Business
Column: The COVID lab-leak claim isn't just an attack on science, but a threat to public health
Here’s an indisputable fact about the theory that COVID originated in a laboratory: Most Americans believe it to be true.
That’s important for several reasons. One is that evidence to support the theory is nonexistent. Another is that the claim itself has fomented a surge of attacks on science and scientists that threatens to drive promising researchers out of the crucial field of pandemic epidemiology.
That concern was aired in a commentary by 41 biologists, immunologists, virologists and physicians published Aug. 1 in the Journal of Virology. The journal probably isn’t in the libraries of ordinary readers, but the article’s prose is commendably clear and its conclusions eye-opening.
We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health.
— 41 scientists warn of the rise in anti-science disinformation
“The lab leak narrative fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures,” the authors observe. “Scientists and public health professionals stand between us and pandemic pathogens; these individuals are essential for anticipating, discovering, and mitigating future pandemic threats. Yet, scientists and public health professionals have been harmed and their institutions have been damaged by the skewed public and political opinions stirred by continued promotion of the lab leak hypothesis in the absence of evidence.”
Before exploring further how the lab leak theory has been exploited to undermine public confidence in science and scientists, let’s examine what’s known and unknown about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.
The so-called zoonosis hypothesis, which is favored by the vast majority of the virological and epidemiological communities, is that the virus reached humans via a spillover from the animal kingdom, probably through the unregulated wildlife trade in Southeast Asia.
“Validating the zoonotic origin is a scientific question that relies on history, epidemiology, and genomic analysis, that when taken together, support a natural spillover as the probable origin,” the Virology paper states.
The lab leak theory holds that SARS-2 was created or manipulated into existence in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and escaped from the lab, whether deliberately or by accident.
Lab leak adherents bristle at the accusation that they’re conspiracy-mongers. Anthony Fauci, the retired director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the target of some of the most febrile attacks from the anti-science crowd, acknowledged at a June 3 House hearing that the lab leak theory was not inherently a conspiracy theory, conceptually—but that it had been exploited to support some truly crazy conspiracy narratives.
Fauci testified that he remained open to a lab leak narrative in principle, and that if any evidence for it emerged he would consider it seriously. That’s typical of most scientists, especially biologists, who are led by the infinite variability of the natural world to be innately averse to declaring anything conclusively possible or impossible.
The fact is, however, that one can’t advance the lab leak theory without positing a vast conspiracy encompassing scientists in China and the U.S., and Chinese and U.S. government officials. How else could all the evidence of a laboratory event that resulted in more than 7 million deaths worldwide be kept entirely suppressed for nearly five years? Some external hint of the event inevitably would have surfaced somewhere, somehow, by now. None has.
“Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic,” the Virology paper asserts. “Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.”
Despite that, “the lab leak hypothesis receives persistent attention in the media, often without acknowledgment of the more solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence,” the paper says. The paper doesn’t name all the media culprits, but they include the independent investigative news site ProPublica and Vanity Fair.
It does take direct aim, however, at the New York Times, which on June 3 published a column by researcher Alina Chan asserting that the “pandemic probably started in a lab.” In a 2021 book, Chan had aired almost identical arguments that were largely refuted by experts in the field. Her more recent article “misrepresents and underplays the existing scientific data supporting a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2,” the Virology paper reported.
I’ve written before about the smears, physical harassment and baseless accusations of fraud and other wrongdoing that lab leak propagandists have visited upon scientists whose work has challenged their claims; similar attacks have targeted experts who have worked to debunk other anti-science narratives, including those about global warming and vaccines.
Some of these attacks have come from elected officials seeking partisan cred, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). They’ve been augmented by figures such as Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
What’s notable about the Virology paper is that it represents a comprehensive and long-overdue pushback by the scientific community against such behavior. More to the point, it focuses on the consequences for public health and the scientific mission from the rise of anti-science propaganda.
Its authors are drawn from the faculties of the state universities of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida and Ohio, as well as from Johns Hopkins, Duke and the Cleveland Clinic.
“Scientists have withdrawn from social media platforms, rejected opportunities to speak in public, and taken increased safety measures to protect themselves and their families,” the authors report.
“Some have even diverted their work to less controversial and less timely topics. We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health….Most worrisome for future preparedness, the next generation of scientists has well-founded fears about entering fields related to emerging viruses and pandemic science.”
The paper revisits the scene at the public interrogation by House Republicans on June 3. “The hearing,” it observes, “was often disrupted and marked by contentious, disrespectful, and unfounded calls for Dr. Fauci to be ‘prosecuted’ and imprisoned for ‘crimes against humanity.’”
By presupposing that evidence of a lab leak has been deliberately suppressed by leading scientists and scientific administrators, its promoters have cast “unsupported blame on scientists, many of whom had warned of the potential threat of, and need for effective countermeasures to prevent, zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans,” the authors write.
