Trust in science, The Lancet, and the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic

Introduction 

A version of this essay was submitted as a comment on Feb 8, 2025 to Kulldorff, M. 2025 The rise and fall of scientific journals and a way forward. Journal of the Academy of Public Health, 1, doi: 10.70542/rcj-japh-art-45qyn0 

This version corrects a couple of minor typographical errors in the submitted version, and is in other ways slightly edited. The figures are added, as are the hyperlinks and some additional details (most changes shown in red). Some of the links may not work properly. I will try to fix them when I have more time. I also may add to this essay.

Some highlights are in pink. The text in pink is in the text of my submitted comment.

**

 

Thank you. This journal and this article are greatly needed, to partially redress the bias of so many conflicted "legacy" journals.

 

You state: The Lancet published "the now infamous paper claiming that the Covid lab leak hypothesis was a racist conspiracy theory." The 324 word letter that you cite [1] (Calisher et al) was published when very little was known about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the Covid-19 pandemic. 

 

This letter, published online on February 18, 2020 (date of submission unstated, but no earlier than February 7, 2020) warrants opprobrium. It can be interpreted as characterising scientists with an alternative pandemic origin hypothesis as exclusively conspiracists, by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. These words, which are not qualified elsewhere in the letter, imply that the authors of Calisher et al thought there could be no legitimate scientific reason for a non-natural origin to the pandemic. This wording also appears disingenuous, since three of the authors of Calisher et al were centrally involved with the global virome project, [2] which had previously warned that the threat of “lab-enhanced viruses” was “intensifying”, due to both “gain of function” experiments and to “do it yourself” research. [3] (See images below - source: slides 2 and 4 in ref 3, originally published in 2017.)

The expressed certainty of Calisher et al concerning the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 was questionable for another reason. This is that the remarkable and extensive capacity of SARS-CoV-2 for asymptomatic (“stealth”) [4] transmission, whether air-borne or via bodily fluids, strongly distinguished it not only from SARS-CoV-1, but from all “naturally sourced” zoonoses other than influenza and HIV/AIDS (the latter which lacks air-borne transmission). [5] SARS-CoV-1 also lacks asymptomatic transmission capacity, as do viruses such as Ebola, Nipah, Marburg and Lassa. [5] Although asymptomatic transmission Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) has been reported [6] the capacity of the causal coronavirus for MERS to sustain transmission at scale is far lower than for SARS-CoV-2, as all MERS outbreaks to date have been quickly sequestered and thus terminated. [5] In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 generated a global pandemic, with an excess mortality (until 2022) of at least 5.9 million, with one authoritative estimate as high as 18.2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6 million). [7] COVID-19 also causes enormous and ongoing morbidity, including from long COVID. [8]

 

However, in contrast to a claim made in your article, [9] the authors of Calisher et al did not allege that scientists with competing views were racist, though it incorrectly praised “scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular” as working diligently including to “share their results transparently with the global health community”. While some Chinese health professionals deserve such accolades, Calisher et al failed to mention counter examples, such as Dr Li Wenliang, the ophthalmologist working in Wuhan who, on December 30, 2019, warned a group of his medical colleagues of a possible outbreak of a syndrome like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Within days, he was summoned by Chinese government authorities and forced to sign a statement in which he was accused of making false statements that disturbed the public order. [10] Subsequent to the publication of Calisher et al the New York Times reported that “thousands of secret government directives and other documents that were reviewed” laid “bare in extraordinary detail the systems that helped the Chinese authorities shape online opinion during the pandemic.” [11]

 

There is, however, a powerful additional reason for the infamy of Calisher et al. This is the failure of any of its 27 authors to initially acknowledge any conflict of interest. In June 2021 two or more Lancet editors published an addendum [12] which stated that “some readers” had questioned the validity of the non-disclosure of any conflict, particularly as they related to one author, who was later revealed (via emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know) to have covertly organised Calisher et al. [13] In September 2021 a science journalist published a newspaper article [14] claiming (with some details) that 26 of the 27 authors of Calisher et al were linked, to varying degrees, with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the leading Chinese laboratory for coronavirus research. 

 

One co-author of Calisher et al was appointed in 2012 as a board member [15] for the organisation EcoHealth Alliance, for which the covertly convening author had then been president for several years. This organisation was a major conduit of U.S. funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as reported in 2020. [13] Some of its funding was derived from USAID. Six co-authors of Calisher et al (including said former board member, a very senior scientist) were, in 2020 and for some time after, listed prominently on the EcoHealth Alliance’s website, either as members of the board (three) or having roles with the related journal EcoHealth (four). The president of the EcoHealth Alliance was also the chief editor of EcoHealth, and is here counted twice.

 

Links between the EcoHealth Alliance (or the journal EcoHealth) are only mentioned in the authorial details of one contributor to Calisher et al. As at February 8, 2025 all six with conflicts related to the EcoHealth Alliance remain visible either on the website of the EcoHealth Alliance (two as “adjuncts”), [16] or the editorial board of the related journal EcoHealth (five). [17] One is listed in each category, however none are now listed as board members of the EcoHealth Alliance [18] though at least three were as of March 2023. Several of the other authors of Calisher et al also had apparent (and also still undeclared) conflicts of interest, including a scientist who then headed the Wellcome Trust, and who is now the chief scientist for the World Health Organization (WHO). [19] 

 

The initial failure of any of the 27 authors of Calisher et al to declare a single conflict of interest was quickly perceived by many. This observation was also relayed, in 2020, to Lancet editor in chief, Richard Horton, who in December 2021 publicly acknowledged that “it took over a year” to persuade the letter’s co-ordinator that he needed to declare his conflict of interest. [20] 

 

Calisher et al repeatedly laud the value of “transparency”. They are far from alone. For example, a paper whose final (senior) co-author is a scientist who has long studied viral manipulation published an article concluding “rapid, transparent communication is paramount when infectious diseases emerge. This is the only way to prevent major outbreaks and will save many lives.” [21] However, transparency is inconsistent not only with the failure by the authors of Calisher et al to initially declare any conflict of interest, but also with the stated risk, previously highlighted by the global virome project, of the dangerous potential of laboratory-modified or enhanced pathogen variants. [3] 

