Open Letter To Nature Medicine – Call to retract "Proximal Origin" paper(biosafetynow.org)
biosafetynow.org
Open Letter To Nature Medicine – Call to retract "Proximal Origin" paper
https://biosafetynow.org/open-letter-to-nature-medicine/
40 comments
It's important to note the misleading paper purported to rule out the lab leak hypothesis. Calling it "COVID-19 lab leak paper" makes it sound to my ear like it's a paper affirming a lab leak origin, but it was the opposite.
Yes, that was misleading. I'm sure it wasn't intentional. I've edited it now.
(Submitted title was "STEM professionals ask Nature to retract COVID-19 lab leak paper")
(Submitted title was "STEM professionals ask Nature to retract COVID-19 lab leak paper")
Nature very much has a political axe to grind these days:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/26/nature-manuscripts...
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/26/nature-manuscripts...
Has this post been shadowbanned? I don't see it in the hacker news listing anywhere and yet it's not marked as flagged. (edit: it is now flagged, though notably it dropped off the listing about 30 minutes before the flagged designation appeared)
Also, it's intentionally misleading to call this paper a 'lab leak paper' as it is widely known as the 'proximal origin' paper.
Also, it's intentionally misleading to call this paper a 'lab leak paper' as it is widely known as the 'proximal origin' paper.
Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I'd guess it had something to do with the title being rewritten in a misleading way.
Email messages and Slack direct messages among authors of the paper obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process or by the U.S. Congress and publicly released in full in or before July 2023 (2-7), show that the authors did not believe the core conclusions of the paper at the time it was written, at the time it was submitted for publication, and at the time it was published.
Quite damning if true.
Quite damning if true.
Originally reported here: https://public.substack.com/p/top-scientists-misled-congress...
Are those materials linked anywhere? The opinion pieces linked in the letter are not persuasive, it would be better to see the actual source materials before deciding to sign such a strong accusation.
Yep, the intercept article has a good summary and also provides a link to the sources:
https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-re...
https://www.documentcloud.org/app?q=%2Bproject%3Asubcommitte...
https://www.documentcloud.org/app?q=%2Bproject%3Asubcommitte...
From the Intercept article (quoting Andrew Rambaut, one of the authors):
>> “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need irrefutable evidence. My position is that the natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but __we have no evidence that that happened__.”
>> Not that discussing it isn't fun
(My underlining)
The email and Slack messages' significance has been overblown. The communications make it clear that the authors of the paper had no evidence to support a lab leak theory.
It is obvious this whole thing is played for political gains, much like the email leaks of climate scientists a few years ago where held up by "skeptics" as evidence that the whole climate change thing was made up.
>> “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need irrefutable evidence. My position is that the natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but __we have no evidence that that happened__.”
>> Not that discussing it isn't fun
(My underlining)
The email and Slack messages' significance has been overblown. The communications make it clear that the authors of the paper had no evidence to support a lab leak theory.
It is obvious this whole thing is played for political gains, much like the email leaks of climate scientists a few years ago where held up by "skeptics" as evidence that the whole climate change thing was made up.
The emails and slack messages are indeed authentic. None of the participants involved have ever denied it probably because doing so under oath would put them in legal risk. But luckily for the participants their misconduct has been largely ignored outside of right wing outlets, despite the fact the lead authors joking about how to mislead the press NYT specifically.
"largely ignored outside of right wing outlets" because of pieces like "Everyone should be skeptical of Nate Silver: And anyone touting the lab-leak 'theory' of COVID's origin at this point" at https://theracket.news/p/everyone-should-be-skeptical-of-nat... .
> Likely in hopes of fostering that illusion of inevitability, as well as of transparency, the Public crew made the Slacks and a separate document trove containing scientists’ emails available for download. This is also a well-worn tactic seen, for instance, in the mass release of hacked emails from Democratic staffers during the 2016 presidential campaign: You put out a document dump of hundreds of pages that few will have time to read, cherry-pick the lines that best serve your narrative, then set a legion of fans loose on the internet to scream “READ THE SLACK MESSAGES” at anyone who disagrees.
> Well, I did read the Slack messages. And it seems my skepticism of Silver, Shellenberger, and their cohort was well-founded.
And I well remember Climategate, which used the same tactic.
> Likely in hopes of fostering that illusion of inevitability, as well as of transparency, the Public crew made the Slacks and a separate document trove containing scientists’ emails available for download. This is also a well-worn tactic seen, for instance, in the mass release of hacked emails from Democratic staffers during the 2016 presidential campaign: You put out a document dump of hundreds of pages that few will have time to read, cherry-pick the lines that best serve your narrative, then set a legion of fans loose on the internet to scream “READ THE SLACK MESSAGES” at anyone who disagrees.
