Picture this: it's early 2020, the world's reeling from a new virus, and everyone's desperate for answers about where Covid-19 came from. Enter Nature Medicine, one of the big dogs in scientific publishing, dropping a bombshell paper called "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2." It says Covid likely jumped from animals to humans, and it becomes the go-to source, racking up 6 million views and citations in over 2,000 news stories. But what if that paper wasn't as pure as it seemed? What if Dr. Anthony Fauci and his crew nudged its conclusions to fit a certain story, possibly with funding as a sweetener? If that's true, Nature Medicine dropped the ball big time, and they should face real consequences for letting scientific integrity take a hit.
The Trump administration's digging into this mess, and it's disturbing. Edward Martin, a U.S. Attorney heading up a new Justice Department group, sent a letter on March 28, 2025, to Nature Medicine's publisher, Joao Monteiro, asking point-blank: did your journal let funders like Fauci call the shots because of "relationships with supporters"? Translation: was there a shady deal? The letter hints at possible fraud or regulatory violations, and word on the street (via The Disinformation Chronicle) is that Nature Medicine is the main target, specifically over that "Proximal Origin" paper.
Here's where it gets suspicious. Two of the paper's authors, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry, got a fat $1.88 million NIH grant just months after the paper dropped. Coincidence? Maybe, but emails and Slack messages uncovered by Congress and outlets like The Nation paint a different picture. Back in February 2020, Andersen was not sold on the animal-origin story. In a call with Fauci, he and other scientists worried Covid might've been tinkered with in a lab. Andersen even wrote that a lab leak was "highly likely, not some fringe theory." But by the time the paper came out, it was all "zoonotic origin, case closed." What changed?
Well, it looks like Fauci and Francis Collins (then NIH boss) were in the mix, giving "advice and leadership" on the draft, per Andersen's own emails. Jeremy Farrar, a big shot at the Wellcome Trust, even pushed last-minute edits to downplay the lab-leak idea. Yet none of these heavyweights were listed as contributors, which breaks Nature's own rules about disclosing who's pulling strings. Worse, Andersen privately admitted after the paper came out that he still wasn't sure a lab wasn't involved. So, why'd they go all-in on the animal story? Smells like pressure, not science.
You'd think a journal as fancy as Nature Medicine would've caught this, right? Their whole job is to make sure papers are legit, solid peer review, no funny business. But they let this one slide. The paper had holes, like ignoring lab-leak evidence, as an NIH researcher pointed out. And Nature's policy says funders meddling in a paper need to be disclosed. Fauci and Farrar were knee-deep in this, yet their names are nowhere on it. That's either a massive oversight or something shadier.
Fast-forward to now, and Nature Medicine is doubling down. Despite the FBI, CIA, and Department of Energy leaning toward a lab-leak origin, and a petition from 5,700 scientists at Biosafety Now calling for a retraction, the journal's standing by the paper. Monteiro even tweeted back in 2020 that it'd "put conspiracy theories to rest." Talk about jumping the gun. By not owning up to this mess, Nature Medicine is basically saying, "Trust us, we're fine," while the evidence screams otherwise.
If Fauci and pals did sway this paper, Nature Medicine can't just shrug it off. They helped sell a narrative that shut down a legit theory, labelled lab-leak folks as racists, and shaped how the world saw Covid's origins. That's not just a mistake, that's a betrayal of what science is supposed to be. Here's what they should face:
Pull the Paper and Say Sorry: Retract "Proximal Origin" and own up to the screw-up. A public apology would show they're serious about fixing things.
Get an Outside Check: Bring in neutral experts to audit their peer-review process. If they're cutting corners, we need to know.
Hit the Wallet: The NIH should think twice about funding journals that play fast and loose with ethics. Money talks, and it could keep others in line.
Face the Law: If Martin's investigation proves fraud, Nature Medicine and its parent, Springer Nature, could be on the hook for legal penalties. Fair's fair.
Some folks, like The New York Times, are crying "censorship" over Martin's letters, but that's missing the point. This isn't about silencing science, it's about making sure journals don't let power and cash drown out the truth.
This isn't just about one paper. It's about trust. When a journal like Nature Medicine lets a flawed study become gospel, it messes with everything, public health, policy, how we handle the next crisis. The "Proximal Origin" paper didn't just sit on a shelf; it was weaponised to shut down debate and push a single story. That delayed real answers about Covid's roots and left us all in the dark. Plus, it's part of a bigger problem: a 2022 study found scientists who questioned Covid dogmas got censored or pushed out. Even NIH's new director, Jay Bhattacharya, called out the "culture of cover-up" in science during his 2025 Senate hearing.
We rely on journals to be the grown-ups, to give us facts we can count on. When they fumble that, it's not just scientists who suffer, it's all of us. The media ran with "Proximal Origin" like it was the final word, and we ended up with a warped view of the pandemic. If Nature Medicine wants to keep its crown, it's got to earn it by coming clean.
The evidence is piling up: Fauci and his crew likely had their hands all over "Proximal Origin," and Nature Medicine let it happen. From sketchy emails to a conveniently timed grant, it's hard to see this as just a mistake. The journal's refusal to retract or even question the paper is a slap in the face to science's core promise: follow the evidence, no matter who's in the room. They deserve a wake-up call, retraction, audits, maybe even legal heat, to make sure this doesn't happen again. Science isn't perfect, but it's supposed to be honest. If Nature Medicine can't deliver that, it's time they face the music.
"The Trump administration is looking into whether the authors and publisher of an influential scientific paper published early during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed Dr. Anthony Fauci and others to influence the paper's conclusions in exchange for funding, The Disinformation Chronicle reported Tuesday.
