Liu et al., 2020 Retraction Request
Request for Editorial Action for Liu et al. 2020 (June 14, 2024)
This post is the fourth in a series of documented calls for the retraction of scientifically unsound papers on the origin of COVID-19. These papers are based on invalid premises and conclusions, or are potentially products of scientific misconduct — including fraud.
Below is a letter requesting the retraction of "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2" by Liu, et al., published online in Emerging Microbes & Infections on February 26, 2020. This letter was sent to Emerging Microbes & Infections on June 14, 2024.
Subject: Request for Editorial Action for Liu et al. 2020
Dear Editors,
We are writing to bring to your attention significant breaches of publishing ethics regarding the paper titled "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2" by Shan-Lu Liu, Linda Saif, Susan Weiss, and Lishan Su, published online in Emerging Microbes & Infections on February 26, 2020 (1). The manuscript was handled by the Editor-in-Chief of Emerging Microbes & Infections, Shan Lu. The manuscript discussed the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, and concluded, "there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV" (1).
The authors’ and editor's private email communications (4), obtained through an Ohio Public Records Act request, provide compelling evidence that there is clear basis to infer the paper may be the product of scientific misconduct, up to and including fraud (2-6).
The authors' and editor's private email communications reveal the following:
1. On the day the authors reviewed the proofs of the paper (February 21, 2020), shortly before its publication, in email communications having the subject line "Your article proofs for review (ID# TEMI 1733440)," two authors, Susan Weiss and Shan-Lu Liu, made statements that show clearly that they knew that the title and conclusion of their paper were unsound (2-5).
• Susan Weiss emails Shan-Lu Liu to express her concern that she does not understand how the furin cleavage site (“furin site”) ended up in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence naturally.
Susan Weiss (February 21, 2020 at 5:42 AM):
“[T]he RaTG13 spike does not include a furin sequence.... I find it hard to imagine how that sequence got into the spike of a lineage b betacoronavirus- not seen in SARS or any of the bat viruses. The BioRx preprint on Pangolin sequence is very weak- says the RBD from the pangolin virus is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 is. But again pangolin sequence lacks the furin site.”
Susan Weiss (February 21, 2020 at 9:06 AM):
“I remain concerned about the insertion of the furin site”
• Shan-Lu responds that he agrees with her, but suggests that they should focus on denying the “rumor” that the furin site may not be natural.
Shan-Lu Liu (February 21, 2020 at 9:50 AM):
“Susan, I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered.”
• Susan Weiss responds by emphasizing her difficulties in understanding how the furin site emerged and expresses concern that it “may have been engineered.”
Susan Weiss (February 21, 2020 at 10:13 AM):
“Henry and I have been speculating- how can that site have appeared at S1/S2 border- I hate to think to was engineered- among the MHV strains, the cleavage site does not increaser pathogenicity while it does effect entry route (surface vs endosome). so for me the only significance of this furin site is as a marker for where the virus came from- frightening to think it may have been engineered.”
2. Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli, despite clear conflicts of interest, made substantial contributions to the manuscript but were not credited as authors or acknowledged (2-6). Authorship policies for Taylor and Francis requires acknowledgement of all contributors and the source of their funding declared (7): “Contributions made by professional scientific, medical or technical writers, translators or anyone who has assisted with the manuscript content must be acknowledged and their source of funding declared. They should be included in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section with an explanation of their role, or they should be included in the author list if appropriate.”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 11 at 1:44 PM)
“We don’t want to appear that we are defending Ralph [Baric] even though he did nothing wrong.”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 11 at 2:03 PM)
“Sure, we are not saying we are trying to defend Ralph [Baric] but just don’t want to give others the wrong impression”
Ralph Baric (February 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM)
“sure, but don’t want to be cited in as having commented prior to submission.”
Lishan Su (February 12, 2020 at 10:11 AM)
“Hi Ralph: We are trying to finish it and had no plan to get you too involved, but I do value your input.”
Ralph Baric (February 12, 2020 at 12:32 PM)
“My comments. I’ve included an excel file comparing the differences in the genome length sequences of the parental and chimeric viruses. Also made some text changes. I think the community needs to write these editorials and I thank you for your efforts . ralph”
Shan-Lu Liu (February 16, 2020 at 12:43 PM):
“I agree to delete those two parts. One was added by me, based on Linda’s email, and another was also by me, based on Ralph [Baric]’s comments.”
Shan-Lu Liu (February 16, 2020 at 9:49 PM):
“See Zhengli’s comments. We may not need to make those changes, although some of those are good.”
Lishan Su (February 21, 2020 at 1:40 PM):
“I have noticed that too, probably happened when we tried to simplify the chimeric virus paragraph, and I think Ralph [Baric] had added the attenuation sentence relative to M15 in mice…”
3. While writing the paper, Shan Lu, Lu-Shan Su, and Shan-Lu Liu had privileged information about a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a Beijing lab in 2020. However, while they discussed it between themselves, they did not disclose this information to the other co-authors and minimized the possibility of a lab accident in the paper (2-5).
