Malone on ‘Is the Current Bird Flu Made in America?’

Dr. Robert Malone’s recent provocative article addresses claims made by a paper published in Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences and subsequent public commentary regarding the origins of the H5N1 bird flu strain, clade 2.3.4.4b. While the article raises important points about scientific rigor, conflicts of interest, and the dangers of misinformation, it occasionally adopts a tone that may undermine its balanced critique, raising the prospect of the use of fear mongering or even bioterrorism tactics as part of a scheme to monetize vitamins, supplements and various medicine kits.

Malone’s critique centers on Dr. Peter McCullough the well-known cardiologist and public health professional committed to use of repurposed drugs who also happens to be a TrialSite advisory committee member.

Dr. Malone points out that the cited paper does not provide conclusive evidence for the claim that the H5N1 strain originated from gain-of-function (GOF) research at the USDA lab in Athens, Georgia, or the Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands. TrialSite would concur with this vantage, and in fact have published articles arriving at the same conclusion. There is not sufficient evidence to declare with certainly that H5N1 is a human engineered pathogen. It’s got quite a different history that SARS-CoV-2 for example, which was highly likely engineered. 

The paper uses speculative language, such as "may be" and "could have contributed," indicating that it is a hypothesis rather than a definitive conclusion.

Malone’s key critique of McCullogh and colleagues include first limitations of expertise. None of the authors according to Malone have a virology or viral evolution background. Analyzing complex viral evolution and conducting cladistic or geospatial analyses require advanced and specialized training, argues Malone

Importantly, Malone alleges a conflict of interest (COI). Dr. Malone highlights an undisclosed COI involving the senior author’s affiliation with The Wellness Company, which markets products that could financially benefit from increased public fear of avian influenza. Does this omission raise legitimate questions about the paper's objectivity?

Also, the article rightly warns about the dangers of speculative claims regarding GOF research. Irresponsible accusations can harm public trust, damage reputations, and create unnecessary fear.

What are some of the problems with Dr. Malone’s piece? While the paper lacks conclusive evidence, outright dismissal of its hypothesis could undermine the call for further investigation. Hypotheses, even speculative ones, are a starting point for scientific inquiry and should not be discounted solely because of the authors' expertise gaps.

The tone and terminology in the piece raises the tension between parties. Dr. Malone’s use of terms like "psychological bioterrorism" and "irresponsible" to describe the claims and their propagation risks polarizing readers. A more neutral tone would support his goal of promoting objective scientific discussion.

While expertise is critical, it is not the sole determinant of a paper’s value. A more constructive approach might focus on the data and methodology rather than disproportionately emphasizing the authors’ backgrounds.

Plus, a historical context is omitted. The article does not fully explore the extensive history and established natural evolution pathways of H5N1 strains, which could provide critical context to counter claims of laboratory origins.

What we recommend to the parties moving forward. A balanced critique and suggestions are always good, at least most of the time. For example, strengthening one’s scientific rigor.

Dr. Malone effectively underscores the need for rigorous peer review and proper COI disclosures in scientific publishing. Journals should ensure that hypotheses with significant public health implications are subjected to thorough review by qualified experts.

It’s always recommended to encourage investigation less any bias. Rather than labeling hypotheses as "false" prematurely, the article could advocate for transparent, unbiased investigations into the origins of H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b. This would align with the scientific principle of testing and validating claims.

Sensationalism generally is not good. Both the authors of the original paper and public commentators like Dr. McCullough should refrain from making sweeping statements unsupported by evidence. This applies equally to critics like Dr. Malone, who might benefit from a more measured tone to foster constructive dialogue as well.

And what about addressing the broader issue? Herein we refer to the broader implications of such claims—like public fear and the erosion of trust in scientific institutions—should prompt online scientific and medical policymakers and researchers to prioritize transparency and communication about GOF research and biosecurity.

Conclusion

Dr. Malone’s article serves as a reminder of the importance of scientific integrity, transparency, and responsible communication. While his critique highlights valid concerns about the cited paper’s speculative nature and potential COI on the one hand, on the other hand, the tone and outright dismissal of the hypothesis could hinder balanced discourse.   

On the topic of COI, this typically only applies to someone with a material ownership interest but the Sunshine Act certainly made disclosure far more onerous.

In the case of McCullough, it’s probably appropriate to disclose any commercial ties, never a bad thing whether a rule says to do so or not.

A more constructive approach, emphasizing further investigation and objective discussion, would strengthen the critique and promote public trust in the scientific process. Generally, TrialSite suggests valuable critics like Malone and McCullough need to find more commonality, applied for the betterment of all of us.

At the end of the day, TrialSite was launched to drive more transparency, accessibility and balanced reporting to the world of biomedical research, whomever is the target subject.

On the one hand, we concur there is not enough evidence to make any conclusive claims as to a GOF origins of the bird flu. We have stated this in multiple articles at this point. But we will remain open-minded, as that is what the scientific project is all about. Let us find the evidence.

On the other hand, we will not engage in overt public attacks on others and their motives. From time to time, we may slip, but we unwaveringly commit ourselves to being as objective and unbiased as humanly possible. 

While McCullogh is a trusted member of our TrialSite advisory committee—and we have chronicled his commitment to saving lives from early on in the pandemic,  we don’t necessarily agree with all of his hypotheses. And that’s OK too. This is the point of science and the scientific project itself. It does not mean that we cannot accept and support different vantages, we just may not ultimately agree, based on the weight of the evidence.  

Where commerce may be an underlying influence, simple disclosures are the way to go. Remember all, America was built on commerce, it’s the underling basis for much of our existence, frankly. This is why educated consumers, including patients, are so very important and one big reason why we launched TrialSite toward the end of 2018 in the first place.

The more committed we all can be to principes over personalities, to scientific methods and an open minded ethos, the better off we will all become.

Happy 2025!