Thread by @Ayjchan

Just listened to this interesting @nature podcast on COVID's origins and the 'lab leak' theory. First reaction is that it's very light on evidence and heavy on motive speculation.

Some top points below...
nature.com/articles/d4158…

One, in terms of evidence available to date, there's just as much evidence for a lab leak as there is for a natural spillover causing the current pandemic.

People speculating lab vs natural origins are either way building off zero definitive evidence.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1363527530821660674

Two, there's a weird myth going around that the WIV was built in Wuhan because it's a SARS spillover zone.

100% incorrect.

Wuhan city is NOT a SARS spillover zone. The human population there has even been used as a negative control in studies for human exposure to SARS viruses.

Three, the reason why a lot of people want to know whether SARS2 / COVID-19 could've come from a lab is because we don't want to relive this.

If we don't find out where this virus came from, we can't push for effective prevention and risk reduction.

Some scientists gave @amymaxmen a bizarre answer for why they think other scientists are advocating for an investigation of the lab leak hypothesis:

If SARS2 came from a lab, some virologists would lose their funding, and that funding could be given to other scientists.

I know millions are spent on pathogen hunting, but if you look at the entire picture of scientific funding and how that funding is allocated, you could completely debunk this strange claim.

It's not like retracting funding from EcoHealth will suddenly rain $ on cancer research.

Another major error in this podcast - around the 15:00 min mark, @amymaxmen says a bat virus found in Thailand is very similar to SARS2, including in its spike gene. This is unfortunately not true:

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1359682360921518080

I don't know if this was another error in communication between scientists and journalists. But please get the facts correct. It's in the abstract of the @nature paper: "(Spike) RBD of RacCS203 or RmYN02 failed to bind ACE2"

Fig 1 even shows the closest viruses are from China.

To address this question directly:

Are there anti-science people claiming that SARS2 leaked from a lab?

Of course.

Does that mean that lab origins of covid are not plausible?

No. Many top experts think lab leak is plausible and should be investigated.

https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1358081726996742145

And it’s not because all these top experts are hoping that their virus-hunting colleagues’ funding will be taken away and given to them instead 🤣

It’s also not because some scientists are inherently anti-GMO or anti-pathogen research.

I’m possibly among one of the most pro-GMO people. I think it’s the only way forward as we inevitably burn our planet to the ground.

Scientists asking for more regulation and oversight over pathogen research are not anti-pathogen research.

That would be like saying someone who advocates for seat belts and no drunk driving is somehow anti-transportation.

Seriously, how can you not even have a damn spreadsheet describing these virus collection expeditions after pouring all these millions into it?

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1361464727155707904

Also, has evidence shown whether the infamous FCS evolved naturally or was inserted in a lab?

There’s no evidence. We have no idea. SARS2 is the only SARS virus known to have an inserted S1/S2 FCS.

Yet, WIV didn’t even mention this major novel feature in their @nature paper.

No new SARS2-like virus has ruled out or presented evidence inconsistent with the FCS of SARS2 being inserted in a lab.

There’s also no direct evidence the SARS2 FCS was inserted in a lab.