 

In response to a request by two or more Lancet editors, a 151 word disclosure of conflicts was belatedly published by the journal on June 21, 2021, in relation to Calisher et al. [12] Yet this disclosure also failed to mention the strong research and funding links between the letter’s organiser and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

 

In January 17, 2025 (before President Trump's second term) the scientist who covertly organised the publication of Calisher et al was debarred by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, effective until May 14, 2029. [22] This was done “in order to protect the Federal Government’s business interests.” In the same month, EcoHealth Alliance, the organisation that this scientist once led (by then for approximately 15 years) was also debarred, for the same time, and for the same stated reason. [23]

 

On January 6, 2021, 14 authors (of whom I am one) submitted an 1185 word article to The Lancet criticising the main thesis of Calisher et al. [24] This was quickly rejected, without review, thus extending the time in which the original, strongly partisan letter (i.e. Calisher et al) was apparently left unchallenged by readers of and contributors to The Lancet. Eventually, however, a 1260 word version of this response (with 16 authors of whom 11 overlapped with the earlier authorial team; again I am one) was published on September 17, 2021. [24] This was submitted on July 15, 2021, and received no external review. Thus, between February 18, 2020 and September 17, 2021 (578 days) readers of The Lancet may have believed that the propositions advanced by Calisher et al were unchallenged by readers and potential contributors to The Lancet. However, over 40% of this period of apparently passive acceptance of Calisher et al was due to an editorial decision of The Lancet. It is also possible that other articles challenging Calisher et al were submitted to The Lancet in this period, but also not accepted for publication.

 

It is here postulated that the key reason for The Lancet editorial team’s reversal of judgement about publishing articles critical of Calisher et al was that in the period following consideration of the first rejected article [24] (i.e. about January 10, 2021) and soon after submission (July 15, 2021) of the eventually accepted article [25] The Lancet’s editor in chief started to understand the scope of the lack of transparency of the covert lead author of Calisher et al. Also in this period (May 14, 2021), another prestigious legacy journal, Science, published a letter hypothesising that SARS-Co-V-2 may have arisen via laboratory processes. [26] The date of submission of that letter is not stated by Science (as is normal practice for letters to both Science and The Lancet).

 

On September 14, 2022 a key finding of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission was published, stating that while the “proximal” origin of SARS-CoV-2 remained unknown there were two leading hypotheses. [27] These were that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. This conclusion closely matched the main point of the article that was submitted to The Lancet on January 6, 2021, but rejected within a few days. [24] 

 

Your article [9] discusses the “rise and fall” of scientific journals. You identify The Lancet as a prestigious and prominent legacy journal, and imply that its reputation may now be in decline. The Lancet has an admirable, campaigning origin, [28] but it has previously been on the wrong side of history, not only through the examples you list, but also when its founding editor failed to fully recognise the value of the pioneering ideas of John Snow. [29] 

 

Such errors may be inevitable. However, The Lancet’s mistake concerning the certainty of the origin of SARS-Co-V-2 arose from factors additional to poor scientific judgement. It was also contributed to by the journal’s failure to follow basic scientific process. 

 

In early 2020 it was impossible to know the cause of the pandemic with confidence. The bias of Calisher et al should have been a red flag to the journal’s editorial team, but apparently its strongly expressed views were considered acceptable. However, it would have then been comparatively straightforward to check for obvious conflicts of interest, such as via a quick internet search. Calisher et al (as with the two relevant submissions to The Lancet with which I was involved) apparently received no external review. It also was published with alacrity. Emails obtained by US Right to Know show that, as of February 6, 2020 the authorial team for Calisher et al remained in flux. [13] Thus, time between submission and publication was 12 days or fewer. These emails also show that the lead author intended it to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists”. One email stated: “We'll then put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice”. [30]

 

A review of Calisher et al, provided it was undertaken by knowledgeable and non-partisan scientists, is likely to have identified some of the most obvious (yet undeclared) conflicts of interest. Notification of this ethical shortfall to The Lancet's editors would almost certainly have also diluted the letter’s expressed certainty, including by preventing it from characterising all scientists with opposing views as “conspiracists”. It is striking that the Lancet’s editorial team, in early 2020, felt sufficiently confident about the knowledge and integrity of the authors of Calisher et al to publish it so quickly, yet lacked the wisdom to then suspect any conflict of interest.

 

Neither a review nor cursory check for potential conflicts of interest was undertaken. The Lancet's chief editor later advised a British parliamentary committee that the policy of The Lancet (at least in 2020) was to accept conflict of interest declarations at face value. [20] However, the scale and weight of undeclared interests among the many authors of Calisher et al was quickly apparent to many experts, some of whom warned The Lancet’s chief editor. [20] Five years later, the debarring of both the letter’s chief instigator, and of the EcoHealth Alliance is additional evidence of the misjudgement and bias of The Lancet’s editorial board in early 2020, concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2. This naïveté still dominated The Lancet editorial board’s decision-making processes in early January 2021, when the lengthy response submitted by van Helden et al [24] was rejected, even though one Lancet editor then appeared somewhat sympathetic to the arguments contained in this.

 

The authors of this rejected paper were also far less compromised by research links involving viral manipulation in China and elsewhere. If The Lancet editorial team had had a deeper understanding of the marked difference in conflicts of interest between the two authorial teams then the decision to reject the second article may have been avoided.

 

The Lancet must retract Calisher et al, including because of the severity of the pandemic, and the ongoing debate about biosafety. [31] The influence of Calisher et al (cited 370 times, by Google Scholar, February 8, 2025) has been overwhelmingly malign. Its harm rivals or exceeds that caused by The Lancet’s publication of a later discredited article that suggested that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine may cause autism. [32] The Lancet took almost 12 years to retract that paper. (The journal had the same chief editor then as now; he was appointed to his current role in 1995.)

