Thread by @K_G_Andersen

Since this is making the rounds again, just a reminder that the conspiracy theory that an unfunded grant application represents a blueprint for SARS-CoV-2 was defused by the writing of DEFUSE itself.

Why? Let's start with the sub-heading itself 👇.

S2' != S1-S2.

Short 🧵.

1️⃣ The section talks about "proteolytic cleavage" in the S2' region, not the S1/S2 region where SARS-CoV-2 has a unique insert. This, alone, kills the whole assertion of DEFUSE being a blueprint - details matter.

2️⃣ The section describes work to be done in pseudotyped viruses, not isolates. SARS-CoV-2 is very much not a pseudotypes virus.

3️⃣ The proposed work was to be done in the US, not China.
4️⃣ The polybasic cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is not a canonical site and sub-optimal. The 'insertion' is out of frame. Clear marks of "just good enough" evolution, not precision molecular biology.

5️⃣ The grant was unfunded. This is not work you do on a whim.
6️⃣ We have no evidence _any_ of the work was ever done. Whenever, and wherever, we look, we come up empty-handed. People accused of having performed the work have denied it.

Clearly, it wasn't done. ODNI agrees.

7️⃣ Final point - the S1/S2 region is one of the most evolvable sites in CoVs, so observing an indel here is no surprise. SARS-CoV-2 picks up indels all the time - here's one example @alchemytoday, including "CGGCGG" coding for two Arginines.

cov-spectrum.org/explore/World/…

The DEFUSE "blueprint" accusation is no different than claims made by creationists or those pushing "intelligent design".

For SARS-CoV-2 creationists, its wrapped up in bog standard conspiracy theories as well.

For excellent technical details:



/fin