Lishan Su (February 14, 2020 at 6:39 PM):
“Your former colleague was infected with sars2 in the lab?”
Shan-Lu Liu (February 14, 2020 at 6:46 PM):
“Yes, he was infected in the lab!”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 14, 2020 at 7:02 PM):
“I actually am very concerned for the possibility of SARS-2 infection by lab people. It is much more contagious than SARS-1. Now every lab is interested in get a vial of virus to do drug discovery. This can potentially a big issue. I don’t think most people have a clue.”
4. Shan Lu (not to be confused with Shan-Lu Liu), did not disclose his involvement in authoring the paper to Susan Weiss and Linda Saif, by carefully managing a separate paper drafting email thread with Shan-Lu Liu and Lishan Su (2-5).
5. As the Editor-in-Chief of Emerging Microbes & Infections, Shan Lu accepted the manuscript on the day it was submitted with — in his own words —"basically no review," and even explained to authors Lu-Shan Su and Shan-Lu Liu that he had used his position as Editor-in-Chief to secure a superficial manuscript approval (2-5).
Shan-Lu Liu (February 11, 2020 at 7:44 PM):
“Shan: Are you sure that you prefer not to be included in the coauthorship?”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 11, 2020 at 12:44 PM):
“Here is my new version based on SLL’s. highlighted areas are my new version (I did not leave tracking as it is too messy). Please take a look then we can focus on the chimeric one which needs more simplification as I can see. We may not need to go too deep in science as it can only confuse more people and found more issues from those who has suspicion. Shan”
Shan-Lu Liu (February 12, 2020 at 6:04 PM):
“Lishan: My understanding is that Shan does not want to be included as a coauthor… That is why I thought you would be the first author because you had the first draft”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 12, 2020 at 7:25 PM):
“I definitely will not be an author as you guys did everything. It can also keep things somewhat independent as the editor.”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 16, 2020 at 12:30 PM):
“See two attached documents: 1. Title of commentary: I agree that by removing “origin”, it is better. I also wonder if we can add “current” in it? 2. A slightly revised draft of commentary: I removed certain sentences (with tracking) to make the commentary more focused. For your reference”
EMI Editor-in-Chief, Shan Lu (February 21, 2020 at 10:36 AM):
“Yes, just a secret to you two and not share with others. When I put a super fast review and accept (basically no review), the [Journal Editorial Office of Taylor & Francis], became very suspicious and wanted her boss to check and approve. She probably wonder if we are actually just one person with three fake names”
Lishan Su (February 21, 2020 at 10:22 PM):
“Thanks for speeding it up, bro! We are doing wonders as three confusing/confused musketeers of Shan-Lu, Shan Lu and Lishan Su:)”
Taken together, the authors’ and editor's private communications indicate the paper is a product of scientific misconduct, up to and including fraud, by the authors and by the Editor-in-Chief of Emerging Microbes & Infections, Shan Lu.
The authors' and editor's private communications establishing these facts were not available at the time the paper was approved and published. Now that these documents have come to light, we urge Emerging Microbes & Infections to issue an Expression of Editorial Concern for this paper and to initiate a retraction process.
Signatories (in alphabetical order)
Colin D. Butler, Australian National University, Australia
Sigrid Bratlie, Langsikt Policy Center, Norway
Gilles Demaneuf, Engineer and Data Scientist, New Zealand
Joseph P. Dudley, University of Alaska Fairbanks, US
Richard H. Ebright, Rutgers University, US
Andre Goffinet, UCLouvain (Prof em), Belgium
Edward Hammond, Prickly Research, US
Neil L. Harrison, Columbia University, US
Hideki Kakeya, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Stephen Lagana, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, US
Yanna Lambrinidou, Virginia Tech, US
Jonathan Latham, The Bioscience Resource Project, US
Milton Leitenberg, University of Maryland, US
Bryce E. Nickels, Rutgers University, US
Andrew Noymer, University of California, Irvine
Steven Quay, Stanford University School of Medicine (Former Faculty), US
Eric S. Starbuck, Biosafety Now, US
Günter Theißen, Matthias Schleiden Institute, Germany
Antonius VanDongen, Duke University, US
Roland Wiesendanger, University of Hamburg, Germany
Allison Wilson, The Bioscience Resource Project, US
Mohamed E. El Zowalaty, Ahram Canadian University, Egypt
References cited
2. The released email messages are available here.
5. Detailed social media reporting of the key emails are available here.
7. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/defining-authorship-research-paper/
Let’s start by looking at the confidential agreement proving Moderna had a Coronavirus vaccine candidate at least nineteen days before the alleged emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China.