 

The concerns about Calisher et al are magnified by the still ongoing failure of the great majority of this letter’s authors to fully disclose their conflicts of interest. These authors have now had almost five years to make such a declaration. In that time, far more evidence has been uncovered of relevance to the origin of SARS-Co-V-2. [33-34] This additional evidence also undermines the certainty expressed by Calisher et al. The fact that so much evidence has been revealed grudgingly, and through the ingenuity, persistence and effort (including legal) of investigators also belies the assertions by the authors of Calisher et al and others that relevant scientists genuinely place a high value on transparency. 

 

It is also of concern that 99 scientists, some of them very senior, remain affiliated with the journal EcoHealth, despite the scandal surrounding its lead editor and its more recently affiliated organisation, the EcoHealth Alliance. Many of this journal’s editorial board are aware of the alleged lack of integrity of both its chief editor and of this organisation. This is not only through extensive, highly unfavorable publicity, but also because, in 2022, I wrote to almost all of them. [35-36] Although there is one exception that I currently know of [37] it appears that ethical considerations among the EcoHealth advisory board are generally trumped by other factors. This ethical malaise is relevant to the wider problem in scientific publishing and scientific integrity. [38]

 

Calisher et al must be retracted, and its painful lessons absorbed. This would be an important step in the gargantuan task of partially restoring public trust in scientific integrity. The origin of the pandemic remains uncertain, but the weight of evidence suggests a laboratory origin. If any conspiracy existed, it is documented to have arisen among those who were involved with funding risky work involving coronaviruses in China, some of which was knowingly performed in in laboratories in China, in part funded by the U.S. which used lower standards of biosecurity than would have been legally possible in the U.S., [34] for this work with its long recognised risks. [39]

 

Declaration 

 

From 2007 to 2013 the author was associated with the journal EcoHealth, as review editor (2007-2010) and then as a co-editor (2010-2013). At that time this journal was not directly linked with the EcoHealth Alliance, but instead with the International Association for Ecology and Health (since renamed as EcoHealth International). The author resigned from this journal in 2013 due to concerns about insufficient scientific integrity. The author has never sought, nor received, funding for work involving the alteration of viruses nor any other genetic material. The author has no research grants associated with China. The author has no affiliation with EcoHealth International, though he did with its predecessor. The author has never had any role with the EcoHealth Alliance.

 

References

Many are open access (sometimes with free registration). The ones that I am certain are behind a paywall have three stars in this colour, deep green. *** In many cases I have added "open access".

 

1.             Calisher C, Carroll D, Colwell R, Corley RB, Daszak P, Drosten C, Enjuanes L, Farrar J, Field H, Golding J, Gorbalenya A, Haagmans B, Hughes JM, Karesh WB, Keusch GT, Kit Lam S, Lubroth J, Mackenzie JS, Madoff L, Mazet J, Palese P, Perlman S, Poon L, Roizman B, Saif L, Subbarao K, Turner M. Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. The Lancet, 395:e42-3, 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext open access

 

2.             Carroll D, Daszak P, Wolfe ND, Gao GF, Morel CM, Morzaria S, Pablos-Méndez A, Tomori O, Mazet JAK. The global virome project. Science, 359, 872–874. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap7463 2018 ***

 

3.             The global virome project. https://www.slideshare.net/SirTemplar/2017-0907-global-virome-project 2017. open access

 

4.             Butler CD, Infectious disease emergence and global change: thinking systemically in a shrinking world. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 1, 5. http://www.idpjournal.com/content/1/1/5 2012, open access.

 

5.             United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). COVID-19: A Warning. Addressing Environmental Threats and the Risk of Future Pandemics in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand.  https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/40871 2022, open access.

In mid-2020 the UNEP commissioned me to research and write this 70 page report, for which I was sole author, other than its one page foreword, written by Dechen Tsering, UNEP's Regional Director and Representative for Asia and the Pacific. (NB not "lead" author, as the report states - see figure below). It had 228 references and was reviewed by 34 people, including 13 from UNEP, three (each of whom was hostile) from universities in China, and two from the French embassy to Viet Nam. I was paid approximately US$20,000 for my work on this (I worked intensively on this for over a year - since mid-2016 I have only had unpaid university appointments. The upside of having no salary is that I can choose my priorities). UNEP also invested financially in this report, such as the involvement of its own staff and a graphic designer. This report was funded by NorAd (Norwegian Aid) (see figure). The report states that I completed the research for it on Feb 3., 2022. However, the changes to the text in 2022 were trivial. Research was actually completed in early December 2021. 

After its completion, UNEP not only refused to publish this report, but also stopped communicating with me. Their refusal to publish this report was, in my opinion, due to the fact that it clearly advised that a laboratory origin for the pandemic was plausible. Eventually I was able to communicate with a representative of NorAd, to complain about UNEP's timidity. Within a month of that communication - with no explanation, apology, or fanfare - my report was finally released by UNEP. I documented some of this pathetic story in an article published in January 2023, in the Daily Mail, co-authored with Prof Delia Randolph (nee Grace) who had led the initial report by the UNEP into to the covid-19 pandemic; see "There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale" at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687597/There-suppression-truth-secrecy-cover-ups-origin-Covid-19-China.html (reference 37 in this essay)

 

6.             Al-Tawfiq JA, Asymptomatic coronavirus infection: MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 35, 101608, 2020.