At a certain level, the popular embrace of scientific conspiracy theories is understandable. As the Swiss molecular biologist and science writer Philipp Markolin has observed, disinformation relies on myths that provide simple explanations for traumatic world events, like the pandemic, by positing that it was caused by shadowy, powerful actors. There’s never a shortage of grifters and manipulators using this public confusion to their advantage.
Thanks in part to social media, anti-science has become more virulent and widespread, the Virology authors write. Large numbers of researchers into SARS-2 have reported “harassment ranging from personal insults to threats of violence, ‘doxing,’ and personal contact,” according to the paper— of 1,281 scientists in several fields who responded to a survey by Science, 51% said they had experienced at least one form of harassment, sometimes over a period of years.
The Virology authors warn that the vilification of scientists whose research supports the zoonosis hypothesis will leave society defenseless when the next pandemic threat emerges.
“If these narratives are left unchecked, we become a society that dismisses and vilifies those with expertise and experience relevant to the challenges we face,” the authors write. “We then base decisions affecting large populations worldwide on speculation or chosen beliefs that have no grounding in evidence-based science.”
That’s what the future holds if we allow misinformation and disinformation, weaponized by sociopaths seeking financial or partisan gain, to guide our actions. We have been warned.
Residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers on election day, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.
As of Wednesday, 86% of votes were in favor of Measure NDC, the city ban, according to the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk.
Other cities and towns have passed moratoriums on data centers, as a wave of opposition sweeps the country. But the Monterey Park vote can only be overturned by another ballot measure, making it the most permanent data center ban in a jurisdiction.
Monterey Park’s City Council had already banned data centers by ordinance, after a proposed 247,000-square-foot data center met an outpouring of public anger and concern. The developer withdrew that plan.
That facility would have been less than 500 feet away from the nearest home, and would have used three times the electricity of the entire 60,000-person city. Residents said it would have caused noise and air pollution and driven up electricity rates.
“This ensures long-lasting protections for current and future generations,” Amy Wong, co-founder of the group San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action, said of the vote. “It means that future city councils cannot overturn a data center ban, even if data center developers wanted to spend money to fund pro-data center candidates.”
The measure had no formal opposition. The developer of the proposed facility, investment firm HMC StratCap, said it wouldn’t engage in the ballot fight when it withdrew in March.
The Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, expressed disappointment in the vote.
“It sends a signal that the area is closed for business, both for data centers and for other significant economic development projects,” state policy director Khara Boender said.
“It deprives local residents of the opportunity to compete for jobs and investment, while also causing the area to relinquish substantial long-term economic investment, high-wage jobs, and critical tax revenue to neighboring areas or other states.”
SGV Progressive Action worked with hyperlocal groups including No Data Center Monterey Park to rally support for the measure.
The group is now focused on stopping data center proposals in the City of Industry and fighting a move by City of Industry, Santa Fe Springs, Vernon and City of Commerce to welcome data centers and other industry with fast-tracked permitting and tax incentives.
City of Industry, in the San Gabriel Valley, and Vernon, south of downtown L.A., are primarily industrial areas, each with around 300 permanent residents. They are employment centers, and tens of thousands of workers commute in daily.
There has been little vocal opposition to data centers among the few residents of these cities. Wong said the protest is primarily coming from the surrounding neighborhoods.
“If a data center gets built in City of Industry, residents across the region would bear the brunt of pollution and increased utility costs,” Wong said, noting that it is surrounded by 16 other cities and unincorporated communities.
Data center proposals have been limited in California compared to Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois and Arizona, which sit at the center of a recent boom in hyperscaler facilities to power artificial intelligence.
California has the third-most data centers in the country, with 300, but high electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in other hotspots.
That doesn’t mean opposition hasn’t been fierce. In Coachella and Imperial County, residents are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
In the San Gabriel Valley, Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoriums, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update.
Wong said she hoped the ballot measure vote would galvanize the opposition. “The vote is a testament to the people power of our region,” she said. “Our region is worth protecting, and we won’t let data centers determine our future.”
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
-
Kansas5 minutes agoKansas City, Missouri, police searching for missing 11-year-old girl
-
Kentucky8 minutes agoKentucky Lottery Cash Ball, Pick 3 Evening winning numbers for June 3, 2026
-
Louisiana13 minutes agoDHS watchdog finds use-of-force issues and safety and sanitation concerns at Louisiana ICE center
-
Maine20 minutes ago‘I could die here’: Photographer recalls Maine wedding stabbing
-
Maryland23 minutes agoFull-length Replay: Maryland | FOX Sports
-
Michigan28 minutes agoMichigan Lottery Daily 3, Daily 4 results for June 3, 2026
-
Massachusetts35 minutes agoMass. House votes to set new rules for DiZoglio’s audit
-
Minnesota38 minutes agoMinneapolis considers closing dog park sitting on Indigenous land
