'The death of science' - professor became a victim of bullying Big Pharma

Angus Dalgleish said that anyone suggesting a non-natural origin
for Covid had been silenced, warning: “This goes back to the
days of Copernicus and Galileo - it is the death of science”.
(https://bit.ly/3AcXBbU).
Professor Dalgleish co-authored a paper in summer 2020 after
spotting “unique fingerprints” in Covid-19 samples that he believes
prove they must have been manipulated in a laboratory. The work
was rejected by a string of journals, before finally being published
in a watered-down form. Prof Dalgleish, an oncologist who
discovered how HIV entered and killed cells in 1984, then found
himself “ostracised” and frightened. In February 2020, the Lancet
had published a letter that “strongly condemned conspiracy theories”
suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin. This highly
influential letter – subsequently cited in thousands of scientific
publications – was signed by 27 experts including Wellcome Trust
head and former Sage member Sir Jeremy Farrar. However, it has
since emerged that two weeks before the letter was published, Sir
Jeremy stated in private emails that some senior scientists believed
a ‘likely explanation’ was that the virus was man-made. He had led
a teleconference call on February 1 2020. The emails discuss the
call and reveal one virologist was ‘80 percent sure this thing had
come out of a lab’. Other shared the view. Sir Jeremy was uncertain,
stating “this will remain grey unless there is access to the
Wuhan lab”.
But virologist Dr Ron Fouchier said: “Further debate about such
accusations would do unnecessary harm to science in general
and science in China in particular.” Professor Dalgleish, author of
a new book on covid, The Origin of the Virus, warned the affair had
profound implications for the scientific community. He said his team
had found amino acids on the spike with a positive charge, allowing
the virus to cling to negative parts of the human body. But it was
highly unusual to find so many positive charges in a row because
they also repel each other, he said. “We realised when they released
the sequence of the virus it broke the laws of physics for a natural
virus meaning it was genetically modified.
“At the time my position was supported by Sir Richard Dearlove,
the former head of MI6 who now chairs the University of London
board of trustees.” However, when they tried to publish their work
they were turned down by numerous papers, including the Lancet.
“My paper was rejected within five hours”, he said. “Normally it
takes three weeks before it is even peer reviewed.” Prof Dalgleish
said:
“It was a political decision for this to be suppressed.” Describing
the impact after his paper was finally released, he said: “I was
ostracised. I was fearful - really frightened at the way I was being
treated.
“I was told I was not an expert on coronavirus’ and should just shut
up. People tried to push us away. We were told our theory had no
rationale and it was a conspiracy theory. I am so angry about this.
I have more virus papers cited than most virology experts and they
tried to push me aside. “They did not even look at the science.
It was obvious it was a gain of function escape from a lab and I
say escape, but that is generous. We had this data in late February
after the sequences were released. “This has been a whitewash.
This whole thing has killed science. Science is meant to look
at evidence. It is truly unbelievable.” Last year an expert who has
studied the lab leak said the debate about coronavirus will be
reduced to “insults on twitter” unless medical journals allow
uncensored discussion.
Jacques van Helden, professor of bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille
University in France, said The Lancet etter in February 2020
effectively shut down debate over the origins of the virus.
“By labelling anyone with different views a conspiracy theorist,
the Lancet letter was the worst form of bullying in full
contravention of the scientific method. “To say that something
has leaked from a lab does not make it a conspiracy theory.
“Why was that letter signed by so many people? Why can’t we
discuss this issue in a scientific journal? I do not want to have to
resort to an open exchange on Twitter.” Jamie Metzl, who sits
on the World Health Organisation’s advisory committee on human
genome editing, said in a previous interview: “The Lancet letter was
scientific propaganda and a form of thuggery and intimidation.”