 

7.             Wang H, Paulson KR, Pease SA, Watson S, Comfort H, Zheng P, Aravkin AY, Bisignano C, Barber RM, Alam T, Fuller JE, May EA, Jones DP, Frisch ME, Abbafati C, Adolph C, Allorant A, Amlag JO, Bang-Jensen B, Bertolacci GJ, Bloom SS, Carter A, Castro E, Chakrabarti S, Chattopadhyay J, Cogen RM, Collins JK, Cooperrider K, Dai X, Dangel WJ, Daoud F, Dapper C, Deen A, Duncan BB, Erickson M, Ewald SB, Fedosseeva T, Ferrari AJ, Frostad JJ, Fullman N, Gallagher J, Gamkrelidze A, Guo G, He J, Helak M, Henry NJ, Hulland EN, Huntley BM, Kereselidze M, Lazzar-Atwood A, LeGrand KE, Lindstrom A, Linebarger, E, Lotufo PA, Lozano R, Magistro B, Malta DC, Månsson J, Mantilla Herrera AM, Marinho F, Mirkuzie AH, Misganaw AT, Monasta L, Naik P, Nomura S, O'Brien EG, O'Halloran JK, Olana LT, Ostroff SM, Penberthy L, Reiner Jr RC, Reinke G, Ribeiro ALP, Santomauro DF, Schmidt MI, Shaw DH, Sheena BS, Sholokhov A, Skhvitaridze N, Sorensen RJD, Spurlock EE, Syailendrawati R, Topor-Madry R, Troeger CE, Walcott R, Walker A, Wiysonge CS, Worku NA, Zigler B, Pigott DM, Naghavi M, Mokdad AH, Lim SS, Hay SI, Gakidou E, Murray CJL, Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020-21. The Lancet, 399, 1513-1536, 2022.

 

8.             Greenhalgh T, Sivan M, Perlowski A, Nikolich JŽ. Long COVID: a clinical update. The Lancet, 404, 707-724, 2024.

 

9.             Kulldorff, M. The rise and fall of scientific journals and a way forward. Journal of the Academy of Public Health, 1, https://publichealth.realclearjournals.org/perspectives/2025/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-scientific-journals-and-a-way-forward/ 2025, open access

 

10.          Green A. Li Wenliang. The Lancet, 395, P682, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30382-2/fulltext 2020

 

11.          Zhong, R., Mozur, P., Kao, J. & Krolik, A. No ‘negative’ news: how China censored the coronavirus. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/technology/china-coronavirus-censorship.html 2020. *** Also see: Hvistendahl, M. & Mueller, B. Chinese censorship is quietly rewriting the covid-19 story. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/23/world/europe/chinese-censorship-covid.html 2023 ***

 

12.          Editors of The Lancet. Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet, 397, 2449-2450, 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01377-5/fulltext open access

 

13.          Suryanarayanan, S. EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated key scientists’ statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2. https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/ 2020. open access

 

14.          Knapton S, Revealed: How scientists who dismissed Wuhan lab theory are linked to Chinese researchers, The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/ 2021. open access

 

15.          https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/2012/11/ecohealth-alliance-announces-dr-rita-colwells-election-to-board-of-directors (accessed 6 Feb, 2025)

 

16.          https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/adjuncts (accessed 6 Feb, 2025)

 

17.          https://link.springer.com/journal/10393/editorial-board (accessed 6 Feb, 2025)

 

18.          https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/board-of-directors (accessed 6 Feb, 2025)

 

19.          Kopp E, WHO top scientist was ‘collaborator’ of Peter Daszak. https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/who-top-scientist-farrar-was-collaborator-of-peter-daszak/ 2025. open access

 

20.          Horton R, Testimony to Science and Technology Committee session on research. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/135/science-and-technology-committee/news/159684/science-and-technology-committee-holds-evidence-session-on-research/ 2021. open access

 

21.          Petersen E, Hui D, Hamer DH, Blumberg L, Madoff LC, Pollack M, Lee SS, McLellan S, Memish Z, Praharaj I, Wasserman S, Ntoumi F, Azhar EI, McHugh TD, Kock R, Ippolito G, Zumla A, Koopmans M. Li Wenliang, a face to the frontline healthcare worker. The first doctor to notify the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2, (COVID-19), outbreak. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 93, 205-207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.052 2020

 

22.          Anonymous (redacted), Notice of debarment of Dr. Peter Daszak. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dr.-Peter-Daszak-HHS-Notice_Jan-17-2025_Redacted.pdf 2025. open access

 

23.          Anonymous (redacted), Notice of debarment of EcoHealth Alliance. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Notice-_EHA_1.17.2025_Redacted.pdf 2025. open access

 

24.          van Helden J, Butler CD, Canard B, Achaz G, Graner F, Segreto R, Deigin Y, Colombo F, Morand S, Casane D, Sirotkin D, Sirotkin K, Decroly E, Halloy J, An appeal for an open scientific debate about the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.07865 2021. open access

 

25.          van Helden J, Butler CD, Achaz G, Casane D, Claverie J-M, Colombo F, Courtier V, Canard B, Ebright RH, Graner F, Leitenberg M, Morand S, Segreto R, Petrovski N, Decroly E, Halloy J. An appeal for an objective, open and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet, 398, 1402–1404, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext 2021. open access

 

26.          Bloom JD, Chan YA, Baric RS, Bjorkman PJ, Cobey S, Deverman BE, Fisman DN, Gupta R, Iwasaki A, Lipsitch M, Medzhitov R, Neher RA, Nielsen R, Patterson N, Stearns T, van Nimwegen E, Worobey M, Relman DA. Investigate the origins of COVID-19. Science, 372, 694. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 2021. ***

 

27.          Sachs JD, Karim SSA, Aknin L, Allen J, Brosbøl K, Colombo F, Barron GC, Espinosa MF, Gaspar V, Gaviria A, Haines A, Hotez PJ, Koundouri P, Bascuñán FL, Lee J-K, Pate MA, Ramos G, Reddy KS, Serageldin I, Thwaites J, Vike-Freiberga V, Wang C, Were MK, Xue L, Bahadur C, Bottazzi ME, Bullen C, Laryea-Adjei G, Amor YB, Karadag O, Lafortune G, Torres E, Barredo L, Bartels JGE, Joshi N, Hellard M, Huynh UK, Khandelwal S, Lazarus JV, Michie S. The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 400, 1224-1280, 2022. See also: https://www.jeffsachs.org/interviewsandmedia/64rtmykxdl56ehbjwy37m5hfahwnm5 accessed Feb 9, 2025

