Lancet letter (COVID-19 origins)

The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al.) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning "conspiracy theories" suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin. The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2019, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition. The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflict of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that an accidental laboratory leak be investigated as a possible origin scenario.

Background

From the early outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors and speculation arose about the possible lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 disease. Different versions of the lab origin hypothesis present different scenarios in which a bat-borne progenitor of SARS-COV-2 may have spilled over to humans, including a laboratory-acquired infection of a natural or engineered virus. Some early rumors focused on the deliberate leak of a virus as a bioweapon or accidental leak of an engineered virus. Some signatories of the Lancet letter, such as Stanley Perlman and Linda Saif, said they were focused on dispelling these rumours, though the letter did not make this distinguishment, as Daszak insisted on a "broad statement".

Controversy

Undeclared conflicts of Interest

The authors of the letter stated declared "no competing interests", however, In emails obtained by public records request by US Right to Know in November 2020, it was revealed that the letter was drafted and organized, and Peter Daszak, whose organization EcoHealth Alliance had funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, constituting an undeclared conflict of interest. According to the public record request, a further six signatories were affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance, and when Daszak was included in The Lancet commission and WHO-convened study on the origins of the virus, Daszak’s involvement with the letter was subject to increasing scrutiny, until both teams were disbanded in September 2021. According to a September 2021 report from The Daily Telegraph, 26 out of the 27 signatories were found to have links to WIV researchers, their colleagues or funders.

In a FOIA'd email from Daszak to Ralph Baric, Daszak says he spoke to Linfa Wang, and that they agreed that their hands should not be seen on it.

Authorship

In academic authorship, the lead author of an article is usually placed first in the list of authors, which gave the appearance that the lead author of the Lancet letter was Charles Calisher, professor emeritus at Colorado State University. Questioned about the USRTK revelation by Le Monde and Undark, Calisher confirmed that Daszak wrote the first draft and listed the authors by alphabetic order, making him appear as the lead author, though he said he would not oppose signing the statement again.

Reception

Critical commentary

According to Paul Thacker, the Lancet letter "helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak’s message and to silence scientific and public debate."This affected reporting on the origins of the virus, "characterising the lab leak theory as unworthy of serious consideration".

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Filippa Lentzos said that the letter’s conclusion was premature, saying that some scientists "closed ranks", fearing for their careers and grants.

The letter was criticized by Jamie Metzl for "scientific propaganda and thuggery". Metzel wrote to Lancet editor Richard Horton to flag Daszak’s conflict of interest, but received no response. Horton later responded in a UK parliament session.

Katherine Eban wrote in Vanity Fair that the letter had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". The letter was deemed to have "effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began". Further criticism of the letter was focused on the fact that, according to emails obtained through FOIA, members involved in producing the letter concealed their involvement "to create the impression of scientific unanimity" and failed to disclose conflicts.

Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that "Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy." Wade opined that the signatories of the Lancet letter behaved as "poor scientists" for "assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.".

Rutgers professor Richard Ebright noted that the conflicts of interest involving virologists denying that the pandemic could have come from a laboratory in Wuhan were "simply unprecedented."

According to a Politico, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell was shocked by the letter and its complete dismissal the lab leak possibility, saying that it was apparent that "the science world was not playing above board."

Signatories' statements

According to the Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I’m convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".

In June 2021 ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."

In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on

Lancet response

Addendum

Following the criticism that it failed to declare Daszak’s work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, The Lancet admitted the conflict of interest in an addendum to the letter and "recused" him from its coronavirus origins task force.

Second letter

Following the addendum to the first letter, the authors of the first letter published a second letter, reaffirming their view that the pandemic has natural origins. The letter asserted that "careful and transparent collection of scientific information" on every potential hypothesis, but that they believe it unlikely that the virus leaked from a lab. William B Karesh, Peter Palese, and Bernard Roizman, who signed the first letter, did not sign the second letter.

Stanley Perlman, who signed both letters, said the original letter addressed the lab leak bioengineering scenario only and that the second letter addresses the scenario where a natural virus was accidentally released.

UK Parliament session

Speaking to the Science and Technology Select Committee in the UK Parliament, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet argued that it had taken them more than a year to persuade Daszak to declare his competing interest. Horton said that the lab leak was now a "a hypothesis that should be taken seriously and needs to be further investigated."

Counter statements

PNAS

In November 2020, David Relman published an opinion piece in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pointing out that "origin story" of the virus was still missing key details and that an objective analysis necessitated "addressing some uncomfortable possibilities," including an accidental release from a laboratory.

When asked by UnDark why he thought Daszak and others pushed so strongly against the possibility of a lab leak, Relman said they may have wanted to "deflect perceptions of their work as endangering humankind".

Science Magazine

In May 2021, a group of 18 prominent scientists published a letter in Science Magazine saying "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" and that "theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." The letter also criticized the WH report on covid origins for dismissing the lab-leak theory.

National Academy of Sciences

The US National Academy of Sciences said that the search should be "guided by scientific principles" that would consider multiple scenarios for the origin of the pandemic. In an interview with The Washington Post, Marcia McNutt said scientists open to the possibility of a laboratory accident should not be labeled conspiracy theorists.

The Lancet

After having published letters supporting only the natural origins theory, The Lancet published a letter in September 2021 from a group of 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists calling for further investigations into a lab leak, and saying there is not yet enough evidence to support the natural origins hypothesis. The letter stressed that "Research-related hypotheses are not misinformation or conjecture" and that "Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses." The Times of India described The Lancet's decision to publish the letter as a "u-turn".

See also

• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
• COVID-19 lab leak theory
• MMR vaccine-autism fraud
• Academic dishonesty

References

This article "Lancet letter (COVID-19 origins)" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Lancet letter (COVID-19 origins). Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

📰 Article(s) of the same category(ies)

• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
• Ambovent
• Mehdi Variji
• Wuhan files
• Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment
• 2021 renaming of bacterial phyla
• Student Politics in Pakistan: A Celebration, Lament & History

---