EXCLUSIVE: Trump Administration Targets Nature Medicine's “Proximal Origin” Paper Which Dismissed Possible Wuhan Lab Accident

Charges of corruption and calls for retraction have dogged the paper Anthony Fauci helped orchestrate.

7 minute read

A brief flurry of media reports last month criticized letters sent to medical journals by Edward R. Martin Jr., the former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who questioned whether journals have become “partisans in various scientific debates.” One liberal academic called the letters “fascist tactics” designed “to intimidate academic journals” triggering similar allegations across the media.

“Experts worry this will have a chilling effect on publications,” reported the New York Times, noting that an obscure journal called CHEST had been targeted.

“DOJ questions science journal about bias, triggering free-speech concerns,” reported the Washington Post, adding that three major publishers of medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs, said they had not received letters, while publisher Springer Nature chose not to comment. NPR reported last week that the New England Journal of Medicine had in fact received a letter as had the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA.

The DisInformation Chronicle has learned that the actual target of Martin’s letters is the Nature Springer journal Nature Medicine, publisher of a highly controversial paper “Proximal Origin” which has faced charges of corruption and calls for retraction. A source inside the Department of Health and Human Services said Trump officials suspect the paper is a quid pro quo, written by the authors to dismiss the possibility of a lab accident and who then received a large grant months later from Tony Fauci.

The existence of the Nature Medicine letter has not been previously reported and is being made public for the first time. After Martin lost support among Republicans to be confirmed as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, President Trump picked him to head a new Weaponization Working Group inside the Justice Department.

Follow the science

Published in the third month of the COVID pandemic and arguing “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the “Proximal Origin” paper became a handy tool for NIH officials and virologists attempting to dismiss as a “conspiracy theory” claims that the pandemic could have started in a Wuhan lab funded by Fauci. Nature Medicine’s editor-in-chief, Joao Monteiro, tweeted that the paper “put conspiracy theories” about the pandemic’s possible lab origin to rest.

NIH Director Francis Collins promoted the “Proximal Origin” paper weeks after Nature Medicine published it on his March 2020 NIH Director's Blog, and Fauci then seized upon the paper during a televised White House briefing a month afterwards.

“There was a study recently that we can make available to you,” Fauci said during the White House briefing, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists look at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human.”

The paper would go on to become one of the most heavily cited scientific papers in 2020. The Nation reported in 2023 that “Proximal Origin” had been accessed online more than 5.7 million times and more than 2,000 media outlets had cited it. ABC News, for instance, ran an article titled “Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes Covid-19 ‘Is Not a Laboratory Construct.’”

But by then, cracks had already appeared.

Follow the money, follow the documents

Emails made public through freedom of information act requests and by congressional investigators in 2022 showed that the papers’ authors had run it past funders—Francis Collins and Tony Fauci at the NIH, as well as with Jeremy Farrar, who was then at the Wellcome Trust. In one example, lead author Kristian Andersen with the Scripps Research Institute emailed the three funders thanking them for their “advice and leadership” and offering them a right to comment and give suggestions.

Further emails and internal slack discussions calling into question the credibility of “Proximal Origin” became public in the summer of 2023 following a congressional hearing. During the hearing, Republicans charged that Tony Fauci had helped orchestrate the paper’s publication. However, Democrats countered by releasing a report that found Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar helped “organize and facilitate” and “led the drafting process of the paper.”

“Jeremy, Dr. Farrar has been an amazing leader,” wrote “Proximal Origin” co-author Robert Garry of Tulane University in an email released by House Democrats. “Should be author.”

When questioned about his email during a House deposition, Garry agreed that Farrar should have been listed as an author.

According to Nature’s editorial policy, “A specific role for the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, should be disclosed.” However, the paper failed to note the involvement of either Fauci or Farrar, and Nature Medicine has refused to follow its own ethics guidelines.

News sites the Racket and Public co-published a slack message Andersen sent to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors on April 16, 2020, a month after Nature Medicine published the paper in March 2020.

“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved,” Andersen wrote his co-authors, a month after publishing the paper that concluded the virus was not a laboratory construct. “We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”

Days after the congressional hearing, the group BioSafety Now wrote a letter to Nature Medicine, signed by over 50 scientists, demanding retraction of “Proximal Origin.” The letter cited an investigation published by The Nation reporting on internal emails by the “Proximal Origin” authors that showed they didn’t even believe what they wrote in the paper.

“The main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely,” the Nation reported that Andersen wrote in a message to co-authors some weeks before Nature Medicine published the paper. An online campaign by BioSafety Now has since garnered over 5,700 signatures petitioning Nature Medicine to retract the paper.

In his letter to Nature Medicine, Martin wrote that he has been told that some journals “have a position for which they are advocating due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations).”

The letter also asks, “How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?”

A source close to the investigation said this question pertains to a grant Fauci awarded Andersen and Garry several months after they published “Proximal Origin” dismissing the possibility of a lab accident. Allegations that this grant was a bribe from Fauci have dogged Andersen for several years, accusations which he dismissed under oath during the July 2023 congressional hearing.

“There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origin of the pandemic,” Andersen wrote in sworn testimony to Congress. “We applied for this grant in June 2019, and it was scored and reviewed by independent experts in November 2019.”

The Intercept later reported that Andersen “knew that was false.” NIH records show the grant to Andersen wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020, two months after Andersen published “Proximal Origin” in Nature Medicine.

In a guest essay earlier this month for The DisInformation Chronicle, an NIH infectious disease researcher wrote that the “Proximal Origin” authors left a gaping hole in their analysis by failing to account for a common method to manipulate viruses called “serial passaging.”

“And because they didn’t discuss this very common laboratory practice, they did not ‘disprove’ a laboratory origin for the virus,” the NIH research official wrote. “I have no idea how ignoring something so obvious could make it pass peer review and get published in a prestigious journal like Nature Medicine.”