1⃣ "potentially engineered"
2⃣ "inconsistent with expectations"
3⃣ "we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change"
☎️ Feb 1 - Conference call.
Discussion among several leading experts based on the early hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 could have been engineered or otherwise lab-associated.
😴 Feb 2 - Early notes after call.
1⃣ Bioweapon: "Highly unlikely"
2⃣ Specific engineering: "Unlikely"
3⃣ Tissue culture passage: "The data is consistent"
4⃣ Spillover from animal host: "The data is consistent"
🤔 Feb 4 - First summary.
1⃣ Deliberate engineering: "Ruled out"
2⃣ Adaptation to humans
3⃣Selection in an animal host
4⃣Selection during passage
"current data are consistent with all three"
📰 Feb 17 - First submission/preprint
1⃣ Selection in an animal host
2⃣ Cryptic adaptation to humans
3⃣ Selection during passage
"not a laboratory construct nor a purposefully manipulated virus"
"it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin"
⭐️ Mar 17 - Paper
1⃣ Selection before zoonosis
2⃣ Selection after zoonosis
3⃣ Selection during passage
"not a laboratory construct nor a purposefully manipulated virus"
"currently impossible to prove or disprove"
"we do not believe that [.] laboratory-based [.] plausible"
The evolution on our thinking is VERY clear and people claiming that there is no logical in which scientists could change their mind "within hours/days/2 days/3 days/ 4 days" or whatever arbitrary timeline they give you, are willfully misleading you.
It stops here.
Don't let people fill you with this type of bullshit - it's the clear anatomy of a totally nonsense conspiracy theory.
For more background, read our paper ☝️ and my full written testimony 👇.
As Twitter has morphed into X, xenophobia, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are being amplified more than ever.
I can't contribute to such a platform, but before I leave, I wanted to reflect on the work my lab has done during the pandemic.
Why? More about that at the end 🧵
The photo above is from a recent lab retreat in Joshua tree - a few people are missing in the photo, but you can learn more about the lab here: .
Below, I will outline some of the work this incredibly talented and hardworking group of people have done.andersen-lab.com
During the pandemic, my lab has covered several areas that have directly contributed both to our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic itself and SARS-CoV-2, but also to our response.
Since this is making the rounds again, just a reminder that the conspiracy theory that an unfunded grant application represents a blueprint for SARS-CoV-2 was defused by the writing of DEFUSE itself.
Why? Let's start with the sub-heading itself 👇.
S2' != S1-S2.
Short 🧵.
1️⃣ The section talks about "proteolytic cleavage" in the S2' region, not the S1/S2 region where SARS-CoV-2 has a unique insert. This, alone, kills the whole assertion of DEFUSE being a blueprint - details matter.
2️⃣ The section describes work to be done in pseudotyped viruses, not isolates. SARS-CoV-2 is very much not a pseudotypes virus.
@TheAtlantic For example, @BenMazer states that I "admitted" that we changed our conclusions and this was because we needed to “make some of the language punchier.”
This is a deep misrepresentation of what the peer-review process is and what I actually said.
Compare:
@TheAtlantic @BenMazer As is clear from the interview - and as I, and all my co-authors on all our "Origin" papers have explained numerous times - science drove our changing views on COVID-19 origins.
This is a perfect example of going from an early hypothesis to a later supported scientific theory.
Very interesting data from @yunlong_cao’s group, supporting a hypothesis we have been discussing internally for the last few weeks - that BA.2.86 may have a significant antigenic advantage, but intrinsically is less transmissible.
In such a scenario? The idea is that BA.2.86 has essentially found an antigenic (immunological) niche, where it faces little competition because it’s so distinct from previously dominant lineages.
However, likely having evolved in a single host for a long time, it could have lost the inherent infection/transmission fitness of previous variants (I.e., it has a lower R0).
@yunlong_cao’s data support both - high ‘escape’ potential, low infectivity potential.
From UFOs over sick lab workers starting pandemics, to quote mining private conversations among scientists. None of this is surprising - the surprising part is that 'journalists' and others keep falling for the same bullshit.
So a little context to Slack message 👇.
Short 🧵
First up, the message shows an *exact* example of what conspiracy theorists accuse us of not being willing to do - questioning our own research.
Second, context is extremely important here.
So what happened in mid-April, 2020?
There was a *ton* of talk about "Secret Cables" (thanks to, what later turned out to be, ignorant reporting from Josh Rogin @washingtonpost) that alleged to have evidence from the intelligence community showing the virus came from a lab.