Science Magazine’s Paper Advocating Market Origin for COVID Based on False Statistics

American science writers "follow the science" and ignore new study pointing to flaws in Science Magazine research, while German journalists join the fray.

9 minute read

Shortly after the pandemic’s beginning, a group of virologists allied with Anthony Fauci conspired to divert attention away from a possible lab accident in Wuhan, working together to publish essays that labeled such claims a “conspiracy theory.”

On February 19, 2020, EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak and Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar published a statement in The Lancet that claimed a possible Wuhan lab accident was a “conspiracy theory.” The statement did not disclose that Daszak was funding research led by Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Around this same period, Shi Zhengli helped to secretly edit another essay that appeared a week later in Emerging Microbes & Infections that also stated it was a conspiracy theory to claim the pandemic began in her own Wuhan lab. Three weeks after, a group of virologists funded by Anthony Fauci published a paper titled “Proximal Origins” in Nature Medicine that concluded a lab accident was not “plausible.”

But as emails became public, showing that Fauci and virologists orchestrated these essays, virologists landed on a new claim: a paper published in Science Magazine proved the pandemic started in Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market.

Now an analysis published in a British science journal finds the Science Magazine study is “invalid” and based on “flawed” statistics. You probably haven’t heard about this study punching a hole in Science Magazine, because the American media has very studiously ignored it.

German journalists, however, have reported on the research, including the weekly science magazine, Spektrum.

For English readers, I’ve gotten a translation of Spektrum’s report on the statistical analysis questioning Science Magazine’s wanky paper.