Two outlets with reputations for publishing COVID-dissenting articles have rejected our proposal for challenging dominant Virus Origin stories
Jessica Hockett PhD, Dr Jonathan Engler, & Prof Martin Neil
We contacted two prominent ‘alternative’ media outlets well-known for elevating COVID-dissident views and championing free speech/free press rights with a proposal to spark a public debate about the SARS-CoV-2 origin story and accompanying pandemic narrative. We asked if they would publish our article presenting questions to the chief proponents of the lab leak theory – which we regard as one end of a false dichotomy with wet market/zoonotic leap being the other – and give the proponents a right to reply. They both declined to even consider our idea on its merits.
The Daily Sceptic (UK) and Brownstone Institute (US) said thanks but no thanks to emails we sent this week gauging their interest in initiating a written debate between ourselves and Alina Chan & Matt Ridley, co-authors of Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19.
Will Jones of Daily Sceptic said, “We don’t publish articles that question whether COVID-19 was due in large part to a novel virus spreading because our editorial line doesn’t regard this view as a theory with merit. I think people know where we stand on that and we’ve been consistent.”
Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone wrote, “…as described, I doubt we are the right venue. There is SO MUCH to learn and so much left to find out about precisely what happened. I don’t want to get distracted from the larger picture of how precisely this coup against freedom came to be.”
Both Jones and Tucker dismissed the idea that Chan and Ridley would be interested in entertaining our views or responding to us.
“While I see huge value in this NYC research,” Tucker said, “I don’t see that there is much to be gained by hammering Ridley and Chan on this topic really.”
Jones said, “I also don’t think Matt or Alina would be interested in countering the theory as I imagine they will also not regard it as serious (sorry, I know that’s not where you are, but I imagine it is where they are, as are we).”
We aren’t sure if either Chan or Ridley would respond but we do know that during a sponsored debate this past summer, Ridley opened with strong words for anyone who would limit inquiry and debate to those with relevant domain expertise:
“Who am I to have a go at answering this question [of whether COVID came from a lab]? I have a PhD in evolutionary biology from Oxford, an honorary degree from Cold Spring Harbor, I’m fellowship of The Academy of Medical sciences, and 40 years experience of writing about science, including as a columnist for three major English-speaking newspapers. Plus, I’ve written books on genetics and molecular biology. But it would not matter if I had zero expertise in biology. We all caught this vile virus. We all suffered bereavement in the pandemic. We’re all entitled to investigate this question. Scientists who do experiments that potentially put us at risk cannot expect to tell the rest of us to ‘stay in your lane’.” [1 minute, 31 seconds]
We feel there is value in the invitation and effort, even should Chan and Ridley decline to engage. In that or any case, we would welcome substantive responses from anyone who takes our arguments seriously and is motivated to write a robust riposte.
Daily Sceptic and Brownstone are generally regarded by anti-mandate and health freedom advocates as among the few media outlets that allow publication of dissenting and disparate viewpoints from ignored & much-maligned academics, professionals, and regular citizens who question or challenge government pandemic narratives. Both organizations were brave enough to unapologetically publish numerous articles that challenged popular views and official storylines during the COVID Era, including articles written by ourselves.
More recently, however, we get the impression that lines are being drawn and the Overton window is closing in, with questions about whether there was a pandemic and whether the virus was in fact novel or deadly becoming off-limits, if not verboten. This has a chilling effect on freedom of speech (and freedom of reach) throughout the alternative media. We are disappointed that these two safe-havens for alternative perspectives have apparently set editorial boundaries similar to those that mainstream, independent, and social media companies drew in 2020+.
Although we believe the prevailing duality of “it came from a lab” versus “it spontaneously leapt from nature” is a false dichotomy that continues to suppress key questions about and invigorating dialogue over the events leading up to and following the WHO pandemic declaration in 2020, acceptance of our views is not our only goal. We aim to instigate public discussion in relation to whether a pandemic occurred, assumptions about viral spread, and claims about a new cause of death seizing the globe that have too often been relegated to private channels or dismissed out-of-han as “fringe” or “extremist,” even when and where evidence is compelling or hard to ignore.
Our email correspondence with Mr. Jones and Mr. Tucker, respectively, is published below in the hope that one (or both) might reconsider.
In the meantime, we welcome suggestions for neutral and/or pro-liberty outlets that might be willing to take us up on our proposition.
Note: We didn’t ask The Conservative Woman (TCW) because they have already published many articles that challenge the Lab Leak story.
Email to/from The Daily Sceptic
Response from Will Jones
Email to/from Brownstone Institute
Email from Jeffrey Tucker
The Conservative Woman later published our response to a paper by Mr. Ridley and Anton van der Merwe.