69500
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Authors of Lancet Letter Welcome Investigation Into COVID-19 Origins, but Don’t Apologise for Calling Lab Leak a “Conspiracy Theory”

by Noah Carl
7 July 2021 9:11 AM

In February of 2020, 27 scientists wrote a letter to The Lancet, claiming studies “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife”. The authors stated, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Fast forward to May of 2020. 18 other scientists – including some of the biggest names in the field – wrote a letter to Science stating, “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable” and we must “take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data”.

Now some of the authors of the Lancet letter have penned a new letter for that journal. As several commentators have noted, it’s a rather shameless piece of writing. This is particularly true given that the authors were already criticised for not declaring conflicts of interest.

They begin by describing the context of their original missive: “Unsubstantiated allegations were being raised about the source of the COVID-19 outbreak and the integrity of our peers who were diligently working to learn more about the newly recognised virus.”

Given the location of the first outbreak, and other circumstantial evidence, suggesting the virus might have leaked from a lab was perfectly reasonable. Yet the authors still refer to such suggestions as “unsubstantial allegations”, even though their own theory is just as “unsubstantiated”.

They claim that their peers – by whom they presumably mean scientists at the Wuhan Institute – were “diligently working to learn more about the newly recognised virus”. The implication here is that it was unfair for people to suggest they might have dropped the ball on lab security.

However, these scientists weren’t “diligent” enough to mention that a virus in their database whose genome is 96.2% similar to SARS-CoV-2 was identical to one that had been implicated in an unexplained 2012 outbreak of pneumonia. Nor have they been “diligent” enough to share their lab records with other scientists. Ironically, the authors later mention the importance of “transparent sharing of data”.

They go on to say: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory-leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals.”

As Alina Chan noted on Twitter, even if the virus did evolve naturally, this does not preclude the possibility of a lab leak (since the virus that escaped might have been collected from nature). Hence the authors’ inference here is simply invalid.

Chan – who is herself a molecular biologist – also disputes the scientific papers the authors cite in support of a natural origin. She claims that “none of them provide evidence of how SARS2 would’ve naturally emerged in Wuhan”.

In the final part of the letter, the authors say they “welcome calls for scientifically rigorous investigations”, citing the aforementioned letter in Science (of which Chan was one signatory). I guess that’s progress from painting those who disagree with you as “conspiracy theorists”.

Without a hint of irony, they then state: “It is time to turn down the heat of the rhetoric and turn up the light of scientific inquiry.” Despite this, the authors don’t apologise for characterising the lab leak as a “conspiracy theory”, thereby helping to shut down debate on COVID-19 origins for more than a year.

It’s important to remember that neither the natural origin nor the lab leak theory has been proven correct. Either one could turn out to be true. But this new letter adds nothing to the scientific debate.

Overall, it’s a missed opportunity. The authors could have apologised for the language in their original letter, but they instead chose to sidestep the issue, while telling us what we already know about the importance of scientific rigour.  

Tags: Conspiracy TheoriesLab leakThe Lancet

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Sydney Extends Lockdown Due to Fears Over Delta Covid Variant

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

 

DONATE

PODCAST

Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About the Fall of Russell Brand, the BBC’s Trans Rights Activism and Graham Linehan Topping the Bestseller List

by Will Jones
19 September 2023
5

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks

News Round-Up

21 September 2023
by Richard Eldred

Generation Z Can’t Work Alongside People with Different Views and Don’t have the Skills to Debate, says Channel 4 Boss – as She Blames the Lockdowns

21 September 2023
by Will Jones

“You’d Have to Pay Me to Buy an Electric Car”

20 September 2023
by Will Jones

Rumble Rejects MPs’ “Dangerous” Demand to Cave into Russell Brand “Cancel Culture Mob”

21 September 2023
by Will Jones

The Terrible Truth is That Even Sunak’s Mild Net Zero Relaxation May Be Unlawful

21 September 2023
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

56

Rumble Rejects MPs’ “Dangerous” Demand to Cave into Russell Brand “Cancel Culture Mob”

35

The Terrible Truth is That Even Sunak’s Mild Net Zero Relaxation May Be Unlawful

31

Generation Z Can’t Work Alongside People with Different Views and Don’t have the Skills to Debate, says Channel 4 Boss – as She Blames the Lockdowns

27

“You’d Have to Pay Me to Buy an Electric Car”

29

Spikes in Heart Deaths Among Japan’s Working-Age Men Support the ‘Hot Lot Hypothesis’ – That Some Covid Vaccine Batches Are Much Worse Than Others

21 September 2023
by Guy Gin

There’s Only One Way to Halt the Spread of Pernicious Trans Guidance: the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ Must Go

21 September 2023
by Caroline ffiske

Why Are UN Human Rights Advocates Obsessed With Legalising the Sex Trade?

20 September 2023
by Dr David McGrogan

Nigeria is in No Fit State to Look After Precious Artefacts

20 September 2023
by Mike Wells

Education is Much More Expensive Than We Are Prepared to Admit

20 September 2023
by Mark Ellse

POSTS BY DATE

July 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jun   Aug »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment