Open Letter To Nature Medicine – Call to retract "Proximal Origin" paper

[baja_blast]

As pointed out here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-proximal-origins-mu... some of the main reasons why it should be retracted include:

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.

[taylorfinley]

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.

[dang]

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")

[wonderwonder]

Nature very much has a political axe to grind these days:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/26/nature-manuscripts...

[cjbgkagh]

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.

[dang]

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.

[causi]

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.

[Georgelemental]

Originally reported here: https://public.substack.com/p/top-scientists-misled-congress...

[vannevar]

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.

[baja_blast]

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.

[Calavar]

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?

[akvadrako]

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.

[adammarples]

Here's an actionable point: maybe the NIH shouldn't have been funding the research in China?

[MisterBastahrd]

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.

[baja_blast]

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.

[8chanAnon]

>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).

[wesleywt]

Give the evidence of lab leak. Biological evidence or GTFO

[great_tankard]

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.

[baja_blast]

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...

[themark]

Technically it is Nature Medicine. Nature rejected the paper.

[baja_blast]

And it was published in Nature Medicine without peer review

[dang]

We've changed the title now. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952292.

[tehjoker]

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.

[dang]

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.

[blululu]

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.

[baja_blast]

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.