• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

The Lancet Changes Mind on Lab Leak Theory – Calls for “Objective, Open and Transparent Debate”

by Michael Curzon
19 September 2021 10:00 AM

The Lancet appears to have had a change of heart on the lab leak theory, having published an article calling for an “objective, open and transparent debate” on Covid’s origins – a whole 19 months after writers “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid does not have a natural origin“. The idea that the evidence points away from the lab leak theory and towards a natural origin “could [now] literally be reversed”, say the authors of the new article. “There is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.” The Mail on Sunday has more.

It was revealed earlier this year that Peter Daszak – a British scientist with long-standing links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – had secretly orchestrated a landmark statement in the Lancet in February 2020 which attacked “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid does not have a natural origin”.

The now-infamous letter, signed by 27 leading public health experts, said they stood together to “strongly condemn” the theories which they said “do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice”.

They also lavished praise on Chinese scientists who they said had “worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak… and share their results transparently with the global health community”.

Now, the Lancet has agreed to publish an alternative commentary which discusses the possibility that laboratory research might have played a role in the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It also directly confronts the efforts of science journals to stifle debate by labelling such theories as “misinformation”. …

[The authors say] the February 2020 statement “imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate”.

And they say scientists, “need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts”.

Science itself, they go on, should “embrace alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy” and rather than congratulating China on its supposed “transparency”, they call on the secretive superpower to open up.

Worth reading in full.

Tags: Covid originsLab 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

Booster Jab Invitations to Be Sent to 1.5 Million People in England This Week

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

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

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norman
Norman
3 years ago

What heresy is this – science should embrace alternative hypotheses …..?
Don’t they understand that in science it is the consensus that rules.

14
-3
rtaylor
rtaylor
3 years ago

We’ll keep our eyes on Peter Daszak PhD and his friends at the Big Pharma friendly Lancet for the next 3 years at least.
Until Nuremberg 2.0 begins anyway.

34
0
RickH
RickH
3 years ago

Well – I guess its progress.

None of us are qualified to judge with certainty, but it has always seemed to me that the identification of Wuhan as the origin was a supreme geographical coincidence. The staged dramas of collapses in the street also suggested, early in the shit-show, that something smelly was afoot. Like finding dog shit on the shoe.

It has also always seemed possible :

(a) that there is a lot of global shady dealing around ‘gain of function’ research

and

(b) that an intelligence report of a lab escape could be a fortuitous scare to initiate the hysterical reaction across the globe, then transmuted into an opportunist’s wet dream

14
-1
Lister of Smeg
Lister of Smeg
3 years ago

Essentially they’ve seen which way the wind is blowing (as elements at the Telegraph are now doing, in my opinion) and have changed their tune. No wonder they fit in with the political elite and MSM.

12
0
MTF
MTF
3 years ago

Both the original letter and the change of heart are correspondence not articles. As such they are not peer reviewed and do not represent the views of the Lancet any more than a letter to the Times represents the views of the Times.

5
0
186NO
186NO
3 years ago
Reply to  MTF

I do not think that “letters” to any publication are routinely peer reviewed before publication. The letter in question contained some statements that were unfortunate to say the least and now look very biased, simplistic, self serving very unprofessional, and very wrong; the “undersigned” were organised by, so it seems, at least 2 if not more people who were severely conflicted – an originator of US taxpayers funding, a recipient thereof and at the same time a sub funder of the Wuhan lab research – I take the research that 27/28 co-signees have some links to China at its face value – I have no way of independently verifying these links.

It increasingly looks like a desperate attempt to deflect serious scrutiny of the circumstances of GoF/SARS etc – and that inevitably invites the comment “what are you trying to hide”; if nothing else, it was very ill advised and the scrutiny they want to avoid is taking place.

This is not a trick question – did the Lancet disassociate themselves from the contents of the letter when they published it – if not, whilst that does not mean they agreed with the statements it contained, it may have laid them wide open to criticism? Another error of judgment imho.

Last edited 3 years ago by 186NO
0
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago

It is perfectly obvious what happened – it was perfectly obvious in February 2020 – and beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require further investigation to find out what happened, only to fill in the details.