In March 2020, Nature Medicine published "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," which concluded that COVID-19 had a zoonotic, or animal, origin. It became one of that year's most-cited papers, accessed over 6 million times. In 2023, The Nation reported that over 2,000 media outlets cited the paper.
In a previously unreported letter, sent March 28 to Joao Monteiro, M.D., Ph.D., publisher of Nature Medicine, then-interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward R. Martin Jr., questioned whether the journal advocated views that were "influenced by your ongoing relationships with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others."
Martin requested a response by April 18. It's unclear if Monteiro complied.
The letter was one of several Martin sent to editors of medical journals, questioning their impartiality.
However, The Disinformation Chronicle, citing a source inside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said "the actual target" of Martin's letters is Nature Medicine, publisher of the influential "Proximal Origin" paper.
The paper helped discredit proponents of the lab-leak theory, who suggested that COVID-19 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Scientists, government officials and media outlets widely cited the paper in an attempt to characterize proponents of the lab-leak theory as conspiracy theorists.
In a March 2020 tweet, Monteiro said the paper would "help to stop spread of misinformation" and "put conspiracy theories about the origin of #SARSCoV2 to rest."
During an April 2020 White House briefing, Fauci said the study provided evidence "totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human."
'Not some fringe theory'
In his letter to Monteiro, Martin wrote that some journals "have a position for which they are advocating due to advertisement … or sponsorship," suggesting a quid pro quo relationship that may violate fraud and postal regulations.
Martin, whom President Donald Trump selected earlier this month to lead a new Weaponization Working Group inside the U.S. Department of Justice, also asked Monteiro how he responds to allegations that his journal may have misled readers.
A source close to the investigation told The Disinformation Chronicle that Martin's letter pertains to a grant Fauci awarded to two "Proximal Origin" co-authors, Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., a professor of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute, and Robert F. Garry, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Tulane School of Medicine, a few months after the paper was published.
Andersen and Garry were initially skeptical about dismissing the lab-leak theory. But emails and documents revealed through a congressional investigation and some media outlets revealed that, under pressure from Fauci and other key public health figures, Andersen and Garry fully endorsed the zoonotic theory in "Proximal Origin."
In a Feb. 1, 2020, email and call between Fauci and several virologists, including Andersen, the participants expressed concern that COVID-19 might have been manipulated instead of originating in nature.
Transcripts revealed by The Nation in July 2023 showed that, in a February 2020 Slack thread, Andersen wrote to other virologists that "the main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely — it's not some fringe theory."
In a Feb. 17, 2020, email, Jeremy Farrar, Ph.D., the then-director of the Wellcome Trust who later became the World Health Organization's chief scientist and assistant director-general, asked Andersen to make a last-minute change to the draft of "Proximal Origin," from "It is unlikely" to "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus." Andersen agreed.
Privately, though, the scientists maintained their skepticism. In 2023, Racket and Public reported that Andersen sent a Slack message to his co-authors of "Proximal Origin" in April 2020, writing, "I'm still not fully convinced that no culture was involved. We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research)."
Fauci and officials, including Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were closely involved in the drafting and publication of "Proximal Origin." On March 6, 2020, Andersen emailed Fauci and Collins a draft of "Proximal Origins," thanking them for "their 'advice and leadership' on the paper."
After the paper's publication on March 17, 2020, Collins promoted the paper in the March 2020 edition of the NIH Director's Blog. And on May 21, 2020, the NIH finalized a $1.88 million grant to Andersen and the Scripps Research Institute relating to pandemic preparedness in West Africa.
In sworn testimony in July 2023 as part of a congressional investigation, Andersen said there was "no connection" between the conclusions reached in "Proximal Origin" and the subsequent NIH grant he received. However, in a report later that month, The Intercept revealed documents showing that Andersen "knew that was false."
The investigation found that "extensive influence" by the NIH, Collins and Fauci, combined with a "flawed analysis" characterized by "an alarming lack of evidence," led to the publication of "Proximal Origin," even though its "expressed conclusions were not based on sound science nor in fact, but instead on assumptions."
The Disinformation Chronicle noted that, despite Farrar and Fauci's involvement in the publication of "Proximal Origin," they were not named as co-authors, likely violating Nature's editorial policy.
According to Nature policy, "A specific role for the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, should be disclosed."
In a guest essay published in The Disinformation Chronicle, an anonymous NIH infectious disease researcher also suggested that the "Proximal Origin" paper contains methodological flaws that ignored evidence of the lab-leak theory, calling into question Nature Medicine's peer-review process.
Nature Medicine has not withdrawn 'Proximal Origin' despite lab-leak evidence
Last month, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government's official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have previously endorsed this theory.
Yet, to this day, Nature Medicine has not withdrawn "Proximal Origin," despite an online petition calling for its retraction by Biosafety Now, a non-governmental organization advocating for reducing the number of high-level biocontainment laboratories. The petition has collected 5,700 signatures.
Instead, according to The Disinformation Chronicle, Martin's letters to the editors of medical journals were the subject of attack by several mainstream media outlets.
For example, The New York Times wrote that the letters "will have a chilling effect on publications," while The Washington Post said the letters trigger "free-speech concerns."
Yet, Martin's letter to Monteiro suggested that Nature Medicine had, in fact, perpetuated misinformation. "How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers?" Martin asked.
Scientists and researchers have accused medical journals and their publishers, including Springer Nature, the world's largest academic publisher, of censorship.
A peer-reviewed study published in 2022 found that researchers who questioned establishment positions on COVID-19 faced several professional consequences, including rejection or retraction of journal articles.
In April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives invited the editors of three major scientific journals, including Nature, The Lancet and Science, to testify about potential censorship. Only Holden Thorp, Ph.D., editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals, accepted the invitation.
During his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in March, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya criticized scientific censorship, saying that "top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs."
Bhattacharya promised to "actively encourage different perspectives."