4. A useful thread by @stevenemassey which exposes some of the technical flaws in this report, who concludes that this is a case study in the perils of making grandiose claims without having completed the analysis:
I get the impression that they repeatedly "filtered out", "excluded" and retained just enough data (based on possibly invalid data from China) to get the results they wanted to support their hypothesis!
6. Probably for the best
"This report is not intended for publication in a journal"
I doubt any respectable journal, even one run by dedicated natural origin proponents, would accept it anyway, hence its magical appearance on zenodo, the oft maligned home of citizen scientists
7. Hypocrisy Exposed!
Do you remember how @jbloom_lab was accused of racism and other nasty things by certain virologists, when he obtained Chinese data?
Well, now it turns out that these compromised virologists have done the same themselves!
After Van Kerkhove saw the zoonosis presentation on the data, she concluded that the data revealed nothing new!
9. Talk about stating the obvious!
"Other samples were dominated by animal genetic material linked to the stall where they were collected, such as cattle at a stall selling beef product, and fish in a sample collected on a fish packaging surface"
10. However, an important caveat
"Hence, the most abundant animal in the sequencing data of a particular sample is not necessarily the source of the virus in that sample"
(Page 9)
11. All fur coat and no knickers?
They could have just told the over eager reporters like @KatherineJWu and @benjmueller who bamboozled the public with zoonati propaganda puff pieces, the following:
"we cannot identify the intermediate animal host species from these data"
12. Partial Data used to spread propaganda!
"Our analysis is based on partial data, corresponding only to a subset of environmental samples from the market in which SARS-CoV-2 had been detected. Other sequencing data exist for some of these samples from Illumina NextSeq 550"
13. The Temptation of Saint Zoonati
"It would be tempting to pursue a correlational epidemiological analysis between the presence of animal genetic material & SARS-CoV-2 positivity using data from market samples that tested negative for the virus, when they become available"
14. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Based on filched, partial & unreliable data, filtered to support their crumbling hypothesis, these discredited charlatans claim "These arguments stand in stark contrast to the absence of evidence for any other SC-2 emergence route"
..except their summary of the timeline of this scientific chicanery from 4th to 14th March 2023
"In an attempt to ensure transparency and engagement towards global partnership, we
would like to provide further context regarding the timeline of work"
17. The Ides of March
"On 13 March, those of us who had downloaded the data or associated metadata, or contacted the author of the preprint, received emails from the @GISAID Secretariat falsely accusing us of having breached the @GISAID terms of use"
18. Yet more hypocrisy as they brazenly claim:
"We acknowledge these circumstances are unusual. We are proponents of open data sharing & ensuring that data from our analyses are broadly accessible in public repositories"
"We find insufficient data to support a zoonosis hypothesis & instead conclude the most likely scenario is that an infected person brought SC-2 to the HSM"
Closest reported relative of the complete raccoon dog mitochondrial genome sequence was Nyctereutes procyonoides collected in the wild in East China, distinct from that of N. p. ussuriensis, the subspecies commonly raised in NE China for fur
26. A Puzzling Omission
Regardless of the exact sub species of Raccoon Dog, as @stevenemassey pointed out in his thread:
"none of the stalls with raccoon dog nucleic acid have a human SARS2 case linked to it (which puzzlingly they fail to mention)"
27. Is it even likely that Raccoon Dogs were the intermediate host for SARS-COV-2?
Apart from the fact that CCDC refused to share market sample data for 3 years, despite repeated calls to do so @GISAID misleads us about the 2013 H7N9 bird flu outbreak
"In 2013, during the H7N9 avian influenza outbreak, they were credited in a Nature Editorial for "openness in the reporting and sharing of data [via GISAID]โ
But, why was Michael Callahan "sent" to Nanjing then?
"Animals that are sourced from markets & that may be potentially consumed, will be manually restrained without anesthesia, if possible, so that they may be returned to the vendor"
37. Impressive analysis by @mahonylab on human DNA reads & cross-species mapping
"If you can have SARS-CoV-2 showing up without much human DNA on a surface that has lots of animal DNA from meat, the same could be true on animal cages"
"we have to be circumspect about environmental samples from Jan 2020. e.g., raccoon dog sample Q61 was collected on Jan 12 which is at least 6 and probably >8 weeks after first human infections"
"This brings me back to main caveat I noted about Chinese CDC pre-print when posted last year: we are unlikely to get conclusive answers about origin of outbreak that started in Nov 2019 (or earlier) by looking at samples collected in Jan 2020"
41. For the Record
@jbloom_lab analysis of Gao et al. (2022) preprint
"proCoV2 existed 8โ11โweeks before the Dec 24, 2019 sampling date of Wuhan-1. This places the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 as evolving in mid-Sep to early-Oct 2019, many weeks earlier than the mid-Nov 2019 date proposed by Pekar et al. (2021)"
"A key author of "Proximal Origins" paper that asserted (with no logic) that any lab involvement would be implausible, who claimed a million-to-1 odds for market origin, tried to delay/block posting of the MBE paper in a meeting with Fauci"
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., 1944โ2014 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".
2โฃ 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"
3โฃ 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"
Turning and turning in the petri dish,
The scientists cannot hear the warnings;
Genes recombine; the barriers cannot hold,
Evil virology is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack critical thinking, while the professors
Are full of furious bias.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the cover up is now banned?
Lab Leak! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Human Folly
Troubles my sight:
3. Somewhere in Wuhan
somewhere in the cell lines of a Chinese laboratory
A shape with pangolin body and the head of a bat,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its long tongue, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant molested bats.