Thread by @Ayjchan

The Lancet letter 2.0 is up. This time with a declaration of interests almost as long as the letter itself.

It's more nuanced than v1.0 but still makes the mistake of not understanding that a lab leak usually involves a virus collected from nature.
thelancet.com/journals/lance…

Some again forgot to state their EcoHealth Alliance affiliation. So I would like to summarize their interests:

If it turns out Covid-19 is from a lab, several signatories affiliated with EcoHealth/PREDICT or collaborators of WIV could lose funding and/or public reputation.

For their peer-reviewed evidence for a natural origin, the letter points to 3 peer-reviewed articles all describing bat coronaviruses and 1 describing pangolins.

But actually none of them provide evidence of how SARS2 would've naturally emerged in Wuhan.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1371184652002721793

I was surprised that they cited reference 6 (an EcoHealth-WIV collaboration paper) because this is the paper that @franciscodeasis and @babarlelephant cracked, discovering that, in 2019, the WIV was working with 9 most closely related viruses to SARS2.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1392590241589043201

The 4th reference (number 5) that they cite as peer-reviewed evidence for natural origins is actually not peer-reviewed and I have addressed its 2-market hypothesis here:

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1412235366694785026

I'm starting to get a little concerned about how closely top scientists check their references before signing onto letters. At least get one of your postdocs or students to please help you!

This continues to amaze me:
"PD joined the WHO–China joint global study on the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2 towards the end of 2020 and is currently a member. As per WHO rules, this work is undertaken as an independent expert in a private capacity, not as an EcoHealth... member"

I think @michaelzlin said it best

https://twitter.com/michaelzlin/status/1407208126974087169

@michaelzlin The misinformation spiral has already begun.

"Strongest evidence yet suggests natural origins for Covid, say scientists"

What is this strongest evidence for natural origins?

Thanks @TheLancet

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1412432268921131016

@michaelzlin @TheLancet If simply the presence of wild animals for sale in Wuhan city is "strongest evidence" then may I point you to the presence of the largest SARSrCoV collection in the world also in Wuhan?

Both markets and labs sampled from regions where SARS2 relatives have been found in bats.