"Both A and B came from the market. A and B weren’t anyplace else early on." This statement is false. Pekar et al. report many isolates of the A lineage far from the market, and only 1 isolate of lineage A in the market. 2/n
"For the lab leak, you can [mitigate risk] by always re-examining the guidelines that you do for studies, making sure protocols are in place, making sure there’s transparency." If a lab accident killed ~20M people, guidelines and protocols won't cut it. We need new laws. 3/n
"If it’s a lab leak, then we really should have been much, much more attentive to protocols and training and restrictions." So if a lab leak caused the pandemic and killed~20M people, scientists just need to be a little bit more attentive next time?! The hubris is stunning. 4/n
"First of all, all of the intelligence groups agree that this was not an engineered virus." This statement is false, as Wallace-Wells points out. The intelligence agencies said SARS-CoV-2 wasn't a bioweapon, not that it wasn't engineered. 5/n
"And if you look at the...grant..given through EcoHealth to the [WIV]...and...the viruses that they...published... those viruses could not possibly ever turn into SARS-CoV-2" This is a straw man. The WIV has many unpublished CoVs; these could well have been precursors to SC2. 6/n
"[GoF work at WIV] was judged that this type of research was important." Perhaps, but that GoF work was never judged to be *safe*, i.e., it never underwent the required risk/benefit analysis, and that is because Fauci never properly implemented the P3CO framework at NIAID. 7/n
"Some want to pass a law: All gain-of-function should be stopped. But if all gain-of-function stops, you will have no vaccines for flu." This is a straw man argument. The push is to ban "gain of function research of concern", and GOFROC is not used to make vaccines. 8/n
"So if you and I talk about gain-of-function, David, we better define what we’re talking about, because we’re going to confuse the crap out of everybody." Fauci knows GOFROC is well-defined. He is choosing to confuse the discussion rather than address substantive concerns. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Crits-Christoph et al. find no statistical association between SARS-CoV-2 RNA and raccoon dog DNA/RNA. Or between SARS-CoV-2 RNA and the DNA/RNA fromofany other animal. Why? Because *all* samples analyzed are SARS-CoV-2 positive, regardless of what animal/human DNA is in them.
One sample had a lot more raccoon dog DNA/RNA in it than human DNA/RNA. Is this relevant? Crits-Christoph et al.: "the most abundant animal in the sequencing data of a particular sample is not necessarily the source of the virus in that sample."
On Thursday, March 16, The Atlantic published an article titled “The strongest evidence yet that an animal started the pandemic” [1]. Similar stories in other influential publications soon followed...
We believe these news reports are deeply misleading and should be corrected. We also believe the reports reflect yet another example of a small group of researchers exaggerating their findings and misleading the public with false certainty about the origins of COVID-19.
First of all, it would be nice to see an actual preprint. It’s hard for anyone to assess whether what these folks are saying makes sense unless it’s written down.
Second, I would want to know if the DNA of any other animals was also found in the COVID-positive swabs. E.g. do any swabs contain salmon DNA? If so, does that prove the cold chain hypothesis? If not, how is the logic different for raccoon dogs?
The papers by Worobey et al. and Pekar et al. in @ScienceMagazine have a strange preface--written by the journal, not the authors--titled "Pandemic epicenter". It's weird, troubling, and wrong. It should be removed. 🧵
"As 2019 turned into 2020, a coronavirus spilled over from wild animals into people,...." This ignores the fact that many scientists still believe zoonosis has not been proven. It also implies, strangely, that zoonosis was proven even *before* these papers were published.
"However, the origins of the pandemic in December 2019 are controversial." Wait, if we know for sure that COVID-19 had a zoonotic origin, what's controversial?