How the 'scientific establishment' worked to suppress real science

Scientists have warned about the so-called “scientific establishment” in recent years, noting that industry groups and special interests wield growing influence over scientific research, academic institutions and government agencies.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, noted in a 2017 interview that scientists and medical journals were “getting caught inadvertently publishing false studies” because their research had become more beholden to the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the British medical journal The Lancet, wrote a blistering editorial in 2015 arguing much of the scientific literature “may simply be untrue” and that science “has taken a turn towards darkness.”

This trend has been well documented throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The basic premise of the scientific method is to test hypotheses through systematic observation and experimentation, yet the “scientific establishment” often worked to suppress scientific inquiry, especially when it came to the origins of COVID-19.

The World Health Organization launched an international clinical trial in March 2020 to find the most effective treatment for COVID-19, but China’s government refused to provide data or allow an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was gaining more attention due to the theory that COVID-19 may have been leaked in a lab accident.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed in April 2020 that U.S. intelligence agencies were taking a serious look at the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China.

It was later reported the National Institutes of Health had granted more than $3 million to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled money to the WIV for six years as the lab conducted gain-of-function research to study dangerous pathogens. Former President Donald Trump pledged to “end that grant very quickly” at a news conference in April 2020.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – the sub-agency that funded EcoHealth – was never scrutinized by the Health and Human Services Department’s oversight board. Dr. Anthony Fauci is director of the NIAID but has adamantly denied his subagency was funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab.

The NIH ultimately terminated its relationship with EcoHealth, agency records show. The “scientific establishment” roundly criticized the move, with 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies publishing an open letter in Science

Magazine demanding that NIH leadership review their decision.

Backlash from the “scientific establishment” likely contributed to the NIH’s decision in August 2020 to reinstate its grant to EcoHealth. But the NIH placed several conditions on EcoHealth, specifically shutting down its bat coronavirus research and asking the nonprofit to obtain a virus sample from the Wuhan lab.

EcoHealth director Peter Daszak told Nature the conditions from the NIH were “heinous” and would hinder his group’s research. Shi Zhengli, a WIV researcher with ties to EcoHealth, also called the NIH’s demands “outrageous” in an email to Nature.

As the “scientific establishment” criticized the Trump administration for blocking taxpayer-funded research at the WIV, the theory that COVID-19 may have originated at the Wuhan lab was receiving greater media attention.

The lab leak theory was notably dismissed by corporate media outlets and censored on Big Tech platforms. An NPR story published in April 2020 stated, “many scientists have discounted that theory as nearly impossible.”

But the theory has gained traction in recent weeks, and some in the scientific community even said from the start that a lab accident was plausible. Sharyl Attkisson, an independent investigative reporter, interviewed numerous

scientists directly involved in genetic analysis and related research who had already concluded the Wuhan lab was a likely culprit.

J. Stephen Morrison, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Global Health Policy Center, admitted in a May interview that many scientists ignored or rejected the lab leak theory due to their dislike of Trump. Morrison said scientists “recoiled” at the theory because it “got jumbled up together” with statements made by the former president.

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, similarly admitted in an interview this month that many in the scientific community didn’t want to acknowledge the possibility that COVID-19 leaked

from a lab because the theory was promoted by Trump and members of his administration.

Washington Post senior reporter Aaron Blake noted in an analysis piece last month that the “follow the science” crowd within the corporate media and scientific community had clearly “overcorrected” when it came to the lab leak theory.