According to the abstract,

> The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Therefore it's unlikely that this paper will be peer-reviewed. And who would be willing to risk their career to go against the consensus (or dogma?) which has already emerged? Certainly if it were peer-reviewed, the only ones willing to do so could only damage its credibility by their status.

Maybe even more troubling than the potential that the virus is engineered. It's that why are American institutions trying to limit distribution on a scientific literature just because of the literature's implications? Chilling...

I doubt the implications are a primary motivator considering the US has been increasingly distancing itself from China anyway. Considering the makeup of academics it seems a lot more likely that you simply don't get to support republican affiliated talking points without having enough clout to survive a credibility attack.

Even if your evidence and procedures are correct you'll still be accused of something vague and indefensible like racism because your observations are somehow at fault for contributing to racist attitudes. As long as Social Justice, and by extension so social politics, focuses on belligerantly attacking any potential for dissent the situation is only going to gravitate more towards voluntary censorship.