A petition is circulating to have the paper, "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2", published in Nature Medicine in March 2020, retracted.
Some context:
Testimony of main author Kristian Andersen before a congress subcommittee.
Wenstrup report.
Another call for retraction.
Coverage by the Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-republicans/ and https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/
Also covered in Science.
...
I'm borrowing a bit from @jacksonpolack's /jacksonpolack/will-i-agree-with-nate-silvers-clai For a very critical take on the paper:
https://natesilver.substack.com/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of
Here’s the scandal. In March 2020, a group of scientists ... published a paper in Nature Medicine that seemingly contradicted their true beliefs about COVID’s origins and which they knew to be misleading. The paper, “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2”, has been cited more than 5,900 times and was enormously influential in shaping the debate about the origins of COVID-19.
In the Slack and email messages, the authors worked to manipulate the media narrative about COVID-19’s origins and to ensure that their private uncertainty wasn’t conveyed in conversations with reporters. They also thought they were going to get away with it. “The truth is never going to come out ”, wrote Rambaut in one message
...
Resolves YES if an official retraction notice is issued by the authors or by the editors of Nature Medicine (or both), or if the authors publish another letter, comment, or article substantially correcting the relevant claims made in the original piece.
I will not bet in this market.
Related markets:
Related questions
@KevinBurke the authors or anyone officially associated with the journal (editors I suppose, but I don’t know their internal structure too well). I have clarified the criterion in the description.
@kingmidas True. Though this one is kind of an outlier in terms both of publicity and plausible malpractice.