> Well, I did read the Slack messages. And it seems my skepticism of Silver, Shellenberger, and their cohort was well-founded.
And I well remember Climategate, which used the same tactic.
I don't understand why so much breath is wasted on the lab leak debate.
As I see it, there are four questions regarding the lab leak theory that have actionable answers:
1. Is it feasible in principle for dangerous viruses be released into the wild by a lab leak -- Yes
2. Do we need strict regulations to reduce the chance of lab leaks -- Yes
3. Is any form of external pressure likely to push the Chinese government into increasing controls on their labs if that is not already a priority for them -- No
4. Is any form of external pressure or even material evidence likely to push the Chinese government into admitting responsibility for the COVID pandemic -- No
Take note that whether COVID leaked from a lab has no bearing on the answer to any of those four actionable questions listed above. So what's the point of the debate? What are we aiming to achieve other than playing a blame game?
As I see it, there are four questions regarding the lab leak theory that have actionable answers:
1. Is it feasible in principle for dangerous viruses be released into the wild by a lab leak -- Yes
2. Do we need strict regulations to reduce the chance of lab leaks -- Yes
3. Is any form of external pressure likely to push the Chinese government into increasing controls on their labs if that is not already a priority for them -- No
4. Is any form of external pressure or even material evidence likely to push the Chinese government into admitting responsibility for the COVID pandemic -- No
Take note that whether COVID leaked from a lab has no bearing on the answer to any of those four actionable questions listed above. So what's the point of the debate? What are we aiming to achieve other than playing a blame game?
I agree it doesn't really matter; all that matters is it could have happened.
But the reason people pretend is they are against "strict regulations". Given the cost of dealing with Covid and the negligible benefits, they should be so strict the research is basically banned.
But the reason people pretend is they are against "strict regulations". Given the cost of dealing with Covid and the negligible benefits, they should be so strict the research is basically banned.
Here's an actionable point: maybe the NIH shouldn't have been funding the research in China?
You know, it's a bit peculiar that this thread has been here for an hour and there isn't a feverish level of enthusiasm over the topic. So strange given how most COVID threads on this site go.
Millions have died, I personally have family members that have died due to the pandemic. There is nothing strange or wrong about being passionate about this topic, especially since we have not made any significant changes to ensure this does not happen again, in fact the type of research that most likely caused this pandemic has only increased. If we do not clamp down on reckless research it is only a matter of time before another one happens again.
Why has this post been flagged?
>So strange given how most COVID threads on this site go.
How do they usually go? Personally, I hesitate to give an opinion because I need to preserve every little bit of karma that I get (at least till I have enough to throw away).
How do they usually go? Personally, I hesitate to give an opinion because I need to preserve every little bit of karma that I get (at least till I have enough to throw away).
Give the evidence of lab leak. Biological evidence or GTFO
This topic has broken the brains of so many otherwise reasonable people. Is a lab leak possible? Of course it is. But the purported evidence for it is so weak, repeated by the same cranks who seem to have made up their minds.
Also, it's not like the authors of the Nature Medicine paper thought one thing and wrote another. Read their correspondences! Their thoughts evolved over time. It's almost as if that's how science is supposed to work.
From the original paper:
"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to disprove the other theories of its origin described here."
And
"More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another."
I don't see the issue here.
Also, it's not like the authors of the Nature Medicine paper thought one thing and wrote another. Read their correspondences! Their thoughts evolved over time. It's almost as if that's how science is supposed to work.
From the original paper:
"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to disprove the other theories of its origin described here."
And
"More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another."
I don't see the issue here.
But there was no new evidence at that time. What there was though, was discussions on how a lab origin's negative impact on research and future funding! You can read more about some of their conversions before and after the paper was published here: https://public.substack.com/p/top-scientists-misled-congress...
Take:
> Wrote Andersen on February 1, 2020, “I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” A few days later, he and the other authors were searching for a plausible intermediate host such as a pangolin that would allow them to refute the theory.
Compare that interpretation with https://theracket.news/p/everyone-should-be-skeptical-of-nat... :
> That line, especially the “friggin’ likely,” has been the standout quote from the 140-page document. (Taibbi headlined his summary, “‘So Friggin' Likely’: New Covid Documents Reveal Unparalleled Media Deception.”) But there are a few things that the screenshot quote elides. One is the specific context in which was said. ... I don’t read this as a conversation between people who all know, or even suspect, that COVID didn’t come from nature. It’s a searching discussion — an argument in some ways — about the structure of the virus itself: whether it looks like it was engineered in some way or a product of natural evolution. ... The “friggin’ likely” is not a secret admission of wrongdoing. It’s a scientist talking to himself and his (skeptical) peers, saying, this is my assumption, this is what we need to test. ...
