NY Times: They Lied To Us

The New York Times published an opinion column Sunday by Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist and professor at Princeton University, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.” 

In his piece, Tufekci argued that the scientific community, along with public health officials, misled the public about the origins of COVID-19, particularly by downplaying the plausibility of the lab-leak theory—the idea that the virus may have escaped from a research facility in Wuhan, China. 

She detailed how some scientists and officials allegedly suppressed dissenting views, hid crucial facts, and orchestrated efforts to present a unified narrative favoring a natural zoonotic origin, all while safety standards at the Wuhan lab may have been “terrifyingly lax.” 

This marked a significant shift for the Times, which had previously been criticized for dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis as a fringe or even “racist” conspiracy theory, notably through its science reporter Apoorva Mandavilli’s 2021 statements on X.

Tufekci’s column pointed to specific instances of alleged deception. She highlighted a 2020 Nature Medicine paper by prominent virologists that dismissed the lab-leak theory, claiming chat logs later revealed the authors intentionally misled Times reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. to steer him away from the hypothesis. 

She also cited a Lancet letter organized by EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak—whose organization collaborated with the Wuhan lab—denouncing the lab-leak idea as a conspiracy, a move later undermined by revelations of his conflict of interest. 

Tufekci further noted that figures like Jeremy Farrar, Anthony Fauci, and Francis Collins were involved in shaping narratives behind the scenes, with Farrar even using a burner phone to coordinate responses. She argued these actions eroded public trust, especially as agencies like the CIA and Department of Energy have since leaned toward the lab-leak theory, albeit with “low confidence” due to limited evidence.

The column, published nearly five years after the pandemic’s onset, sparked immediate backlash from readers and commentators, particularly on X, where sentiments ranged from vindication to outrage.

Many felt the admission was “five years too late,” accusing the Times of complicity in the initial suppression of the lab-leak discussion. Critics pointed out that the paper had been a leading voice in shaping a narrative that vilified skeptics, with one X user, Jeff Blehar of National Review, praising the piece for its evidence but noting the Times’ own role in the delay. Others, like Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey A. Tucker, called it “infuriating,” arguing that independent researchers, not the Times, had driven the truth forward despite the paper’s earlier resistance. Some readers saw hypocrisy in the Times framing itself as a victim—“we were misled”—rather than acknowledging its active role in promoting the natural-origin consensus.