Thread by @Ayjchan

I'm proud of VIRAL. @mattwridley & I had to write this book in record time, compiling months of research and fact checking the book multiple times.

Despite great efforts by natural origin proponents, they have failed to point out even a single piece of misinformation in VIRAL.

@mattwridley The largest criticisms have been that VIRAL is too technical for some readers and that it does not conclude whether SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 emerged naturally or due to research activities.

We can't do anything about the latter because there is no direct evidence for either origin.

One question that often comes up is how can we investigate now that 2 years has passed? Isn't this a situation where we will never know the #OriginOfCovid?

My answer is no, there are so many approaches of investigation still left unexplored. It's way too early to give up.

The problem is that many of these routes of inquiry, if clearly specified in the book or publicly, will unnecessarily stigmatize numerous individuals and entities. These investigations should be conducted in a way that protects them from being targeted by the public.

I'm more than happy to be consulted for investigations or commissions on #OriginOfCovid, but VIRAL will not be laying out steps (naming individuals or entities) for investigative efforts.

I recently submitted my recommendations on this topic to the UK Parliament STC.

Some other criticisms from pro-natural origin scientists & journalists are that the book does not go deeply enough into mechanisms of recombination in viruses, and that it should answer for pseudoscientific theories that the book does not mention and neither Matt nor I endorse.

For example, one particular straw man that natural origin folks keep banging on is that RaTG13 was somehow transformed into SARS-CoV-2 in the Wuhan lab.

This is a hypothesis I have repeatedly called a straw man or implausible in public.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1427746937936171014

Probably because there is no misinformation in our book, critics have tried to insert their own misinformation or even propagate their own misinformation in critical reviews of the book.

Another example:

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1460220663386591234

It gives me confidence in the robustness of the book if its worst critics cannot find a single piece of misinformation in it and have to invent their own misinformation or ask us to answer for misinformation spread by other people.