The second influential publication that refuted the possibility of a lab leak was a letter published in the Lancet in early 2020. The letter describes the idea as a conspiracy theory and seems to be the work of a group of independent scientists. There is nothing. Thanks to public document requirements, the public later learned that Ecohealth President Peter Daszak again drafted and circulated the letter behind the scenes, while developing how to hide his tracks and telling the signatories that “it is the signator from any organization or individual.” The Lancet later published an appendix revealing Daszak’s conflict of interest as a collaborator in Wuhan laboratory, but the journal did not withdraw the letter.
They were helped. Thanks to more public record requirements and congressional subpoena, the public learned that David Morens, a senior scientific adviser at NIH, wrote to Daszak, who learned how to make “emails go away”, especially emails about the origins of the pandemic. “We are all smart enough to know that we will never smoke, if we do, we won't put them in emails, and if we find them, we will delete them.”
This is not difficult Imagine how to start an attempt to engage in a legal debate. Some of the loudest proponents of the lab leak theory not only do seriously inquire, they act with horrible beliefs, using debates about the origins of the pandemic to attack legitimate, helpful science to inspire public opinion to get attention. For scientists and public health officials, hovering the van and insulting anyone who dares to object seems to be a reasonable defensive strategy.
This is also why it can be tempting for those officials or the organizations they represent to avoid looking too closely at the mistakes they make, that they may retain relevant information and even mislead the public when trying to do such hard work. Now, this self-censorship is particularly disturbing as an unvaccinated child dies from measles, and the top of the federal government is pumping out anti-vaccination bullshit. But a clumsy, misleading effort like this not only fails, but also backfires. These semi-truth and strategic deceptions make it easier for people with the worst motivation to appear trustworthy, while discrediting the important institutions that many people work hard on the public good.
After some tenacious journalists, a small nonprofit that pursues free information requests and a group of independent researchers exposed the issues, and then a congressional investigation, the Biden administration finally banned Ecohealth for all federal grants for five years.
