.@nymag and @nicholsonbaker8: This article is filled with wild speculation about SARS-CoV-2's origins and signifies a lack of understanding around basic genetics and viral evolution. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
The story cherry-picks from research and statements prior to 2020 to make the same misconceived arguments about SARS-CoV-2 bioengineering that have been debunked repeatedly for nearly a year. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
Ex. The story pulls this quote from Feb 2020, saying a coronavirus is “unlikely to have four amino acids added all at once"
Just last month, we learned of two variants w/ 17 and 10 similar changes arising naturally in the UK and South Africa, respectively nymag.com/intelligencer/…
Aside from the scientific mistakes, the story primarily quotes sources that have long been peddling the lab-release theory of SARS-CoV-2's origins. It is one of the most unbalanced articles that I've ever read. I can't believe that you've picked it as your cover story.
.@NYMag claims "its fact-checking team spent a month vetting the story" and that two molecular biologists "provided critical feedback to help ensure the accuracy of the work"
I find that surprising, given the story is missing basic counterexamples...
For example, this study from July predicts the lineage behind SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades. Just wondering if you caught it? #AskingForAFriend
nature.com/articles/s4156…
Truly @NYMag, you could have contacted @stgoldst, so that he could explain some of the strong evidence against the bioengineered origins of SARS-CoV-2 in the space of three tweets
That's the thing, @Ayjchan. The @nymag/@nicholsonbaker8 article doesn't just speculate.
Its primary takeaway is that the SARS-CoV-2 was bioengineered, even though it doesn't objectively present the evidence to the contrary.
.@R_H_Ebright: Just because you say “something is *possible*” doesn’t mean “it is probable.”
As a seasoned scientist, you’re likely familiar with the value of this distinction...
Likewise, I am familiar with your reputation for Twitter discourse aka insults, so here’s a rapid-fire list of flaws with @nicholsonbaker8’s piece for @NYMag and with your collective reasoning.
1) Nicholson says his central assertion “isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just a theory.” This is incorrect.
By alleging without verifiable proof that the researchers were willfully involved with bioengineering SARS-CoV-2, he peddled a conspiracy theory.
pbs.org/newshour/scien…
2) Next, let’s go to Merriam-Webster’s definition of debunk, which means “ ***to expose*** the sham or falseness of…”
In other words, it doesn't mean “to rule out.”... merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deb…
...and so yes, there are plenty of debunkers about the "SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured" conspiracy theory.
the-scientist.com/news-opinion/t…
cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspecti…
snopes.com/news/2020/07/1…
nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/0…
3) Nicholson’s breakdown of the furin cleavage site begins by obfuscating basic counterpoints to his position.
If I may clarify: The feature isn’t found in SARS/SARS-like bat viruses, but something similar is seen in MERS...aka a coronavirus from bats related to SARS and SARS2.
4) Next, there is this quote from Feb 2020.
This quote’s inclusion and the subsequent takeaway are surprising, given that a June study of bat coronaviruses from Yunnan, China reported a three–amino acid insertion at the same site: cell.com/current-biolog…
This June study doesn’t seem to be on the radar of Yuri Deigin (@ydeigin), the biotech entrepreneur whose writing on SARS-CoV-2 is described as “lucid” by the @NYMag cover story.
5) Another curious observation: Yuri published an essay two months ago that is strikingly similar to the @NYMag cover story, both in terms of content and structure.
I would share it here, but I’m sure NY Mag’s weeks of editing and fact-checking noticed the similarities.
Yet another surprise: Yuri’s essay cherry-picks, too.
One of its early lines says the Wuhan market had been dismissed as a source of the outbreak... citing a WSJ article that stated both the market AND the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been ruled out. wsj.com/articles/china…
6) And once again, Nicholson’s takeaway about the furin cleavage site, as written, is that SARS-2’s “natural mutations were smaller and more haphazard,” which is illogical given the amino acid changes observed in two recent variants...
...and given that the SARS-CoV-2 lineage has circulated in the wild for decades aka had ample time to adapt naturally.
7) Does @nicholsonbaker8's cover story for @NYMag present any recent evidence of an accidental release involving a coronavirus? I read examples from 20 years ago involving SARS1.
I see cherry-picked safety assessments from 2004, which are likewise outdated...
...And I see plenty of speculation centered on circumstantial wire cables from 2018 about BSL-4 labs, even though *CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH ISN’T CONDUCTED IN BSL-4 LABS!*
Truly, did Nicholson find any indication that a laboratory accident involving a coronavirus happened anywhere in 2019? Or in the last five years? The last 10 years?
This story is supposedly an investigation. Did the writer look into it?
I suspect the answer is “no,” hence why this story resorts to listing out convoluted speculation about bioengineering.
Remove the speculative parts from @NYMag's cover story, and what would even be left?
8) There are fundamental errors of fact. For example, the SARS-1 pandemic started in 2002, and yet the story says:
9) The story is astoundingly one-sided.
Weeks of writing/editing/fact-checking, and Nicholson couldn’t find a single evolutionary biologist to discuss the natural adaptation of SARS-CoV-2? You spoke with Ralph Baric by phone, but did you discuss this topic in-depth with him?
10) Along those lines, @Ayjchan and @R_H_Ebright:
If you made an observation in the lab that contradicted your hypothesis, would you willfully omit/ignore the data in order to keep presenting the idea as plausible?
.@Ayjchan: You claim that this NY Mag piece is suitable Gonzo journalism.
My Q: Why would you, as a scientist, ever want to see a non-objective take of technical evidence in a public setting? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the scientific method and empirical research?
12) All of which brings us back to having confidence in “what’s possible” versus “what’s probable”
First, a quick sidebar:
Do you believe in the existence of black holes?
Technically, there is no direct evidence for a black hole. Even this photo from 2019 could be considered an indirect measure.
Yet we have strong "indirect" evidence pointing to the existence of black holes, hence why scientists and the lay public think that black holes exist.
With SARS2, you claim there is no evidence for its zoonotic origins because the virus hasn’t been isolated from a bat or intermediate animal host.
Related Q, @Ayjchan: In July, you said you're familiar with stories about Ebola spilling over from animals.
That is surprising...
...because the Zaire ebolavirus wasn’t detected in bats until January 2019--years after the start of recent outbreaks and decades after the virus's emergence. nytimes.com/2019/01/24/hea…
Indeed @Ayjchan, there are no documented cases of direct bat-to-human transmission of Zaire ebolavirus.
However, there is plenty of robust “indirect” evidence involving immunology and epidemiology. nature.com/articles/s4159…
So, when you claim SARS-CoV-2 is manufactured, you’re simultaneously disregarding the boatload of indirect evidence that shows the virus arose naturally...outside of a lab...without manipulation.
That’s what is unscientific and unbalanced about your words. Good day to you.
Ok, let's continue:
Honestly @Ayjchan, I'm starting to believe that you didn't read Nicholson's story all the way to the end...
At this point @Ayjchan and @R_H_Ebright, what are you even trying to say to me? And your disregard for genomic observations/Evo bio findings remains stunning and unscientific.
Finally, the takeaway about the three-amino-acid insertion isn't from friends of the author--but rather, a completely separate research group.
advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/27/e…
We’re only 5 days into 2021, and we have a contender for the worst/funniest takes of the year.
Ruh-roh: He doesn’t know the difference between an evidence-based review/analysis and an op-ed. 🙈
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.