Richard H. Ebright Profile picture
Sep 5, 2022 11 tweets 2 min read Read on X
COVID: summary of lab-origin hypothesis:

1) Pandemic caused by a bat SARS-like coronavirus emerged in Wuhan--a city 1,000 miles from nearest wild bats with SARS-like coronaviruses, but that contains labs conducting world's largest research program on bat SARS-like coronaviruses.
2) In 2015-2017, scientists and science-policy specialists expressed concern that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was conducting and contemplating research that posed an unacceptable risk of lab accident and pandemic (nature.com/articles/natur…;
nature.com/articles/natur…),
3) In 2017-2018, WIV constructed a novel chimeric SARS-like coronavirus that was able to infect and replicate in human airway cells and that had 10,000x enhanced viral growth and 4x enhanced lethality in mice engineered to display human receptors on cells.
4) In 2018, in an NIH grant proposal, WIV and collaborators proposed to construct more novel chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses, targeting chimeras that replace natural spike gene with novel spike genes encoding spikes that have higher binding affinities to human cells.
5) Also in 2018, in a DARPA grant proposal, WIV and collaborators proposed to construct novel "consensus" bat SARS-like coronaviruses, and to insert furin cleavage site (FCS) sequences at the spike gene S1-S2 border of bat SARS-like coronaviruses,
6) In 2017-2019, WIV constructed and characterized novel SARS-like coronaviruses at biosafety level 2, a biosafety level patently inadequate for work with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens and patently inadequate to contain a virus having transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2
7) In 2019 a novel SARS-like coronavirus having a spike with high binding affinity for human cells, and having an FCS at the spike S1-S2 border--a virus having the properties set forth in the 2018 WIV NIH and DARPA grant proposals--emerges on the doorstep of WIV.
8) SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of more than 100 known SARS-like coronaviruses that contains an FCS. This is a feature that does not rule out a natural origin, but that is more easily explained by a lab origin. Especially since insertion of FCS had been explicitly proposed in 2018.
9) The FCS of SARS-CoV-2 has codon usage unusual for bat SARS-related coronaviruses and has an 8-of-8 amino-acid-sequence identity to the FCS of human ENaCa. These are features that do not rule out a natural origin, but that are more--much more--easily explained by a lab origin.
10) In 2020-present, WIV and its funders/collaborators at EcoHealth Alliance have withheld information, misrepresented facts, and obstructed investigation...even though, if not connected to origin, they most easily could clear their name though cooperation with investigation.
*1,000 km

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard H. Ebright

Richard H. Ebright Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @R_H_Ebright

May 7
The new policy is a step backward from the policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present, a green light for the reckless research that likely caused COVID-19, a gift to the bioweapons-agents research sector, and a betrayal of the public interest.


Image
Image
Image
The definition of "potential pandemic pathogen" provided in the new policy and implementation guidance is different from the definition in the current policy, is different from the definitions used in all previous policy deliberations, and is, basically, nonsensical.
Example 1: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that SARS-CoV-2--a pathogen that currently is causing a pandemic--does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
Read 10 tweets
May 6
The definition of "potential pandemic pathogen" provided in the implementation guidance for the new policy is different from the definition in the current policy, is different from the definitions in all previous policy deliberations, and, basically, is nonsensical.
Example 1: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that SARS-CoV-2--a pathogen that currently is causing a pandemic--does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
Example 2: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that Ebola virus does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
Read 5 tweets
May 6
The newly announced US-government policy on dual-use research of concern and potential pandemic pathogen research is complex and convoluted, essentially guaranteeing failure.
The federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present were simple and had clear definitions. Nevertheless, researchers and research administrators--including Daszak, Fauci, and Collins--malfeasantly violated those policies by misrepresenting definitions in the polices.
The new policy is absurdly complex and has opaque, confusing, and self-contradictory definitions. Malfeasant researchers and research administrators will be able to violate the new policy at will and with impunity.
Read 8 tweets
May 6
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector Correct. The complexity of the new policy essentially guarantees failure and essentially guarantees inability to oversee, verify, and enforce compliance.
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector The federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present were simple and had clear definitions. Nevertheless, researchers and research administrators--including Daszak, Fauci, Collins, and Tabak--violated those policies by misrepresenting definitions in those polices.
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector The new policy is absurdly complex and has opaque, confusing, and self-contradictory definitions. Malfeasant researchers and research administrators will be able to violate the new policy at will and with impunity.
Read 7 tweets
May 5
"Today we know that the poisonous atmosphere around the lab-leak question was deliberately created by Anthony Fauci and…scientists involved in dangerous research at the Wuhan lab…[T]he case for banning gain-of-function research has never been stronger."

city-journal.org/article/unscie…
Image
"During the first two years of the pandemic, most mainstream media outlets barely mentioned the lab-leak debate. And when they did, they generally savaged both the idea and anyone who took it seriously."
"Richard Ebright, professor of chemical biology at Rutgers…, is a longtime critic of gain-of-function research…From the early weeks of the pandemic, he suspected…the virus had leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Evidence increasingly suggests…he was correct."
Read 6 tweets
May 4
"The United States shared 'gobsmacking' evidence with Britain at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic that suggested a 'high likelihood' that the virus had leaked from a Chinese lab"
telegraph.co.uk/world-news/202…
"Five Eyes intelligence-sharing nations were convened in Jan 2021 to discuss the possibility of a 'lab leak', as the US warned that China had covered up research on coronaviruses and military activity at a laboratory in Wuhan."
"In a previously unreported phone call in Jan 2021, Mike Pompeo, the former US secretary of state, presented evidence that supported the lab leak theory to his counterparts, Dominic Raab, then the Foreign Secretary, and representatives from Canada, New Zealand and Australia."
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(