 

28.          Kandela P. Medical journals and human rights. The Lancet, 352, 7-12, 1998.

 

29.          Hempel S, John Snow. The Lancet, 381, 1269-1270, 2013.

 

30.          https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Baric_Daszak_email.pdf  (accessed 8 Feb, 2025)

 

31.          Ebright RH, MacIntyre R, Dudley JP, Butler CD, Goffinet A, Hammond E, Harris ED, Kakeya H, Lambrinidou Y, Leitenberg M, Newman SA, Nickels BE, Rahalkar MC, Ridley MW, Salzberg SL, Seshadri H, Theißen G, VanDongen AM, Washburne A. Implementing governmental oversight of enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research. Journal of Virology, 98, 4, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00237-24 2024. open access

 

32.          Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351:637-41, 1998. (retracted by the journal, February 17, 2010).

 

33.          DRASTIC “The DARPA DEFUSE Project” https://drasticresearch.org/2021/09/20/1583/ and https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966/defuse-proposal.pdf 2021. open access

 

34.          Kopp E. American scientists misled Pentagon on research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. US Right to Know, https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/american-scientists-misled-pentagon-on-wuhan-research/ 2023. open access

 

35.          Butler CD. An open letter about ethics, to the editorial board of the journal EcoHealth https://globalchangemusings.blogspot.com/2022/11/an-open-letter-about-ethics-to.html 2022. open access

 

36.          Butler CD. Reflections on my open letter about ethics to the editorial board of the journal EcoHealth https://globalchangemusings.blogspot.com/2022/11/reflections-on-my-open-letter-about.html 2022. open access

 

37.          Butler CD, Randolph (nee Grace) D. There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687597/There-suppression-truth-secrecy-cover-ups-origin-Covid-19-China.html Daily Mail, 2023. open access

 

38.          Butler CD. Grand (meta-) challenges in planetary health: environmental, social and cognitive. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 137378, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1373787/full 2024. open access

 

39.          Berg P, Baltimore D, Boyer HW, Cohen SN, Davis RW, Hogness DS, Nathan D, Roblin DN, Watson JD, Weissman S, Norton D, Zinder ND. Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 71, 2593-2594, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.71.7.2593 1974. open access

Increasing global disorder: a sign of approaching eco-social limits

Submitted to a competition organised by the British Academy, December 2024. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/international/call-for-discussion-papers-global-disorder/

I was unsuccessful, but will try again, in March 2025. 

The limit was one page.

Today’s geopolitical conditions are ominous and, to many appear chaotic. However, current global disorder has not evolved by chance; nor is it surprising. Instead, it is consistent with pathways forecast by The Limits to Growth study published in 1972, were (as has occurred) the world to broadly follow “business as usual” policies.^1-3 Although warnings, including of “overshoot”⁴ were initially taken seriously, the rejection of Jimmy Carter’s second US presidential term initiated 45 years (and counting) of squandered opportunities. In this period, instead of prudence and reform, dominant policy makers mistook a temporary abundance of cheap energy from fossil fuels as foreshadowing an indefinite cornucopia, such as was claimed to be humanity’s destiny by Julian Simon and his followers.^5,6 The end of the Cold War led to additional missed opportunities: Western exceptionalism instigated the catastrophic invasion of Iraq; more recently, the mooted expansion of NATO added additional stimulus to the plans for the Russian invasions of Ukraine.⁷

Many academics, both in the North and South, were rewarded, cajoled and taught to believe that the approach to, and – now – the exceedance of planetary eco-social boundaries (including a safe concentration of greenhouse gases), could be done with impunity – if not indefinitely, then for at least for another generation. While an academic and social countermovement persisted, it was marginalised, divided and weakened, including by self-censorship, optimism bias;^8-10and funders loyal to the fossil fuel dominated status quo.¹¹ Effective eco-social policies have instead been replaced by slogans such as “net zero”,¹² the “Paris agreement” and the Sustainable Development “Goals”. 

These cornucopian dreams also generated and legitimised laissez faire approaches to population policy^6,13,14 in many parts of the global South, thus depressing wages to maximise resource consumption by a large global consumer class,¹⁵while fuelling under-employment,¹⁶ entrenching poverty,¹⁷ worsening conflict,¹⁸ chronic food aid dependency¹⁹ and, occasionally, the stimulation of organised violence to directly challenge the West.²⁰ These policies are, also, a major underlying cause for the desperation of millions of people who strive to enter the global North, either illegally or as asylum seekers.²¹ In response, countries in the North and in some parts of the global South (especially in “stepping stone” locations) have adopted Hardinian “lifeboat ethics”, effectively dehumanising hundreds of millions of people.²²

Homo sapiens is an animal species that requires and consumes voluminous daily resources, the supply of which requires a functioning civilization;³ this is increasingly problematic at the global scale. Humans remain, and always will remain, governed by natural laws that also generate evolution, scarcity and conflict.²³

In the West, generations of cornucopian thinking, adopted by Right, Centrist, Leftist (and, to a lesser extent, Green) political parties have now spawned many “populist” alternatives. Support for these alternatives has been fuelled by symptoms of overshoot,²⁴ including conflict, inflation, rising insurance costs (due in part to climate change²⁵), and to unwanted actual, attempted and perceived future migration from the global South to the global North.²¹ The election of such parties – whose misdiagnosis of root causes is even more egregious than those who they threaten to replace, or in some cases, have replaced – constitutes a reinforcing “eco-social” feedback, complementing and accelerating numerous identified positive physical feedbacks in the Earth system; a form of “entrapment”.^26-9

Chinese civilization, even though a leader in the energy transformation and less influenced by cornucopian thinking may also be overwhelmed by its own crises, just beyond the near-time horizon. Solutions to these formidable problems require explicit acknowledgement that polycrises are related to limits to growth, both environmental and social.¹³ This requires more truth-telling than currently seems plausible. However, if politicians currently lack this courage, then, at least let some of us display it.

