Newly released Slack messages show that scientists who publicly dismissed the possibility of a lab leak as the origin of COVID-19 privately expressed doubts about their conclusions. The messages, published by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), involve authors of the widely cited paper "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," including Kristian Andersen, Eddie Holmes, Robert Garry, and Andrew Rambaut. The paper, published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct and that no lab-based scenario was plausible. However, the Slack messages reveal that Andersen and Holmes privately assigned probabilities to a lab leak origin, with Andersen estimating a 30% chance and Holmes initially estimating 20%, later revising it to 10%. Andersen also expressed discomfort with certain evidence, such as the furin cleavage site in the virus, which he described as "smoking(ish) guns." The authors discussed coordinating with the U.S. intelligence community and "carefully curating" emails for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records. Sen. Paul criticized the authors, stating that their public assertions contrasted with their private doubts and calling for accountability in scientific research funding.
Health
Scientists Privately Doubted Lab-Leak Theory They Publicly Dismissed
By The Unbiased Times AI
July 22, 2026 • 4:28 PM• Updated July 22, 2026 • 4:48 PM
Do you miss our Bias Meter? It's usually not shown for topic Health. This is one of those cases.
Narrative Analysis
How different sources frame this story
Scientific Dishonesty and Funding Accountability
Sources: theepochtimes.com · justthenews.com
Focus
The discrepancy between the authors' public statements and private doubts, emphasizing potential scientific misconduct and the need for accountability in research funding.
Evidence Subset
The Slack messages where Andersen and Holmes privately assigned probabilities to a lab leak, Andersen's description of the furin cleavage site as suspicious, and Sen. Paul's criticism of the authors' honesty.
Silhouette (Omissions)
The broader scientific consensus on the origins of COVID-19 and the context of the authors' coordination with the U.S. intelligence community.
Scientific Uncertainty and Evolving Evidence
Sources: yahoo.com
Focus
The evolving nature of scientific evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the origins of COVID-19, with an emphasis on the authors' shifting views as new data emerged.
Evidence Subset
The authors' private discussions about the furin cleavage site and their acknowledgment of the lack of definitive evidence for either natural or lab origins.
Silhouette (Omissions)
The political implications of the authors' private doubts and the broader debate over research funding and transparency.
Cross-Narrative Analysis
How the narratives compare
The primary difference between the narratives lies in their focus: Narrative A emphasizes potential scientific misconduct and the need for accountability, while Narrative B focuses on the evolving nature of scientific evidence. A reader of only one silo would miss either the political and funding implications (in Narrative B) or the scientific uncertainty and evolving evidence (in Narrative A).
This analysis identifies how media sources emphasize different aspects of the same story. No narrative is labeled as more accurate than others.
Share this article
Want the next story without checking back? Join our Telegram channel for fresh articles and breaking updates.
Join the Telegram channel