Sacks’ claim was not that we’d get a definitive proof of a lab leak, but that over time, more evidence of a cover‑up around the Wuhan lab and COVID origins would leak out, making the situation look progressively worse for those involved. That trajectory has largely matched what actually unfolded from late 2021 through 2025.

Key developments since June 2021:

1. More internal intelligence and declassification about a possible lab origin

   • The 2023 COVID‑19 Origin Act forced the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information about potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and COVID‑19, leading to a public ODNI report in June 2023. That report described an intelligence community split: several agencies favored a natural spillover, while the Department of Energy and FBI assessed a lab‑associated incident as “most likely,” though with low or moderate confidence. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • In 2025, the CIA publicly shifted to say it now considers a lab origin “more likely,” again with low confidence, aligning its position with DOE and the FBI. (time.com)
     These shifts did not settle the origin question, but they added new, more detailed disclosures and expanded the official paper trail about lab‑leak concerns.

2. Concrete evidence of record‑evasion and secrecy inside U.S. health agencies

   • Emails from Dr. David Morens, senior adviser to Anthony Fauci at NIAID, released by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, show him boasting that he “learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear” after a FOIA request and that he deleted earlier emails after forwarding them to Gmail. He also urged colleagues to send sensitive material only to his private account and wrote that officials were “smart enough to know to never have smoking guns…and if we found them we’d delete them.” (congress.gov)
   • Oversight materials and press reports describe this as part of a broader pattern at NIH/NIAID to evade FOIA and shield EcoHealth Alliance (which funded coronavirus work at WIV) and Fauci from scrutiny, prompting congressional investigations into a possible NIH/NIAID records‑destruction and transparency “conspiracy.” (oversight.house.gov)
     Even if some participants later called these emails “jokes” or denied intent, the documented conduct is exactly the kind of “fingerprints” of a cover‑up Sacks was talking about, and it only became public well after mid‑2021.

3. Growing documentary evidence and investigations around the Wuhan lab itself

   • Congressional and investigative reports have assembled detailed chronologies showing that WIV’s publicly accessible virus‑sequence database was taken offline around September 12, 2019, and stayed offline, despite later public claims that it was only removed during the pandemic for cybersecurity reasons. These reports also highlight internal Chinese concerns about biosafety at WIV in mid‑ to late‑2019 and subsequent procurement of high‑end safety equipment, all presented as circumstantial evidence of an incident followed by efforts to hide data. (washingtonexaminer.com)
   • Combined with existing evidence that Chinese authorities censored early information about the Wuhan outbreak and have refused to restore access to key WIV records, this has fueled a sustained narrative of a Chinese‑side cover‑up that became more, not less, detailed after 2021. (en.wikipedia.org)

4. Re‑examination of how the “natural origin” narrative was promoted

   • The House held a hearing explicitly titled “Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover‑Up,” digging into whether Fauci and NIH officials influenced the highly cited “The Proximal Origin of SARS‑CoV‑2” paper that framed lab‑leak ideas as implausible, and whether early discussions among its authors were more open to a lab origin than the final publication suggested. (congress.gov)
   • These inquiries, backed by FOIA‑obtained emails, have deepened public suspicion that U.S. and international scientific messaging about origins was, at minimum, “managed” behind the scenes, even though the scientists involved insist their views changed for legitimate scientific reasons. (dailycaller.com)

5. Ongoing uncertainty about the origin itself

   • The ODNI report and subsequent annexes emphasize that both lab‑associated and natural spillover origins remain plausible; most U.S. intelligence agencies still lean toward a natural origin, though with low confidence, and the report found no direct evidence that SARS‑CoV‑2 came from WIV. (gigazine.net)
   • Meanwhile, influential scientific work (e.g., Worobey and colleagues’ geospatial analysis of early Wuhan cases and animal‑market data) continues to argue that a wildlife market spillover fits the available evidence best. (vanityfair.com)
     So we still don’t know definitively how COVID‑19 began, and many of the “cover‑up” claims remain heavily contested and politically polarized.

Putting this together:

• Sacks predicted that more information about a cover‑up around the Wuhan lab and COVID origins would continue to surface, rather than the story going static, and that these revelations would increasingly implicate those involved.
• Since mid‑2021, there has indeed been a steady stream of new documents, declassified assessments, FOIA material, and congressional findings that:
  • Expose questionable record‑keeping and FOIA‑evasion practices by NIH/NIAID staff tied to EcoHealth and origin‑related communications. (congress.gov)
  • Add detail to concerns about WIV’s database removal, biosafety problems, and post‑2019 secrecy. (washingtonexaminer.com)
  • Reveal more about how U.S. intelligence agencies internally weighed and re‑weighed the lab‑leak hypothesis. (covidindex.science)

Even though the ultimate origin remains unresolved and many scientists still favor zoonosis, the narrow prediction—that “more and more information” pointing to some form of cover‑up would emerge over time, making the controversy more damaging for key actors—has clearly borne out. On that basis, the forecast is best judged as right, with the caveat that it was about the direction and volume of revelations, not about conclusively proving any specific lab‑leak scenario.