"The difference between the early days of HIV science and today is the vertiginous firepower virologists now have due to phenomenal advances.. Genomes can be synthesized.. Virologists like me have been doing this since the 1980s with ever increasing ease."
dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
"EcoHealth proposed surgically precise modifications that would push these viral chimeras even further down the road towards what must bluntly be called a coronavirus admirably suited to infecting humans.
And we can all agree that SARS-CoV-2 is a macabre success story."
And we can all agree that SARS-CoV-2 is a macabre success story."
"What we do not know – and badly need to know – is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed.
Bear in mind the proposal was written in 2018, 18 months before the outbreak in Wuhan."
Bear in mind the proposal was written in 2018, 18 months before the outbreak in Wuhan."
That was the most important question I had to ask:
Who proposed this idea.
Who had access to the deep sequencing data.
Who could've follow through with cloning novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses without leaving a trace.
Who proposed this idea.
Who had access to the deep sequencing data.
Who could've follow through with cloning novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses without leaving a trace.
https://twitter.com/emilyakopp/status/1443583106837975057
The problem is we don't know how many proposals there are out there right now - funded or rejected - where scientists are putting novel gain-of-function features into novel pathogens no one has seen before.
For research that could take millions of lives, we need transparency.
For research that could take millions of lives, we need transparency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
