How a recent Editor's Pick on Public Health in the Journal of Virology taught me about Doublespeak

No, the call to unite science does not mean what it may first appear

I have been busy with another article that has taken quite some time. Today, some friends have been discussing the recent Editor's Pick on Public Health in the Journal of Virology, published by 41 authors. It was “distracting enough” that I decided to write a short post on it.

The title of this commentary says already a lot: "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence."

I was warned it’s horrible. So, beware! Here are some excerpts:

“Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic. Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.”

I guess it all hangs on the term “finding evidence.” If it’s hidden or destroyed, then it’s not found. Case closed. Ironically, they seem to apply it also to evidence that previously existed and suddenly seems to have disappeared. For example, one year ago, when I added further information to the incredibly important signature sequence of Moderna in the virus as previously identified by Ambati et al., I wrote the following:

“studies and investigations by the Lancet Commission, the FBI, and an assessment by the Energy Department concluded with varying degrees of confidence that its likely source was an accidental release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)1. In an April 18 bombshell release2, a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions asserts that SARS-CoV-2 likely resulted from an accidental leak at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

Frankly, I have not been able to spend as much time on the lab leak question as I would like to. But yes, I have been following the hearings and main literature, and to date, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the natural origin.

The above commentary continues:

“Despite the absence of evidence for the escape of the virus from a lab, the lab leak hypothesis receives persistent attention in the media, often without acknowledgment of the more solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence (17).”

So, what is reference 17? It is “COVID-19 origins: plain speaking is overdue,” recently published in The Lancet Microbe. Now, that is utterly shocking to me that it has been published in such a prestigious journal. It contains not one single solid scientific argument. It reads like some text of some fanatic religious extremists. The “strongest” argument is this:

“Those who eagerly peddle suggestions of laboratory involvement have consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.”

There is no proof for this. And then, it goes radically downhill from here:

“Take the time to reflect on the paragraph above”

The remainder of the Lancet article continues in this tone, using this type of “evidence” – mere propaganda. Zero science. Zip. None.

There are a few things that clicked for me today. Here is one. It’s also from the Lancet Microbe article:

“Being wrong, and fearlessly so, is part and parcel of robust enquiry, but those who platform these flawed arguments without responsible levels of scrutiny have serious questions to answer.”

Well, I agree with this. Had I read this paragraph alone, without its context, I would greatly support it. However, when I read and interpret the above, I actually mean the opposite context! Thus, I think I am completely agreeing with the authors. Many may think so, too. They will agree with this strong statement. Yet, the statement is no longer just what these words by themselves mean. Their meaning depends on something else that most readers do not pick up.

It’s the same words, but a different meaning!

This is the essence of double-speak!

Others have picked up on this before. Just browsing through some headlines on an internet search, I get it. Doublespeak is “How to Lie Without Lying” or “You Don’t Realize You’re Being Lied To.” For example, “ words are used not to convey meaning, but to undermine it, corrupting the very ideas they refer to.”

The above paragraph in the Lancet Microbe article is just that. The entire article is full of them. Here is another one:

“Worse than the irresponsibility of media pundits are the politically motivated actors”

Again, many would hardheartedly agree, not realizing, they are talking about the opposite. It continues:

“A worrying potential consequence of this saga is that it might have a chilling effect on the pursuit of answers in the future on both COVID-19 and new potential threats. With researchers unwilling to ask questions freely for fear of being persecuted when facts lead to inevitable refinement or revision of earlier conclusions. So, while we should defend the right to ask awkward questions, we should also defend the right to change our minds.”

“Those arguing for other explanations have their reasons, but none of these are public safety.”

I agree, once again. So, why am I so shocked, seeing that I seem to agree with almost everything they write?

Doublespeak is not about the thing per se. You MUST know and see the context. Here, this is frightening. The Lancet Microbe article is taken as the missing evidence in the Journal of Virology commentary, highlighted as the “solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence.”

No wonder many agree with such evidence. It’s totally based on doublespeak! Everyone would agree with the individual words and sentences if they do not catch the context – and that they are being lied to without being lied to!

The Journal of Virology commentary then takes it a step further. After a lengthy lamentation that there is ample evidence to support a natural origin (the only reference is the one above!), but none for a lab origin, they radically change their tone.

“The unsubstantiated claims of the lab leak theory have provoked harassment, intimidation, threats and violence towards scientists [....] Intimidation and threats have significant and long-term consequences as scientists have withdrawn from social media platforms, rejected opportunities to speak in public, and taken increased safety measures to protect themselves and their families.”

And on and on they go in their very aggressive accusation, likely stirring the very same adverse effects they are accusing lab leak proponents of.

Did you catch it? Here is my second big revelation of today. It’s all in the name and “science” and “scientists.” THESE are key pillars of their apparent concern!

Again, I would sympathize with the well-being of scientists, especially those who have suffered intimation and threats – for speaking the truth!

This is the basis on which their doublespeak hangs. Just one word: SCIENCE, or its opposite (anti-science, mis-/disinformation, etc). It’s in the name of science that all sorts of measures must be taken!!! They continue:

“anti-science has become more virulent and widespread in the internet and social media age. Rejecting evidence derived from independent and controlled studies grounded in the scientific method, while embracing spectacular and unevidenced claims, leaves us in a dangerous position for confronting future threats.”

If we don’t understand that the sole word SCIENCE and its related (independent studies, scientific method, etc) IS the core of doublespeak, then we will miss the most important thing.

“If these narratives are left unchecked, we become a society that dismisses and vilifies those with expertise and experience relevant to the challenges we face. We then base decisions affecting large populations worldwide on speculation or chosen beliefs that have no grounding in evidence-based science.”

It is in the name of SCIENCE that papers have been retracted and truth-speakers vilified, kicked out of their jobs, and ridiculed by friends and family.

We MUST differentiate between “science” and “science.” We must see this foundational doublespeak, or else, it will be really easy that “scientists” themselves will promote censorship, the end of free speech, and vehemently fight independent thinking.

Now, I understand why the remarks made by Dr Fauci are so critical (“I am science.”) And, in this context, it is good to remember the remarks made by the UN official Melissa Fleming at the United Nations at WEF ‘Disinformation’ event in 2022:

“We partnered with Google […] for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.” 

I think, once you see through, you cannot make it unseen. To me, even though they use the same words, I know they mean the opposite. But how many will merely resonate with the same words, and embrace the hidden message without realizing the profound fallacy of doublespeak?!

“What is now happening to virology is a stark demonstration of what is happening to all of science. It will come to affect every aspect of science in a negative and possibly a dangerous way [....] It is the responsibility of scientists, research institutions, and scientific organizations to push back against the anti-virology attacks... Major scientific organizations must unite in developing programs to counter anti-science movements.”

This conclusion of the commentary is chilling – albeit only if you catch the doublespeak.