In reference to the above sometimes I like to go to the source. While the letter signed by 27 Scientists is alleged in the above links, it isn't directly cited from what I can see. So lets examine that letter in detail;
Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 - The Lancet
I encourage people to read the letter, and to note its date, and to see the several oddities that I outline. I'll rebut some paragraph by paragraph;
We have watched as the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular, have worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak, put in place significant measures to reduce its impact, and share their results transparently with the global health community. This effort has been remarkable.
The above reads as solidarity. Its effusive with praise for the China efforts, look at the bolding by me. Lets break down some fact checking. First China did not reduce the impact of Covid-19 except possibly within its borders. The virus has instead become a global pandemic. So retrospectively the claim is rendered false. Second, that the current enquires are happening a year later, and only involving the team leads of selected parties, that are defending the Chinese efforts in this letter is suspicious. Again names like Daszak, Drosten, Colwell are signatories. The efforts of who have been questioned in terms of conflict of interests. But they are revealing that in this crafted letter. In short does an investigation, a year later, by colleagues connected to China, to Wuhan labs, is this "transparency" is this going to be open account. Or is it organized whitewash. The reader can decide. Finally, "the effort has been remarkable". Why is that subjective appraisal even occurring in a letter in the Lancet. Indeed why is the letter itself published by the Lancet, it is not a study, it is not results from a study, it is not peer reviewed. It is a letter from a particular aligned collective.
Next;
We sign this statement in solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak. We are all in this together, with our Chinese counterparts in the forefront, against this new viral threat.
Well, theres the solidarity right there I spoke of, in bold, in the letter. At least its accurate, because thats all this is. Solidarity, right or wrong, truth or untruth solidarity. The letter is actually stating it. They may as well have completed the picture and said unconditional solidarity, I would posit it could be one and the same. But even if one disputes any conjecture I question "who continue to save lives and protect global health" Again, retrospectively this claim has been proven false. This did not occur. Global health was not protected. "We are all in this together with Chinese counterparts" Yeah, spell it out for us, thanks.
Next;
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
The bolded is problematic. Because it is not standard Scientific nomenclature, or practice to "Stand together to strongly condemn". More typical terminology is that "the study has been refuted" "The findings are not corroborated" "our findings do not support X study" "upon further research the findings of the study are not corroborated. Those are examples of stated Scientific refutation. The bolded statement is not. It clearly states what it is. Its condemnation, which is not the natural domain of Scientists, but appears that subversion of Scientific process and impartiality has occurred in present day.
I mean the letter, the Lancet, the wording, the "solidarity with China, and the "we stand united, together, with our Chinese counterparts". Figuratively we stand united to condemn (our adversaries) Is not typical Scientific nomenclature it reads more like Maoist script. In this letter they are acknowledging coopted process.