References 

1. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., Behrens III, W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York, New York: Universe Books.

2. Butler, C.D. (2017) Limits to growth, planetary boundaries, and planetary health Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability; 25:59-65; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.002.

3. Butler, C.D. (2024) Bioethics, climate change and civilization. Journal of Climate Change and Health; 8:100329; doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2024.100329 

4.  Catton, W.R. (1980) Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

5.  Simon, J. (1981) The Ultimate Resource. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

6. National Research Council 1986. Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions, Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences Press.

7. Paternoster, T. (2024) Angela Merkel delayed Ukraine's NATO bid over Russia fears, memoir reveals Euro News;https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/21/angela-merkel-delayed-ukraines-nato-bid-over-russia-fears-memoir-reveals (accessed 2/12/24)

8. Butler, C.D. (2005) Peering into the fog: ecologic change, human affairs and the future. EcoHealth;2:17-21; doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0090-x

9. Hansen, J. (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters; 2(024002); doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002

10.  Butler, C.D., Bowles, D.C., Hanigan, I.C., Harmer, A. and Potter. J.D. (2024). The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: competing interests and optimism bias. Lancet 404: 1196-7; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01491-0

11. Butler, C.D. (2019) Philanthrocapitalism: promoting global health but failing planetary health. Challenges, 10, 24; doi: 10.3390/challe10010024

12. Dyke, J., Watson, R. & Knorr, W. (2024) The overshoot myth: you can’t keep burning fossil fuels and expect scientists of the future to get us back to 1.5°C. https://theconversation.com/the-overshoot-myth-you-cant-keep-burning-fossil-fuels-and-expect-scientists-of-the-future-to-get-us-back-to-1-5-c-230814; accessed 2/12/24

13. Butler, C.D. (2024) Population, neoliberalism and "human carrying capacity". In: Butler, C.D., Higgs, K., eds. Climate Change and Global Health: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Effects. Second ed. Wallingford, UK., Boston USA: CABI: 113-24; doi: 10.1079/9781800620025.00

14. Butler, C.D. (2024) Sexual and reproductive health and rights: The relevance of family planning In: Butler, C.D., Higgs, K., eds. Climate Change and Global Health: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Effects. Second ed. Wallingford, UK., Boston USA: CABI: 125-41; doi: 10.1079/9781800620025.0010

15. Daly, H. (2022) Reflections on Population. Great Transition Initiative https://greattransition.org/images/Population-Daly.pdf; accessed 02/12/24

16. Robinson, J. (1966) Preface. Essay on Marxian Economics. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan Press:6-21.

17. King, M. (1990) Health is a sustainable state. Lancet, 336, 664-7; doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92156-C

18. Butler, C.D., Braidwood, M. and Bowles, D.C. (2024). Climate change, conflict, complexity, and health. In: Butler, C.D. & Higgs, K. (eds.) Climate Change and Global Health: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Effects. Second ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI. pp. 304-15; doi: 10.1079/9781800620025.00

19. Butler, C.D. (2024) Famine, hunger, food prices and climate change. In: Butler, C.D. & Higgs, K. (eds.) Climate Change and Global Health: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Effects. Second ed. Wallingford, UK., Boston USA: CABI; pp. 270-85; doi: 10.1079/9781800620025.00.

20. Butler, C.D. (2001) A world war against terrorism. Lancet, 358, 1366; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06424-8

21. Butler, C.D., Bowles, D.C. (2024) Climate change, migration and health. In: Butler, C.D., Higgs, K., eds. Climate Change and Global Health: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Effects. Second ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI. pp. 286-303; doi: 10.1079/9781800620025.0023

22. Hardin, G. (1974) Living on a lifeboat. BioScience 1974;24:561–8; doi: 10.2307/1296629

23. Darwin, C. and Wallace, A. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology, 3,45-62; doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x

24. Rees, W.E. (2023) The human ecology of overshoot: Why a major “population correction” is inevitable. World; 4: 509-27; doi: 10.3390/world4030032

25. Gupta, A. and Venkataraman, S. (2024) Insurance and climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 67, 101412; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101412

26. Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Lenton, T.M., Gregg, J.W., Natali, S.M., Duffy, P.B., Rockström, J. and Schellnhuber, H.J. (2023) Many risky feedback loops amplify the need for climate action. One Earth, 6, 86-91; doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.004

27. Laybourn, L., Evans, J. & Dyke, J. (2023) Derailment risk: A systems analysis that identifies risks which could derail the sustainability transition. Earth System Dynamics 14, 1171–1182; doi: 10.5194/esd-14-1171-2023

28.  Zenios, S.A. (2024) The climate-sovereign debt doom loop: what does the literature suggest? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 67, 101414, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2024.101414

29. Butler, C.D. (2000) Entrapment: global ecological and/or local demographic? Reflections upon reading the BMJ's "six billion day" special issue. Ecosystem Health, 6, 171-180, doi: 10.1046/j.1526-0992.2000.006003171.x

*******

Honorary Professor Colin D Butler (Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) is the author/editor of almost 300 scholarly articles, books, chapters and miscellanea, e.g. book reviews, 205 as first or sole author/editor. His edited or co-edited books include Climate Change and Human Health (CABI, 2014; 2024). His published work, since 1991, has focussed on the interaction of human well-being and adverse environmental change. From 2002-05 he was a co-ordinating lead author for the scenarios working group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, in which role he focussed on future human well-being. Educated in Australia and the UK, his formal academic qualifications include in medicine, medical science, tropical medicine, epidemiology (MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1997) and public health (PhD, Australian National University, 2002). He has contributed to five international scientific assessments, including for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Environmental Programme. He is the leading scholar, based in health, arguing that Limits to Growth are real, proximate, with suppressed implications.