12
0
PhantomOfLiberty
PhantomOfLiberty
3 years ago
Reply to  PhantomOfLiberty

https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/01/center-for-health-security-coronavirus-pandemic-event-201-highlight-video.html

Last edited 3 years ago by PhantomOfLiberty
2
0
BeBopRockSteady
BeBopRockSteady
3 years ago

So tell me again how we prevent the next pandemic? I take it we have shut down such labs as a first step? No? Still the anti vaxxers are the problem then…wake me up when you can pull your heads outta yer holes thanks.

Last edited 3 years ago by BeBopRockSteady
6
0
PoshPanic
PoshPanic
3 years ago

The Lancet were openly supportive of the John Snow memo. That’s being dissected in this thread…

https://twitter.com/Dr_ScottMc/status/1439474976705466369

8
0
BeBopRockSteady
BeBopRockSteady
3 years ago

I think it’s absolutely a key element to this whole scam to unpick those that initiated this rear guard and their backers. By doing so, we can open people’s eyes to the rest of the capture that has undermined science and public health all our lives. Vested interests need weeded out.

10
0
rayc
rayc
3 years ago

“Scientists” need to be reminded that science is not a beauty contest. Participating in such “give us likes” sort of petitions says more about the participants than about the subject matter (of course, this also applies to the opposing camp).

0
-4
Nessimmersion
Nessimmersion
3 years ago

Remember when any suggestions of lab origin were Tinfoil hat, David Icke conspiracy theorist lunacies?
Now its gone awfully quiet.

17
0
186NO
186NO
3 years ago
Reply to  Nessimmersion

Precisely.

0
0
Eumaeus
Eumaeus
3 years ago

I would love to see this as some kind of sea-change, but I’ve been so disappointed so many times before.

8
0
vargas99
vargas99
3 years ago

The Lancet -“Objective Open and Transparent” do me a favour…….

3
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  vargas99

A bit like The Groan then?

2
0
Davidsb
Davidsb
3 years ago

Is it possible that the 27 ‘leading public health experts’ (or at least 26 of them, presumably excluding Peter Daszak) have gone public with their change of heart on the culpability of the Chinese in the release and/or spread of COVID-19?

0
0
ComeTheRevolution
ComeTheRevolution
3 years ago

The Lancet exposed itself as a criminal organisation – along with other disgraced criminal organsations such as Oxford University, Imperial College, the BBC etc – when they did a number on HCQ and ran sham articles/studies using made up/fraudulent data, which were subsequently retracted after they got found out and exposed.

The people in the press who have facilitated this scam and spread lies and misinformation, plus members of the medical establishment – their days in court are coming and there is nowhere to hide for them because their lies are a matter of public record. People in the media were prosecuted under Nuremberg and the same fate awaits these snakes.

The Lancet Retracts Hydroxychloroquine Study
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

June 4, 2020 – The online medical journal The Lancet has apologized to readers after retracting a study that said the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not help to curb COVID-19 and might cause death in patients.

Pure criminality from these lowlife scumbags.

1
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

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

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

26 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26 July 2025
by Paul Homewood

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

26 July 2025
by Dr James Allan

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

32

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

32

News Round-Up

15

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

14

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

26 July 2025
by James Alexander

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

26 July 2025
by Dr James Allan

Is the US Losing the World to China?

26 July 2025
by Noah Carl

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26 July 2025
by Paul Homewood

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

POSTS BY DATE

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Aug   Oct »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

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

POSTS BY DATE

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Aug   Oct »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

News Round-Up

26 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26 July 2025
by Paul Homewood

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

26 July 2025
by Dr James Allan

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

25 July 2025
by Will Jones

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

32

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26

Covid Vaccines Saved Far Fewer Lives Than Claimed by WHO, Major New Study Finds

32

News Round-Up

15

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

14

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

26 July 2025
by James Alexander

Oh-So Biased Public Broadcasting

26 July 2025
by Dr James Allan

Is the US Losing the World to China?

26 July 2025
by Noah Carl

The Frightening Cost of Net Zero

26 July 2025
by Paul Homewood

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

SOCIAL LINKS

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

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

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

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences