Thread by @Ayjchan

An addendum to the Proximal Origin letter published in @NatureMedicine is long overdue. I still see people citing this paper with little awareness of how this letter came to be and problems with both its origin and content.
nature.com/articles/s4159…

The addendum should clearly explain and address the following 3 issues:

1. Proximal Origin was the product of a private meeting in Feb 2020 among Western leaders in research/funding. Phone call Feb 1. First draft of Proximal Origin Feb 4.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1449832772672045056

Experts who provided (redacted) feedback on the manuscript were not acknowledged in the @NatureMedicine letter. The only expert thanked for contributing to discussions is M. Farzan.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1449771017094713358

On March 6, 2020, Kristian wrote to Farrar, Fauci, and Collins saying that Proximal Origin had just been accepted at @NatureMedicine

"Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 'origins' paper."

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1404546703542439942

2. The authors exhibited near-overnight complete changes in judgment.

Jan 30, lead author tweets an intermediate host might be nailed down in a month.

https://twitter.com/InWuchang/status/1418497076363726849

Jan 31, lead author says he and others “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory” & “some of the features (potentially) look engineered” in an FOIA’ed email.

Jeremy Farrar’s book released this summer told us this about the thinking of the Proximal Origin authors at this time: Ed Holmes was “80% sure this thing had come out of a lab”. Kristian Andersen 60-70%; Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry not far behind.

Even after the Feb 1 call, Jeremy Farrar said “On a spectrum if 0 is nature and 100 is release I am honestly at 50... My guess is this will remain grey unless there is access to the Wuhan lab — and I suspect that is unlikely.”

In Farrar's book, the lead author of Proximal Origin "cautioned that just because it happened in nature did not rule out unnatural origins", fearing he might be “the person who proved this new virus came from a lab”.

Yet, by Feb 4, the lead author of Proximal Origin had told another group of experts “the data conclusively show that neither (engineering for basic research or nefarious reasons) was done”.

To help restore public trust, can the authors of Proximal Origin share their Feb 4 draft of the letter with the public? And can they carefully walk us, day by day, through the emerging evidence at the time underlying their dramatic change of mind...

... from thinking an intermediate host would be found soon (Jan 30), to the virus is inconsistent with evolution (Jan 31) and a lab #OriginOfCovid is likely (Feb 1), to no engineering regardless of intent was done (Feb 4)?

Can any of the participants of the Feb 1 call commit to sharing their unredacted emails?

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1418328413878710273

3. The Proximal Origin letter itself made claims that were poorly substantiated or phrased in such a way that left many readers with the impression that there is no way SARS-CoV-2 could’ve leaked from a lab.

“since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

Any type of laboratory-based scenario.

The accompanying press from @scrippsresearch

“The COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin, scientists say”

“we can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes”

scripps.edu/news-and-event…

The lead author:
“These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2”

From an epidemics lead at UK-based Wellcome Trust (Farrar is the Director of Wellcome trust, who convened Feb 1 call & authors of Proximal Origin):
“They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution.. ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering.”

And from a news article published in the reputable @CIDRAP calling the “Lab release of natural virus” a conspiracy theory, the lead author of Proximal Origin said the new coronavirus clearly originated in nature, "no question about it by now."
cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspecti…

Although “he can't completely rule out the possibility that the virus came from a lab, the odds of that happening are very small.”

"There's no evidence for this [SARS2 coming from a Wuhan lab], but there is plenty of evidence against it."

Interestingly, the May 2020 @CIDRAP article cites James Le Duc who said Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a highly reputable scientist. "She's always been extremely open, transparent, and collaborative, and I have no reason to doubt that she's telling the truth."

Yet FOIA’ed emails show in April 2020 Le Duc said lab #OriginOfCovid “certainly possible”; “we can’t trust the Chinese government”; he never heard back from WIV after sending a “detailed plan to investigate the possibility that the lab might have been the source of the outbreak”.

Why is it so important for @NatureMedicine to publish critical responses and a clarifying addendum to Proximal Origin?

This article has been widely cited since its publication in March 2020 as evidence for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 even when little was known about this virus. 5.6 million article accesses. ~2000 citations.
nature.com/articles/s4159…

Yet today, we know virologists & experts worried in private about a lab #OriginOfCovid

Genetically engineered origin is reasonable to consider and investigate.
caltech.edu/about/news/the…

Documents recently released show that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been part of an international group of scientists proposing experiments in early 2018 that might have plausibly led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.

Proximal Origin lead author responded to this revelation: “This describes work that is, like, ‘Let’s go out and discover new viruses,’ and do things like furin cleavage sites”

@carolynkor: “Such work could have led directly to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1447905348875075585

People should not continue to cite Proximal Origin without also pointing to the significant problems and lack of transparency in how it came to be, who was involved in the conception and evolution of the letter, and why the authors had such contrasting/fickle private opinions.

Critical responses to Proximal Origin should also be published by @NatureMedicine so that readers can see opposing arguments and how the Proximal Origin reasoning might be flawed or poorly caveated.

If @NatureMedicine declines to publish a timely addendum and critical responses to Proximal Origin, I see this as a disservice to science and public trust.

Frankly, it's irresponsible and does not meet the professional standards expected of a top research journal.