This statement by Ian Lipkin in @BulletinAtomic imo is not correct:
"features of SARS-CoV-2... could not have been predicted even had someone wanted to engineer a highly transmissible and pathogenic coronavirus"
It assumes we know what other people know.
thebulletin.org/2021/07/the-kn…
"features of SARS-CoV-2... could not have been predicted even had someone wanted to engineer a highly transmissible and pathogenic coronavirus"
It assumes we know what other people know.
thebulletin.org/2021/07/the-kn…
@BulletinAtomic Once we acknowledge that we don't know what other scientists know and have in their toolkit, then we can acknowledge that it is not possible to predict what they would engineer, regardless of intent.
@BulletinAtomic If we can access their databases, lab records, theses (including those that are classified), interview lab personnel under confidential conditions, provide a robust whistleblower channel, then we can talk about knowing what other scientists knew in 2019.
@BulletinAtomic What we do know is some labs were serial passaging in different cell lines to isolate novel viruses, switching out receptor-binding domains/spikes, testing CoVs on human respiratory cells and humanized mice/civet models at BL2 & 3 respectively, and inserting FCSs into CoV spikes.
@BulletinAtomic An analogy is looking at a kitchen without knowing what ingredients or recipes the cooking team is bringing, and trying to predict what will be served later that evening. You could rely on previous dishes they've made but it's not a sure way to know what they'll be cooking.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
