2. The Problem via @Ayjchan
"The question now is how do we make sure the next phase of @WHO#OriginOfCovid isn't subject to more of these pressures coming from parties with reasonably perceived conflicts of interest
Was its SAGO membership also determined under these influences?
"It is vitally important that SAGO can develop a pathway for the scientific research of pathogens, including for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 & we hope to see progress quickly in the New Year"
"In May 2020, the World Health Assembly, through resolution WHA73.1, requested the DG of the WHO to identify the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the route of introduction to the human population"
"To advise the WHO on developing, monitoring & supporting studies into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, including rapid advice on WHO's plans to implement the next series of global studies into the origins of SARS-CoV-2"
12. All Hypotheses remain on the Table (March 2021)
“As far as WHO is concerned, all hypotheses remain on the table. We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do”
They use a dataset skewed toward Yunnan & Laos (p. 16), leading to phylogeographic models that place SARS-CoV ancestors far from Wuhan & Guangdong (p. 12).
This sampling bias undermines the reliability of their geographic inferences.
23. Neglecting Alternative Hypotheses
No SARS-CoV-like viruses near emergence sites?
They completely overlook non-bat reservoirs, like civets or pangolins, which could explain local circulation (p. 15).
This omission weakens their claim of distant ancestor origins (p. 12).
24. Inconsistent Molecular Clock Rates
The paper misuses variable NRR-specific clock rates, which give inconsistent SARS-CoV ancestor dates (e.g., 1944–2014 for SARS-CoV-2, p. 9).
Without any validation of bat-specific rates, this approach has no rational grounding (p. 14).
"our inferences of the time of the ancestors of human SARS-CoVs and their closest bat sarbecoviruses are UNBIASED"
6. Captain Obvious Strikes Again (1)
"we show that the ancestors of SARS-CoV-1 & SARS-CoV-2 likely circulated in horseshoe bat populations 100s to 1000s km away from the sites of the emergence of these viruses in humans & as recently as one to six years prior to this emergence"
7. Captain Obvious Strikes Again (2)
"Our findings indicate that there would not have been sufficient time for the direct bat virus ancestor to reach the locations of emergence of the human SARS-CoVs via normal dispersal through bat populations alone"
Fragments of human SARS-CoVs share recent common ancestors with bat viruses
SARS-CoV-like viruses have circulated in Asia for millennia
Ancestors of human SARS-CoVs likely circulated in China & Laos
Ancestors traveled unexpectedly fast
2. No Pangolins allowed!
There is insufficient temporal signal when calibrating a molecular clock using tip dating with sarbecoviruses sampled from bats & pangolins, likely as a consequence of limited sampling across space & time.
Therefore, we used SARS-CoV-1 genomes!
3. Definitely no pangolins!
As sampling locations of SARS-CoV-1, 2 & pangolin sarbecoviruses likely do not represent where their direct bat virus ancestors circulated, we EXCLUDED their locations from phylogeographic analyses to avoid the IMPACT of dispersal of non-bat hosts!
"I worked with researchers in this space - virology + combatting future pandemics - in the decade before the pandemic".
2⃣ One Fact
"The one fact that the last 5 years never readily disclosed is that the core ideology of this community of researchers was fundamentally divided"
3⃣ Lab based creation of super-viruses
"About half of the researchers, including many leading virologists whose names appeared in the news, believed and argued passionately for the lab-based creation of super-viruses and super-bacteria"