Trump administration probes publisher of influential COVID origins paper over alleged Fauci influence

By willowt // 2025-05-17

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

The Trump administration is probing whether the authors and publisher of the influential 2020 study "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" allowed Dr. Anthony Fauci and NIH officials to shape its conclusions in exchange for federal funding.
Despite private emails showing the authors (including Kristian Andersen) initially suspected a lab origin, the published paper dismissed the lab-leak theory, aligning with Fauci and Collins’ public stance.
Emails reveal Andersen told Fauci and Collins the virus "looked engineered," but revisions softened skepticism. Andersen later received a $1.88M NIH grant, raising concerns about a quid pro quo.
The DOJ is investigating whether Nature Medicine compromised editorial independence due to NIH funding ties, citing potential fraud violations. Critics argue the paper suppressed legitimate debate.
Despite evidence supporting the lab-leak theory, the paper remains unretracted. The case highlights broader concerns about scientific censorship, with NIH officials acknowledging a "culture of cover-up."

The Trump administration is investigating whether the authors and publisher of a pivotal early COVID-19 study allowed Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top health officials to influence its conclusions in exchange for federal funding, according to documents obtained by The Disinformation Chronicle. The 2020 paper, titled "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," dismissed the lab-leak theory in favor of a natural zoonotic origin, shaping global discourse on the pandemic’s beginnings. Now, newly revealed Department of Justice (DOJ) letters suggest potential conflicts of interest — raising fresh questions about scientific transparency and political interference in public health.

The paper that shaped the pandemic narrative

Published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, "Proximal Origin" became one of the most cited scientific papers of the year, accessed over 6 million times and referenced by more than 2,000 media outlets. Its authors — including virologists Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry — initially privately expressed concerns that COVID-19 might have been engineered or accidentally leaked from a lab, according to emails later uncovered by congressional investigators. Yet the final paper concluded that a lab origin was "improbable," aligning with public statements from Dr. Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins. Collins promoted it on the NIH blog, and Fauci cited it during a White House briefing, declaring its findings "totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human." Critics, however, allege the paper was weaponized to suppress legitimate debate — a claim bolstered by internal communications showing Andersen and Garry privately doubted their own conclusions.

Emails reveal behind-the-scenes pressure

Unredacted emails obtained through FOIA lawsuits reveal that in February 2020, Andersen told Fauci and Collins that SARS-CoV-2’s genome contained features that "look engineered." Days later, Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar — later the WHO’s chief scientist — urged revisions to the paper’s language, softening skepticism about lab manipulation. By March, the authors had pivoted, publicly dismissing lab-leak theories despite privately acknowledging gaps in their analysis. Months after publication, Andersen received a $1.88 million NIH grant for pandemic research — a timing critics call suspicious. In sworn testimony, Andersen denied any quid pro quo, but documents reviewed by The Intercept contradicted his claims, showing the grant was finalized post-publication.

Justice Department’s fraud probe

In a March 2025 letter to Nature Medicine publisher Joao Monteiro, then-interim U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. questioned whether the journal’s editorial independence was compromised by financial ties to funders like the NIH. Martin, now leading a DOJ "Weaponization Working Group," cited potential violations of fraud and postal statutes, asking Monteiro to address allegations of misleading readers. The probe has drawn backlash from media outlets like the New York Times, which warned of a "chilling effect" on scientific publishing. But transparency advocates argue the investigation is overdue. "When funders dictate conclusions, it corrupts the scientific process," said an anonymous NIH researcher in a Disinformation Chronicle essay.

A legacy of doubt and unanswered questions

Despite mounting evidence supporting the lab-leak theory — including assessments by the FBI and Department of Energy — Nature Medicine has refused to retract "Proximal Origin." An online petition by Biosafety Now demanding retraction has gathered 5,700 signatures, while congressional hearings have exposed flaws in the paper’s peer review. The case underscores broader concerns about censorship in academia. A 2022 study found scientists challenging COVID-19 orthodoxy faced article retractions and professional retaliation. In 2024, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya condemned a "culture of cover-up" under Fauci and Collins, pledging to foster dissent.

Science, politics and the search for accountability

Five years after COVID-19’s emergence, the "Proximal Origin" saga remains a flashpoint in the debate over scientific integrity. The Trump administration’s investigation signals a reckoning for journals accused of prioritizing narrative over neutrality — but whether it leads to reform or further polarization hinges on transparency. As former NIH official David Relman noted, "When conclusions are driven by bias, not data, the public pays the price." For millions still seeking answers, the cost has been immeasurable. Sources for this article include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org DisinformationChronicle.Substack.com TheNation.com