His prizes include: (i) Tony McMichael Public Health Ecology and Environment Award, (Public Health Association of Australia, 2018); (ii) “One of a 100 doctors for the planet” (French Environmental Health Association, 2009) and (iii) Borrie Prize (Australian Population Association, 2002).

 

The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) and its bias concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2

On October 17, 2023 I submitted an adapted version of the letter below to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2. Notes in [square brackets] have been added, for those not familiar with the ABC, and Australia more broadly. Most of the links have also been added. Parts of the text have been slightly expanded.

Dear Sir/Ms

I listened and read, with dismay, to the talk and transcript by journalist Ella Finkel [a science journalist who is the partner of Alan Finkel, a former Australian chief scientist whose original scientific training was electrical engineering], concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2. This was first broadcast on October 14, 2023.

In summary, The Science Show [Australia's most prestigious and durable radio programme for science] has presented a biased version of events, worsened by the editorialising of Robyn Williams [the show's host since 1975] that "her sources are impeccable. .. Norman Swan [the presenter of a companion ABC programme called The Health Report] has read her summing-up and says it's spot on."

It is far too soon to conclude the origin of COVID-19

There are numerous remarks made by Ms Finkel which suggest the debate is far more settled than it actually is. My specific criticism of some of her comments are detailed in the two twitter threads (one of 11, the other of 4 parts). There are numerous points that I have discussed in these threads; there are several more which (at least for now) I have not yet responded to there. I cannot – and do not seek – to do justice to them here, in 1500 words or less [the limit for formal complaints to the ABC].

Two of my own peer reviewed publications are also relevant, as well as an unusually long (c1240 word, 32 refs) letter published in the Lancet in 2021, which I was substantially responsible for (these listed after my signature, below, together with three other recent, relevant publications): 

 

The ABC should stop trying to undermine scientific debate

 

Robyn Williams introduced Ella Finkel by reminding the audience of a plea by Professor Jagadish [a physicist], the current president of the Australian Academy of Science, to "stop undermining our scientists".

 

My plea to journalists is "stop trying to undermine scientific debate".

 

Comparing the SARS-Co-V-2 debate with that re the origin and prevention of puerperal fever  

 

An analogy for the current dispute concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2 is to consider an imaginary journalistic report on the debate concerning the transmission of puerperal (post-partum or “childbed”) fever, written in about 1855, while the dispute still raged. (This burned for about 25 years in the mid-19th century, though its origins are much earlier.) 

 

In this imaginary comparison the journalist, well connected to the scientific establishment [as is Ella Finkel] primarily relies for sources on "the old guard" - those obstetricians - always prestigious - who found numerous reasons to reject (and sometimes belittle) the revolutionary - and unsettling - claims by both Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes, and - later, in Europe - Dr Ignaz Semmelweis and his small number of supporters (see below ** for an example). In that case the “impeccable” sources were, for many years, wrong. This example is widely known, not only to medical historians but even to some modern medical students; I’m sure Robyn William and Norman Swan have each long been aware of this. The vanity and bias of the “authorities”, in the case of puerperal fever, delayed the adoption of measures that would have saved the premature deaths of many thousands of women, and the grief of bereaved partners and children.

 

The insights of Semmelweis and others (i.e. that rigorous hygiene after obstetricians leave the autopsy room before helping to deliver a baby would reduce the risk of the post-partum fever, often fatal in a pre-antibiotic era) are now taken for granted. It may be difficult for us to comprehend that these insights were scoffed at, perhaps for two decades, by most "experts", and regarded with impatience, scepticism, hostility and incredulity.

 

The reticence and provincial background of Semmelweis (whose native tongue was a German dialect) added to the hostility he and his findings encountered. (In the US, Oliver Wendell Holmes - later famous primarily for his literary powers - advanced a similar theory, preceding Semmelweis - though with less evidence. He was also attacked, but perhaps with less vehemence.) There are some parallels here with the lab leak theory for COVID-19, in that some of its leading proponents have – currently - less distinguished scientific “pedigrees” compared to Prof. Eddie Holmes, whom we are told (by Ella Finkel) is the recipient of “the Croonian medal, the same one Howard Florey won for developing penicillin”. (Even so, Semmelweis achieved great scientific fame after his premature death, aged 47.)

 

Several eminent scientists still think a laboratory leak is plausible

 

Nonetheless, a growing number of scientists, some of them distinguished, do treat the laboratory origin seriously. Among them are several Australians, including Emeritus Prof. Adrian Gibbs (https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/12911), Prof. Peter Collignon AM (https://medicalschool.anu.edu.au/people/academic-honorary/professor-peter-collignon-am) and Prof Raina MacIntyre (https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/professor-raina-macintyre).

 

Prof Wendy Hoy AO (https://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/1145) has called for further clarity and investigation concerning many aspects related to COVID19, including the origin.

 

I can’t speak for these others but for myself I emphatically state that I regard the origin of SARS-Co-V-2 as uncertain. The opacity of the publicly available Chinese data, and their lack of co-operation, bedevil a firm conclusion (either way). Most of the evidence advanced by Ella Finkel is tenuous – and, contrary to her assertion that “the case for a natural origin grows stronger” I would say that it grows weaker. She also asserts that this is “because it relies on the convergence of different lines of scientific evidence, most of it published in top journals like Science and Nature.”

 

There is no doubt that “top” journals including Science, Nature and The Lancet have published articles (and, in the case of Science, at least one editorial, as well as at least one “puff piece” about one of the key actors in the debate) in support of the natural origin hypothesis; nevertheless there is a growing number of high quality papers in lesser ranked journals; eg "Association between SARS-CoV-2 and metagenomic content of samples from the Huanan Seafood Market" that provide a counter view.

 

One of the key “lines of evidence” that Ella Finkel refers to is a paper by Jonathan Pekar et al. On October 13, 2023 (in the US) – i.e. one day before the Science Show programme went to air - an erratum was published for this paper. The paper has not yet been retracted, but this is a possibility, according to the person who appears to have first identified the error (see https://twitter.com/nizzaneela/status/1686105717135097862).