> If you keep reading though, a funny thing happens: the scientists get new data and start revising their conclusions. ... This conviction seems to have grown among the authors over the course of February. On Feb. 25, Holmes sends new data about a virus in a Yunnan bat from March 2019. Garry says: “Holy crap.” Andersen, revising his conclusion, says it “provides a template for how all of this happened in animals.” ...
You write "no new evidence" but in the link I gave, "Feb. 25, Holmes sends new data about a virus in a Yunnan bat from March 2019", and the Slack history shows it was new evidence for them.
> Wrote Andersen on February 1, 2020, “I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” A few days later, he and the other authors were searching for a plausible intermediate host such as a pangolin that would allow them to refute the theory.
Compare that interpretation with https://theracket.news/p/everyone-should-be-skeptical-of-nat... :
> That line, especially the “friggin’ likely,” has been the standout quote from the 140-page document. (Taibbi headlined his summary, “‘So Friggin' Likely’: New Covid Documents Reveal Unparalleled Media Deception.”) But there are a few things that the screenshot quote elides. One is the specific context in which was said. ... I don’t read this as a conversation between people who all know, or even suspect, that COVID didn’t come from nature. It’s a searching discussion — an argument in some ways — about the structure of the virus itself: whether it looks like it was engineered in some way or a product of natural evolution. ... The “friggin’ likely” is not a secret admission of wrongdoing. It’s a scientist talking to himself and his (skeptical) peers, saying, this is my assumption, this is what we need to test. ...
> If you keep reading though, a funny thing happens: the scientists get new data and start revising their conclusions. ... This conviction seems to have grown among the authors over the course of February. On Feb. 25, Holmes sends new data about a virus in a Yunnan bat from March 2019. Garry says: “Holy crap.” Andersen, revising his conclusion, says it “provides a template for how all of this happened in animals.” ...
You write "no new evidence" but in the link I gave, "Feb. 25, Holmes sends new data about a virus in a Yunnan bat from March 2019", and the Slack history shows it was new evidence for them.
> "Feb. 25, Holmes sends new data about a virus in a Yunnan bat from March 2019"
But the Furin cleavage site is missing from this bat virus which the authors speculated the following after Holmes shared it:
In reference to it, Holmes said, “Bob [Garry] said the insertion was the 1st thing he would add.”
“Yeah,” agreed Andersen, “the furin site would be the first thing to add for sure.”
Garry explained how easy it would be to engineer the virus. “Transmitting a bat virus like RatG13 in HeLa cells and then asking your graduate student to insert a furin site…” he wrote. “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the GoF [gain of function] research [which increases infectiousness] we know is happening.”
So no the virus from Yunnan only fueled speculation, it did not provide evidence ruling out a lab origin.
But the Furin cleavage site is missing from this bat virus which the authors speculated the following after Holmes shared it:
In reference to it, Holmes said, “Bob [Garry] said the insertion was the 1st thing he would add.”
“Yeah,” agreed Andersen, “the furin site would be the first thing to add for sure.”
Garry explained how easy it would be to engineer the virus. “Transmitting a bat virus like RatG13 in HeLa cells and then asking your graduate student to insert a furin site…” he wrote. “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the GoF [gain of function] research [which increases infectiousness] we know is happening.”
So no the virus from Yunnan only fueled speculation, it did not provide evidence ruling out a lab origin.
Silver's argument wasn't that the scientists secretly knew it was the lab leak; it's that there was a lot more uncertainty than the view that they published. And that became a problem because journalists used their paper to push misleading information that the lab leak was right wing conspiracy instead of a very possible scenario.
Technically it is Nature Medicine. Nature rejected the paper.
And it was published in Nature Medicine without peer review
To be fair its a correspondence. Not usually peer-viewed as they are supposed to contain no new research, and be a point-of-view discussion on issues that are of general interest to the reads of said journal.
Sure, but I see it used all time time as "peer reviewed sources" to debunk a lab origin all the time. The authors themselves on twitter even refer to it as having been peer reviewed.
Peer review is really no guarantee of anything. It catches some problems, sometimes.
We've changed the title now. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952292.
