One of the Proximal Origin authors told @theintercept that their letter has "held up extremely well".
Really? Aside from the messy reveal of the origin of Proximal Origin, has the scientific content held up at all?
theintercept.com/2022/01/12/cov…
Really? Aside from the messy reveal of the origin of Proximal Origin, has the scientific content held up at all?
theintercept.com/2022/01/12/cov…
We know Wuhan scientists were serial passaging novel viruses in a range of cell lines.
We know they were part of a collaboration with a roadmap for inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses.
We know they had direct & exclusive access to SARS2-like viruses.
We know they were part of a collaboration with a roadmap for inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses.
We know they had direct & exclusive access to SARS2-like viruses.
We know that we have barely any insight into the viruses discovered by the Wuhan Institute of Virology after 2016.
We know that they were culturing, genetically engineering SARS-like viruses, and performing infection experiments in cells and animals at low safety BSL2 or 3.
We know that they were culturing, genetically engineering SARS-like viruses, and performing infection experiments in cells and animals at low safety BSL2 or 3.
I'd say that the scientific arguments presented in Proximal Origin have been systematically disproved over the past ~2 years.
As to the author's assertion that the paper was not written to mislead or to shut down discussion of a lab origin, they can provide us with their Feb 4 draft of Proximal Origin and their unredacted emails as proof.
Ready any time they are to look at the evidence in their hands.
Ready any time they are to look at the evidence in their hands.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
