covid, but in the financial world as well: modern monetary theory, changing the inflation goalposts, solving inequality by printing money, the illusion that the stock market is indestructible, and the avoidance to talk about how things are crumbling before our eyes but we refuse to discuss it: Read “We’re In A Historic Bubble”
🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever
I don’t think every unconventional idea is correct, nor do I particularly enjoy being contrarian. But history repeatedly demonstrates that consensus can be wrong, institutions can be self-interested, experts can be captured, and politically inconvenient truths can remain hidden for years. And that’s why I write.
The goal is not to live on the fringe, it is to visit it often enough to make sure reality hasn’t moved there while everyone else was looking the other way. And in the investing world in particular, being early often carries with it a pecuniary reward. And while I’ve stopped actively trading, I get immense satisfaction by hopefully passing down such useful ideas and ruminations to my kind subscribers.
—
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.
This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.
As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.
And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.
The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/23/2026 – 16:20