People really go crazy over the origins of COVID-19 but will happily inhale a purported bioweapon and give it to children and the elderly. What a world.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've had to ask you this before.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
This is just gratuitous name calling and it has no part in a meaningful conversation. I would hesitate to call people crazy for believing in a theory that is increasingly well supported by the evidence. Please consider that the origin of Covid19 and the response to it are two different issues and the main factions do not overlap 100%. Plenty of people believed that covid was a lab leak and also a deadly serious disease to be prevented at almost all costs. Perhaps more people would have taken more caution if they were told that this was an engineered bioweapon and not yet another zoonotic disease instead of being told to be quiet.
I personally support a natural origins theory, but I was referring to the disproportionate energy people invest in origins when so many of the same people have dropped mitigations. It's contradictory behavior. Either you believe it's a serious threat and treat it that way, or it's a totally disconnected reality X-files TV show.
If COVID is so unserious that people won't clean the air, wear respirators, test, isolate, or vaccinate, then why should anyone care about origins outside of public health professionals?
If COVID is so unserious that people won't clean the air, wear respirators, test, isolate, or vaccinate, then why should anyone care about origins outside of public health professionals?
There is a lot of overlap between people who support a lab leak hypothesis and people who did nothing to try to mitigate the effects of Covid-19. You are correct that these two behaviors represent an illogical contradiction, but the two issues are also separate and dismissing one position by its common association with the other is illogical and generally unhelpful for having a serious discussion.
I personally can't condone people who did nothing to try to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 but that doesn't really have much bearing to the origin of Covid-19. Ultimately we should be trying to understand what lessons we can draw from the pandemic and how we can prevent or forestall the emergence of future pandemics. If the origin is technological in nature then we should be looking for policy directives to prevent such technologies from being misused in the future. Having worked with grad students the idea that they would make a colossal mess of things seems pretty realistic so implementing some basic international restrictions on things like gain of function research seems like it would be a good move going forward, but maybe less urgent if we are 100% sure that Covid was zoonotic in origin.
I personally can't condone people who did nothing to try to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 but that doesn't really have much bearing to the origin of Covid-19. Ultimately we should be trying to understand what lessons we can draw from the pandemic and how we can prevent or forestall the emergence of future pandemics. If the origin is technological in nature then we should be looking for policy directives to prevent such technologies from being misused in the future. Having worked with grad students the idea that they would make a colossal mess of things seems pretty realistic so implementing some basic international restrictions on things like gain of function research seems like it would be a good move going forward, but maybe less urgent if we are 100% sure that Covid was zoonotic in origin.
Anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers are a completely different group than the individuals behind biosaftey now. These scientists publicly support and rally around vaccines and public safety measures. But what they are against is reckless and unnecessary biodefense research that enhance pathogens and modify animal viruses to be infectious towards humans.
I can get behind that, regardless of the origin of COVID-19. However, my concern is that so many of these political campaigns are billionaire / security state funded efforts to rally the public behind a "blame china" message so that way they can continue military aggression in the east designed to prop up American hegemony.
There's also a liberal idea in some supporters of "lab leak". They think of how the Bush administration handled Anthrax and falsely accused Iraq of having Smallpox and they think a change of frame will trigger the biosecurity apparatus to protect us from COVID-19. Unfortunately, that was all BS to get the public onboard with the Iraq war and funnel money to defense contractors and their friends. Because the upper class is afraid of freezing the economy with mitigations, these "trigger" words do not hold any weight.
There's also a liberal idea in some supporters of "lab leak". They think of how the Bush administration handled Anthrax and falsely accused Iraq of having Smallpox and they think a change of frame will trigger the biosecurity apparatus to protect us from COVID-19. Unfortunately, that was all BS to get the public onboard with the Iraq war and funnel money to defense contractors and their friends. Because the upper class is afraid of freezing the economy with mitigations, these "trigger" words do not hold any weight.
> However, my concern is that so many of these political campaigns are billionaire / security state funded efforts to rally the public behind a "blame china" message so that way they can continue military aggression in the east designed to prop up American hegemony.
Surprisingly that does not seem to be the case. I believe the security state is more interested in avoiding any gain of function restrictions bans from the Obama era coming back. Given all major economies close collaborations with the lab, as well as our own biodefense efforts lots of effort has been to suppress this, not to protect China but for their own interests.
Surprisingly that does not seem to be the case. I believe the security state is more interested in avoiding any gain of function restrictions bans from the Obama era coming back. Given all major economies close collaborations with the lab, as well as our own biodefense efforts lots of effort has been to suppress this, not to protect China but for their own interests.
1. The paper was had ghost writers
2. Due to ghostwriting the paper failed to properly disclose COI
3. The paper is intentionally misleading, written with the sole purpose of misleading the scientific process
4. The authors both before and after publication expressed different conclusions from the paper itself.
5. The paper was published in Nature Medicine without peer review.