Seems like the csv files from relational database to collate & share project data: wabnet.eha.io
have been emptied of data & just left with headings (or never completed which is unlikely):
1. Barcoding 2. Bat Data (note Coronavirus Columns) 3. Screening 4. Site Data
All empty of Data....
5. Trapping Events 6. Site Photographs 7. Site Videos 8. Acoustic Recordings
But Data was collected...
So, can someone ask Kevin J Olival @nycbat@EpsteinJon@klphelps Nisreen Alhmoud, Shahzad Ali, Rasit Bilgin, Keti Sidamonidze, Lela Urushadze, Luke Hamel @lukemh97 or William Karesh @Dr_Wildlife (EHA) for the data?
What Data?
270 bats in 2 countries
5,000 Bats (2018 -2023)
20,000 Samples screened for Coronaviruses
(at Lugar Lab in Georgia)
I would love to be able to ask, but they don't like inquisitive Monkeys at Eco Death Alliance ;)
Their published paper:
Bat Research Networks and Viral Surveillance: Gaps and Opportunities in Western Asia
We certainly know that some Lugar Centre collected Georgian coronavirus infected bat samples were "shipped" to Atlanta CDC BSL4 for experiments, and how they were shipped:
Documents here in Russian, mainly on Ukrainian "biolabs" & some references to Georgia, which is for me, a more interesting focus, given the bat cov research & proven transport of samples to US
The link is censored by Twitter so find it yourself using the text or image.
This thread is about Georgia, not about the so-called "ukrainian biolabs", a campaign likely being used opportunistically during the fog of war, as discussed in detail here:
1. What appears wasteful research to you in the present may be of great value to you or others in the future, if it is given the time to develop to its logical end.
Don’t judge the usefulness of your findings too quickly!
2. What appears wasteful or a dead end to you..
May be of immense value to somebody else!
Don’t judge the usefulness:
1. Of other people’s findings based only on your own assessment of them.
2. Of your own findings based only on your own current assessment of them either.
3. What appears wasteful and a dead end to you..
A. May be the raw stuff that new hypotheses and new research directions are born from.
B. Don’t judge the usefulness of your "investigations" until you have given them enough time to surprise you.
-Deliberate release of bioweapon
-Accidental release of bioweapon in development
-Lab accident during genetic engineering
-Lab accident during cell culture
-Lab accident during vaccine development
-Accidental infection that no one knew about
2⃣ WCDC
• Lab worker infected during field animal sampling
• Accident during experimental work
• Accident from exposure to infected waste
• Accident during move to new location
• WCDC gave bat samples to the WIV
3⃣ Virus engineering
•Engineered from RaTG13
•Engineered from pool of bat viruses (Laos)
•Engineered from secret database of bat viruses
•Engineered at UNC & shipped to the WIV
•Engineered hybrid of bat & pangolin viruses🐵
•Synthetic infectious clone engineered in vitro
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).