Hans Mahncke writes for the Federalist about interesting new revelations involving the early days of the COVID scare.
The latest revelations from Sen. Rand Paul’s investigation into the origin of Covid expose what may be one of the most consequential scientific deceptions in history.
The 1,123 pages of private Slack messages exchanged among the authors of the highly influential “Proximal Origin” paper reveal that the scientists who publicly declared that a laboratory origin of Covid was not plausible privately held a very different view. They repeatedly acknowledged that a laboratory origin remained possible, discussed flaws in their own arguments, and struggled to defend the natural origin theory.
In the first batch of Slack messages between the authors, which was released by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2023, Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research, the lead author of “Proximal Origin,” privately described the possibility of a laboratory origin as “friggin’ likely.” In another exchange, he wrote, “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory,” and elsewhere another author acknowledged that Covid “easily could have” leaked from a laboratory. Yet only weeks later, on March 17, 2020, they published “Proximal Origin,” declaring that a laboratory-based scenario was not plausible.
When those earlier messages became public, Andersen offered a simple explanation. He argued that his initial doubts had been resolved before publication and that the messages merely reflected a normal scientific process of considering possibilities before reaching a conclusion.
The latest Slack disclosures completely destroy that claim.
The doubts did not disappear after publication. The newly released messages show the authors continuing to wrestle with evidence they found troubling. In one exchange from June 2020, Andersen wrote: “Gotta say — some smoking(ish) guns starting to appear that I’m not comfortable with.”
But rather than publicly admitting that their paper got it wrong, they instead discussed strategies for defending the natural-origin theory and finding arguments that could preserve it despite mounting problems.