 

"Smearing" the character of scientists

 

I return to my key point: there is a debate, it is ongoing. The debate is of vital importance. Ella Finkel claims that the lab-leak case relies in part on “smearing the character of scientists”. I agree smearing has occurred – and this may play a role in the now dominant public perception (at least in the US) that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin – however she, Robyn Williams, Norman Swan (and the ABC more broadly) must surely accept that issues such as truthfulness, conflicts of interest and their declaration (or their disguise) are of vital importance. The exploration of these issues need not be “smearing”. Ella Finkel did not make this distinction.

 

The fact that many of the leading proponents of the “natural spillover” hypothesis have been less than forthcoming is undeniable. “Smearing” is two way – for example scientists genuinely concerned with the evidence (including myself) have been repeatedly characterised as “conspiracists”. I have been blocked, on twitter, by many of the leading scientists with views opposing mine, including several with whom I have never directly interacted. This speaks of a curious unwillingness – by one side - to engage in respectful scientific debate.

 

The possibility of future lab-associated pandemics is not trivial

 

There is a possibility, far from trivial, that genetic engineering technology has already, or could soon, lead to novel outbreaks of disease, even to pandemics. COVID-19 may, or may not, be the first such example. This hypothesis is an emerging insight, which, if valid, is at least of equal importance to hand-washing. Its importance can scarcely be over-stated.

 

I have speculated that the ABC’s reluctance to fairly explore the possibility of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 may be related to a perception that to do so could be perceived as risking re-inflaming Australia’s relations with the Peoples’ Republic of China. [China initiated numerous, extremely punitive trade sanctions, in part triggered by calls by a former Australian prime minister for suggesting the recruitment of independent investigators akin to “weapons inspectors” to determine the source of major disease outbreaks.]

 

However, even if that is the case, there are ways to explore this that are safer, perhaps emphasising the undoubted role that the US has played in funding research into “synthetic” pathogens, including in China. Is the ABC reluctant to offend the US? 

 

More important than either consideration is the health of the global public. The ABC has a duty of care which should lead it to not fully censor this discussion. The partisanship currently displayed by the ABC regarding this issue may in fact add to the undermining of science. 

 

Conclusion

 

Soon after the broadcast of an interview between Dr Norman Swan and Prof. Peter Doherty (concerning the origin) [Prof Doherty, whose original training was as a veterinarian, was recognised for his immunological research with the Nobel Prize in medicine; he has great scientific prestige in Australia] I wrote to the Health Report to complain of the bias of Norman Swan. I have twice (perhaps thrice) asked for Dr Swan to interview someone (eg Prof Richard Ebright) to balance the views of Prof Peter Doherty (who has undeclared conflicts of interest concerning this issue) [including the "Sino-Australia COVID-19 Partnership Program"]. No one from the Health Report has ever responded; this lack of response is the major reason for this formal complaint. The Science Show also should at least allow someone, with a more balanced view, to be interviewed concerning this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Colin

 

Colin D Butler PhD, MSc, BMed, BMed(Sci)(Hons), DTM&H 

Honorary Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Specialty Chief Editor for Planetary Health in Frontiers in Public Health

https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/butler-cdd

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-5294

 

**

My own publications of relevance:

 

van Helden, Butler et al. (2021) "An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2" Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext

 

United Nations Environment Programme (2022) "COVID-19: A Warning - Addressing Environmental Threats and the Risk of Future Pandemics in Asia and the Pacific" (I am sole author of this 70 page report, with 220 references, which was reviewed by 28 people)

 

Butler (2022) "Comparing and contrasting two United Nations Environment Programmereports on COVID-19" Science in One Health (2022) 

 

Butler (2022) “Gain of function' research can create experimental pathogens, but the risks mean it should be very carefully regulated, if not banned” The Conversation.

 

Butler and Randolph (2023) “There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687597/There-suppression-truth-secrecy-cover-ups-origin-Covid-19-China.html

 

Butler and Lambrinidou (2023) “COVID-19 and the existential threat of scientific hubris” https://biosafetynow.org/covid-19-and-the-existential-threat-of-scientific-hubris/

 

************ 

** One example: the leading Philadelphia obstetrician, Charles D. Meigs, derided Holmes' arguments as the “jejeune and fizzenless dreamings” of a sophomoric writer, and declared that any practitioner who met with epidemic cases of puerperal fever was simply “unlucky.”

 

************ 

 

This is the ABC response, so far:

Thank you for contacting the ABC. The ABC values audience feedback whether supportive or critical and all complaints are reviewed by ABC Audience Support. Your reference number is C22871-23. Please do not respond to this automated email.

 

The ABC receives many thousands of written complaints a year and we need to ensure a common-sense approach when responding. In summary, we will take action when warranted, engage where there is value in doing so, and note criticism of our performance when there is nothing more of substance we can offer. In some cases, including where your complaint relates to a matter of personal taste or preference, you may receive no more than this automated acknowledgement that your complaint has been received.  

 

Complaints about specific ABC content which concern our editorial standards will be noted and may be referred to the content area concerned or retained by the ABC Ombudsman’s Office for further consideration. 

 

Where a further response is provided, the ABC aims to respond to you within the next 30 days. However, please be aware that due to the large volume of correspondence we receive and the complex nature of some matters, responses may take longer than this.

 

The ABC’s complaints process is further outlined on our website.

 

If you would like to contact us again about this complaint, please use the form on our website.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us, and for your interest in the ABC.

ABC Audience Support

**

 

On Nov 23, 2023 I received a confidential email from an ABC employee, in response to my complaint. It stated in part, words to the effect that my complaint was reviewed, but rejected.

The tone was reasonably friendly, and it’s better than nothing. The BBC recently published a “puff piece” on Anthony Fauci – I see that as nothing less than UK govt. propaganda. See https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20231130-anthony-fauci-interview-influential-katty-kay