Andersen on the DARPA proposal: “I was quite appalled, actually, to see it released now. I think the U.S.-based researchers that were on this particular grant have done a huge disservice by not releasing this information earlier.”
Hey Andersen, how about releasing the redacted emails? Transparency for thee but not for me?
Andersen then: RaTG13 changed my mind.
Andersen now: The pangolin-coronavirus discovery helped change my mind.
Can't make up your mind on what changed your mind?
"Andersen emphasized that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the work described in the proposal was actually done."
This is not true.
DARPA proposal: Design LIPS assays for high and low jump risk SARSr-CoV QS.
June 2019 WIV thesis:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One aspect that stands out in the leaked Project DEFUSE documents: "the team had planned to take sequences from naturally occurring coronaviruses and use them to create a brand new sequence that was an average of all the strains." telegraph.co.uk/world-news/202…
"This means that they would take various sequences from similar coronaviruses and create a new sequence that is essentially the average of them. It would be a new virus sequence, not a 100 per cent match to anything."
"They would then synthesise the viral genome from the computer sequence, thus creating a virus genome that did not exist in nature but looks natural as it is the average of natural viruses."
Before I wade into this, a caveat: EcoHealth's proposal was rejected by DARPA. (However that doesn’t mean they backtracked on the plan. Everything written in it makes it sound they had a framework, a plan on how to proceed.) The proposal also introduces some new material facts.
Why David Relman and his colleagues told the world that we need to investigate both of COVID-19’s origin stories: “Listen, despite all this yakking, we actually don’t know a whole lot based on hard data. We have a lot of assumptions, but..very little data" stanfordmag.org/contents/germ-…
"[Some scientists] violated the principles of scientific investigation by saying, “Despite the fact that we don’t have much of an evidentiary basis for saying any of this, we’re going to tell you how we think this all went down.”"
"their assumption that because we haven’t heard of anything closer, there can’t be anything closer, is flawed. They continue to say that because we don’t see anything closer in a lab, it couldn’t have come from a lab."
In Y3 of EHA's grant report, the same figure is quoted: "Host-virus co-phylogeographic analysis of a diverse group of >1,300 bat CoVs showing that
these viruses have a larger host range, weaker host specificity and higher frequency of cross-genera transmission.." 2/4
However in Latinne et al. published in @Nature (2020), they only report 1,246 sequences: “Our final datasets include 630 sequences generated for this study and 616 sequences from GenBank or GISAID.” (1,229 sequences in the supplementary material) 3/4 nature.com/articles/s4146…
"All but one scientist who penned a letter in The Lancet dismissing the possibility that coronavirus could have come from a lab in Wuhan were linked to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or funders"
"Conflicts of interest were not reported for any of the other 26 signers of the letter – not even those with obviously material undisclosed conflicts such as EcoHealth employees and Predict contractors."
"The standard remedy for fraudulent statements in scientific publications is retraction. It is unclear why retraction was not pursued.”