A few comms on the (lack of) scientific merits of the "Yan Report". It is non-scientific and false - cherry picking data and ignoring data disproving their hypotheses.

It's using technical language that is impossible to decode for non-experts - poppycock dressed up as 'science'.
I'll focus on the 'scientific' claims as the connection of the authors to Steve Bannon and other political operatives has already been covered: .

Here's the report in question: zenodo.org/record/4028830….
- "SARS-CoV-2 was created using ZC45 and/or ZXC21 bat coronaviruses".

This simply can't be true - there are more than 3,500 nucleotide differences between SARS-CoV-2 and these viruses.
- The report ignores ALL recent coronavirus data from pangolins and bats.

Had this been included, the data would have invalidated all the 'mysterious' homology findings in the report as they relate to matrix protein, Orf8, receptor binding domain, etc.
- "Smoking gun" in the form of restriction sites.

These sites are not unique, are all present in genomes ignored by the authors (e.g., RaTG13), and are expected to be present by random chance. None of these would have been used for cloning.
- Blueprint for how to make SARS-CoV-2.

Instead of following the absurd 'recipe' for creating SARS-CoV-2 described in the report, here's how one could actually do it:
- "Proximal Origin" paper authors are conflicted.

Not correct - my lab has never received funding from China and we have no collaborations with Chinese investigators. I have no financial interests in China. All our analyses are scientific and unbiased.
- Okay, I know I said I wouldn't include this, but it's relevant...

And final comment - yes, I turned off replies on this thread because the insanity is frankly tiring - we all have real research to do, trying to get a handle on the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have no further comments on this report - let's keep focus on what's important. Together.
I really try hard to stay on point and on the science, but here's the 'leadership' of the Rule of Law Society discussing "Captain Marvel" (Dr. Yan) - maybe an upcoming paper on Hydroxy is next?

Bizarro beyond belief.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Kristian G. Andersen

Kristian G. Andersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @K_G_Andersen

29 Aug
@Ayjchan @stgoldst @RozSofia Yup, and this is the type of evidence that we really need to consider carefully, because here lies the risk of prior work. SARS-like CoVs have been cultured for a decade at WIV, both in vitro and in vivo - and the work with bat CoVs (so not SARS), likely at BSL-2.
@Ayjchan @stgoldst @RozSofia A novel just-discovered virus like RaTG13 (or SARS-CoV-2 before it jumped to humans) would likely have been in BSL-2. This type of work is very hard and despite tons of samples, the WIV has managed to culture three such viruses previously - all known from the literature.
@Ayjchan @stgoldst @RozSofia So how do we know they didn't culture SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic? We don't, but there's no evidence to suggest they did. The FCS is lost in culture, the RBD is seen in nature, so there's nothing suggesting culture - plus there's no evidence of the virus prior to pandemic.
Read 5 tweets
26 Aug
'Reinfected' patient:

1. One positive RT-PCR for episode 1.
2. IgG (-) 10 days after ep 1 and just after ep 2.
3. IgG (+) 5 days after ep 2.

I don't doubt reinfections occur, but this does not constitute a proof - more likely a false positive ep 1.


I find it deeply problematic that this was widely covered by media with conclusions drawn about what it means for COVID-19 immunity and vaccines - whether it be "vaccines are not going to work" or "this is immunity as expected". Fact is, we learn nothing from this case.

We know reinfections can occur - because nothing is ever 100% when it comes to immunology - but we (a) don't know the frequency at which it occurs, and (b) the time-dependence.

Speculating what this single (likely false) result means for COVID-19 immunity is futile.

Read 7 tweets
21 May
Three separate papers out today on DNA vaccines and natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Overall, I'm quite optimistic after seeing these results - especially from @InovioPharma: nature.com/articles/s4146…

The INO-4800 DNA-based vaccine (full-length S) from Inovio was shown in the paper to induce both neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and T-cell responses in two different animal models - no challenge in this study though.

This in itself is not enough to make me optimistic, however, this data should be seen together with the recent Phase 1/2a trial for their INO-4700 MERS vaccine (also full-length S), which was shown to be safe and elicitic nAbs: biospace.com/article/releas…

Read 8 tweets
20 May
A lot of government reports from European countries on seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 this week and they all show the same - it's low.

Spain ~5%
Italy ~5%
Sweden ~5%
Denmark ~1%
Norway < 1%

Let's end the discussion about miracles and natural herd immunity? The data is in.
This also means John can go back to writing his sequel - I propose calling it "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - with Personal Examples from Ongoing Pandemics".

I'll just link to this excellent thread:
Finally, I should clarify - when I say the data are in, I don't mean that these results should be seen as final - they're preliminary. However, I strongly believe that by now it is clear (as it has been from the beginning) that exposures are low and we shouldn't bet on miracles.
Read 4 tweets
1 Apr
Some countries - e.g.🇩🇰 - are talking about slowly building herd immunity against #COVID19. IMO this is the wrong strategy - three points:

1. Herd immunity would require 70% immune
2. Immunity to SARS appears to be short (?)
3. @MRC_Outbreak estimates 1% currently infected in 🇩🇰 ImageImage
Given these factors, trying to slowly build herd immunity in a population with a virus with Re~2.5 and CFR~1.5% isn't realistic - especially since we currently don't understand immunity to HCoV-19. We must instead focus on using the Asian model of testing, tracing, and isolating.
I obviously hope I'm wrong - that immunity is much longer lasting (life-long, please!) and a lot of people get infected without having symptoms (while still becoming immune) - but until we have data, I would rather not hope and instead focus on proven strategies (look to Asia!).
Read 5 tweets
27 Mar
The thing that concerns me the most at the moment is that three months from now there will be two types of countries - those that believe you can control #COVID19 transmission in a population slowly building up herd immunity, and those that know that you cannot.
As the most incompetent country when it comes to COVID-19 response is yet again toying with the idea of natural herd immunity (i.e., "The We Gave Up Strategy"), it is worth noting that over the last many months, literally nothing has changed with respect to what needs to be done.
There was a time where we *thought* tried and true basic public health strategies might do the trick, but we now *know* that they do - we have known for months.

Yet, out of sheer incompetence the world's largest economy still lives in complete denial.

Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!