On April 16, 2020, CHD’s Facebook page posted a link to an editorial in the journal Jewish Voice, stating that “Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Luc Montagnier has unique insights regarding COVID- 19.” Science Feedback checked information in the article, an ‘independent third-party fact checker’ working with Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram, among other platforms).

Contested claim: “this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus […] the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great” (Jewish Voice, 200417).

Science Feedback’s fact-check verdict: Inaccurate (200420)

Facebook action: False information (200416) (no link available)

Context: Science Feedback deemed the claim “inaccurate,” asserting “Genomic analyses indicate that the virus has a natural origin, and was not engineered” (Figure 2). Facebook added the following warning label to the post: “False information Checked by independent fact-checkers” (Figure 3).

Verdict detail: “Inaccurate: Genomic analyses indicate that the virus has a natural origin, and was not engineered. The so-called “unique” protein sequence insertions found in the 2019 novel coronavirus can be found in many other organisms, not just HIV” (Science Feedback, 200420).

Plausible: Luc Montagnier’s central claim is that “the SARS-CoV-2 responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic is a virus that was manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the Jewish Voice reported (200417).

Science Feedback’s fact-check found otherwise, concluding, “genomic analysis of the virus indicates that it does not contain so-called ‘HIV insertions’ and that it was not engineered in a lab. Evidence points to the virus having a natural origin.”

“Articles which repeat Montagnier’s claims without critically evaluating their veracity exhibit the common ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy, in which something is assumed to be true simply because the person saying it is considered to be an expert, thereby misleading readers into believing that this theory is scientifically credible,” Science Feedback explains in their pedagogic fashion. “This demonstrates the importance of verifying scientific claims with other experts in the same field, rather than simply taking such claims from a single expert at face value.”

With the benefit of hindsight and the avoidance of the “appeal to consensus” fallacy, Luc Montagnier’s central claim is almost assuredly correct, and Science Feedback’s assertion that the virus has a natural origin is likely wrong.

“According to Professor Luc Montagnier … the SARS-CoV-2 responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic is a virus that was manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the last quarter of 2019,” the Jewish reporter writes. Science Feedback’s fact-check asserts the virus is not the product of bioengineering and is of natural origin, citing a highly influential “proximal origin” Nature Medicine paper that concluded, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus” (Andersen et al., 2020). The study’s senior author, Robert Garry, has subsequently faced allegations of scientific misconduct from lawmakers and researchers. Critics, like Dr. Richard Ebright, argue that private communications among the authors of the “proximal origin” paper suggested they knew their conclusions were unsound, which could constitute scientific misconduct (The Hill, 2024). Nicolas Wade, writing in the City Journal (2024), reported on new documents, including a recipe for the SARS2 virus that “is in striking accord with a theoretical paper published in 2022 that predicted the SARS2 virus had been generated in exactly this way,” Wade reports.

Montagnier also claims to have analyzed the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, “adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings [Pradhan et al., 2020] as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.” Science Feedback’s fact-check explains that other researchers re-analyzed the gene and protein sequences used by the authors and found that the so-called “unique” inserts appeared in many other organisms, and was independently confirmed in another published analysis (Xiao, 2020). These investigators put their cards on the table in the first paragraph: “Discovery of the origin of a newly human pathogen is a sophisticated process that requires extensive and vigorous scientific validations and generally takes many years, … Unfortunately, before the natural sources of new pathogens are clearly defined, conspiracy theories that the new pathogens are man-made often surface as the source,” they ruefully explain. “However, in all cases, such theories have been debunked in history.”

The gist of their article is that the gene and protein sequences used by the Indian investigators are not insertions “but are rather common sequences found in numerous other organisms such as bacteria and parasites,” Science Feedback explains. “Therefore, the existence of these sequences in SARS-CoV-2 does not provide evidence of a link to HIV, nor that scientists purposely inserted HIV sequences into the SARS-CoV-2 genome.”

Assessment highlights:

• Luc Montagnier’s central claim is that “the SARS-CoV-2 responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic is a virus manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the Jewish Voice reported (200417).
• Science Feedback’s fact-check found otherwise, concluding, “genomic analysis of the virus indicates that it does not contain so-called ‘HIV insertions’ and that it was not engineered in a lab. Evidence points to the virus having a natural origin.”
• With the benefit of hindsight and avoidance of the “appeal to consensus” fallacy, Luc Montagnier’s central claim is almost assuredly correct, and Science Feedback’s assertion the virus has a natural origin is likely wrong.

CHD filed a lawsuit claiming that Facebook, its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and associated fact-checking organizations unfairly targeted and censored their content. The lawsuit alleges that this censorship violated CHD’s constitutional rights by collaborating with government entities to suppress free speech, falsely labeling CHD’s content as misinformation, engaging in deceptive and coordinated efforts to discredit their work, and causing significant reputational and financial harm. The following excerpt is taken from CHD’s 2020 complaint document.

Respondent: CHD (CHD vs Facebook Complaint, 201113)

• 4.183 | On April 16, 2020, CHD posted a link to an editorial in the journal Jewish Voice, stating that “Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Luc Montagnier has unique insights regarding COVID-19.” Facebook labeled the post “False Information.” …
• 4.183 | … The article reported that Dr. Luc Montagnier’s work showed that the “coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but he was forced to withdraw these findings because “the pressure from the mainstream was too great.” …
• 4.183 | … Science Feedback’s “fact-check” is an attempt to censor a debate on the open question of the origins of COVID-19. Defendants were aware, or acted in reckless disregard, of these and other specific falsities in the Science Feedback opposition “fact-check,” but posted it on CHD’s page nonetheless, in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme. The post can no longer be found on the CHD Facebook page and appears to have been removed.

Highlights:

• Science Feedback’s fact-check asserts, “Genomic analyses indicate that the virus has a natural origin, and was not engineered.” This hasn’t aged well.
• Being wrong is a healthy part of the process of establishing reliable knowledge, if the conclusions are arrived at with intellectual honesty. However, another common thread emerging is Science Feedback’s appeal to consensus and appeal to experts, so long as those experts agree with the majority of researchers in their field of study.
• More concerning, if true, is CHD’s assertion that “Science Feedback’s ‘fact-check’ is an attempt to censor a debate on the open question of the origins of COVID-19” (CHD vs Facebook Complaint, 201113). This practice is antithetical to science.