The confidential agreement states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to transfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
The World Health Organisation declared COVID‑19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020
On February 23 the Daily Mail ran an article showing that Moderna has patented the 19 base letter (nucleotide) sequence which codes for the Furin Cleavage site in Covid-19.
However, research shows that Moderna did not merely apply for a patent in 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied in 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2, as well for their "Covid-19 virus".
The final codon completed inserted gene sequence, ‘CTCCTCGGCGGGCA’, patented by Moderna, does not exist in natural viruses and neither does the CGG-coded Furin Cleavage site CCTCGGCGGGCACGT.
Moderna wins Covid-19 shot patent case against Pfizer-BioNTech in Europe May 18, 2024, 07:01 PM Pfizer-BioNTech who used Moderna Virus 2013: #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG to make their vaccine from. That "virus" you got "a vaccine" for: Thank Bill Gates.
Don't get me started on vaccines - have a look at my substack and my theory of why babies are being born dead Google: Substack. Question: christine.257 Then: Read First (It's free) Then read back from my last post to the beginning of the pandemic. Suggest any articles, you copy the blue titles onto your word processor and then, off the substack, you can call them up anytime to read - I did post a list of my favourite articles, but I can't find it now - if you do, the link to it posted on my substack, would be appreciated by me.
Here is a "taster" PDF: Trump's Secret Contract signed for the US Army Pfizer Contract
https://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/DOD-ATI-Pfizer-Technical-Direction-Letter-OTA-W15QKN-16-9-1002-21July2020.pdf
https://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/DOD-ATI-Pfizer-Technical-Direction-Letter-OTA-W15QKN-16-9-1002-21July2020.pdf
Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Wikipedia - note "2017-2021"
The Defense Production Act has played a role in the U.S. government’s response to COVID-19 (from about November 1st 2019 US virus release date ) pandemic.
President Trump declared a national emergency in March 2020, making the pandemic eligible for government action under the Defense Production Act.
President Trump said he invoked the Defense Production Act more than 100 times to facilitate Operation Warp Speed.
Trump has made the vaccinated all part of a "US Army experiment" and when you re-elect him, he will finish the job on behalf of his masters, whoever they are, but let us presuppose they are those I have identified in the final paragraph and others.
The vaccinated are countermeasure prototypes, for the US Army, to see the objective of a Covid-19 (vaccines) countermeasure, in the impairment of the operational effectiveness of enemy activity" by spike protein,the most antigenic and toxic part of a coronavirus" (vaccine) based on the measurable effects of their (the vaccines) deployment", by the US military's own definitions of terms used in Operation Warp Speed contracts, the (vaccine) products it commissioned "amount to bioweapons" and the vaccinated are part of the US Army experiment to see the effectiveness of their Covid-19 vaccines weapon, as explained below:
The injection of these "countermeasure prototype vaccines" which satisfy the US military definition of a biological agent into people has killed some recipients and permanently disabled increasingly large numbers of others, "resulting in their (vaccines) operational effectiveness based on the measurable effects of their (vaccines) deployment", by the US military's own definitions of (vaccines) terms used in Operation Warp Speed contracts, the (vaccines) products it commissioned "amount to bioweapons".
The US military defines a biological agent as a micro-organism (or toxin derived from it) that causes disease.
Vaccines are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration as biological products, therefore they can be described as biological agents.
The mRNA (ModRNA) products instruct recipients cells to make a form of its spike protein, the most antigenic and, some researchers argue, toxic part of a coronavirus.
Since December 2020, 5.5 billion people, 72 per cent of the global population, have been injected with Covid-19 vaccines commissioned under Operation Warp Speed by the US Army "as countermeasure prototypes", by 2024 at least 8 billion people out of 8.5 billion people have been vaccinated with these bioweapons.
By the US military's own definition, The US Army Covid-19 vaccines bioweapon provides "the objective of a countermeasure which is the impairment of the operational effectiveness of enemy activity" by spike protein,the most antigenic and toxic part of a coronavirus,as a weapon,is proven,but for the vaccinated, they are the vaccine experiment then.
Trump followed on by Biden. Excuse me for saying so, but after the world populations have been decimated down to 250 million, more or less by 2025/26, by this US Army bioweapon, who will be left to use it on?
Refer back to the beginning of my above article and read it again, if you missed something, from my "Update 2".
I can't help wondering if the Elite, comprising Putin, Trump, Biden, Xi and other world leaders and the unseen billionaires, the WHO, WEF, etc, are in this together, but playing their parts to make we, the "Human Rubbish" of their societies, think there are warlike political divisions between us, when those divisions are for "your" show, just to fool you, while your extermination continues unregulated.
It is what I've been saying in my substack these past 4 years, I just never had the facts to prove my theories, now I do.
Whoever you are, wherever you work, vaccinate the Elite in your sphere of influence and make your vaccinated problems theirs too but leave their Human Rubbish, who we are, alone.
The full version is in my post before this one on my free substack - read it through and confirm if my assumptions are correct, to your satisfaction