“FOLLOW THE SCIENCE:” Retract “Proximal Origin?” No, says Nature Medicine editor.
We now have contemporaneous Slack messages and emails where the authors not only express doubts that what they were writing was true, but that prove they thought that the claim they were making–that COVID arose naturally without human interference and that it spread from an animal to a human being via natural processes–was likely not true. . . .
There is now a near consensus that at the very least a lab leak is quite plausible, which has raised the question: why hasn’t Nature Medicine, the journal that published this paper that spawned a million censorships, looked into retracting the paper given its clear contradiction with both reality and with the now apparent opinions of the authors as they wrote the paper?
If the authors lied in the paper, shouldn’t it be retracted?
No. Because Nature Medicine is now rewriting history. The editor now claims that the paper wasn’t research at all, but an expression of an opinion. Just a “point of view.” It wasn’t definitive research, but an Op/Ed or something.
So when they said follow the science, they were really saying “follow the Op/Ed.” Remember that next time.
But the thing is, it wasn’t even an honest opinion. It was intentional propaganda.