COVID Origins: Liu et al 2020 Retraction Request

Abstract

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.

Full text

COVID Origins: Liu et al 2020 Retraction Request
Request for Editorial Action for Liu et al. 2020 (June 14, 2024)
BIOSAFETY NOW, https://biosafetynow.substack.com/p/covid-origins-liu-et-al-2020-retraction
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
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
1. Shan-Lu Liu, Linda J Saif, Susan R Weiss, Lishan Su. No credible evidence supporting claims of the
laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Feb 26;9(1):505-507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440
2. The released email messages are available here.
3. “Chinese-linked journal editor sought help to rebut Covid-19 lab origin hypothesis” by Sainath
Suryanarayanan (April 7, 2021)
4. “Scientists who authored article denying lab engineering of SARS-CoV-2 privately acknowledged
possible lab origin, emails show” by Shannon Murray (August 11, 2021)
5. Detailed social media reporting of the key emails are available here.---
6. Why Do People Not “Trust the Science”? Because Like All People, Scientists Are Not Always
Trustworthy (Paul Thacker, Jan 11, 2022)
7. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/defining-authorship-research-
paper/