This is just how scientists talk. "It is inconsistent with evolutionary theory" *only* entails 1. they have a theoretical model concerning viral evolution & 2. there are features of this virus that did not match that theory. This happens in biology & other sciences *all* the time
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1401914109407502348
Andersen went on to research the unique features of the virus and then their theory evolved. There is no conspiracy here. Andersen's letter to Nature Medicine explains their thought process. nature.com/articles/S4159…
https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/1400899040909434883
Go onto google scholar. Read some of the articles on viruses, genomes, classification, etc. Scholars are tweaking their models & their data analyses *all the time*. Researchers spend their entire careers arguing about the classification of specific viruses & evolutionary models 
Just skim these passages. You don't have to understand all the content. But pay attention to the framing. "Here's something we don't understand. Maybe this model will account for it."
Then go back and read the Fauci-Andersen exchange.
Doesn't seem so odd now, does it?
Then go back and read the Fauci-Andersen exchange.
Doesn't seem so odd now, does it?
Go back & skim Andersen's *own* work in which he discusses the unique features of SarsCOV2
And realize just how ridiculous it is to assert that a scientist would risk their personal reputation to suppress info about a virus that they knew would be widely studied
And realize just how ridiculous it is to assert that a scientist would risk their personal reputation to suppress info about a virus that they knew would be widely studied
Also, it is not odd that Andersen said "crack pot theories." It's like if a person were doing research on mice, said "this mouse's survival is inconsistent w/ my model," & was then asked if this inconsistency was evidence that his research team was building an army of Uber Mice
Finally, @NBCNews did a terrible job paraphrasing & quoting the email. "Some of the features look (potentially) engineered" is *way* more assertive than what Andersen actually said, which was more along the lines of, "if you look really, really closely, this is something strange"
Yes, it's a direct quote, but the removal of the context changes both the tone and meaning. I'm not being nitpicky.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
