Thread by @R_H_Ebright

COVID: updated summary of lab-origin hypothesis:

1) Pandemic caused by bat SARS-like coronavirus emerged in Wuhan--city 1000 km from wild bats with SARS-CoV-2-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, with NIH funding, WIV constructed a novel genetically modified SARS-like coronavirus that was able to infect human cells and that had 10,000x enhanced viral growth in lungs, 1,000,000x enhanced viral growth in brains, and 3x enhanced lethality.

4) In 2018, in an NIH grant proposal, WIV and collaborators proposed to construct additional novel genetically modified SARS-like coronaviruses, proposing to construct viruses with higher binding affinities to human cells, seeking viruses with higher pandemic potential.

5) Also in 2018, in a DARPA grant proposal, WIV and collaborators proposed to construct novel "consensus" SARS-like coronaviruses, to insert an furin cleavage site (FCS) at the spike S1-S2 border, and to do so by assembling six synthetic genome segments.

6) In 2017-2019, WIV constructed and characterized novel SARS-like coronaviruses at biosafety level 2, a biosafety level grossly inadequate for work with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens and grossly inadequate to contain a virus having transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.

7) In 2019 a novel SARS-like coronavirus having spike with high binding affinity, FCS at spike S1-S2, and genome with restriction sites for genome assembly from six synthetic segments--a virus having the features of the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals--emerges on doorstep of WIV.

8) SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of more than 800 known SARS-like coronaviruses that contains an FCS. This feature does not rule out natural origin, but is more easily--much more easily--explained by lab origin. Especially since 2018 DARPA proposal explicitly proposed inserting FCS.

9) The FCS of SARS-CoV-2 has codon usage that is highly unusual for a bat SARS-related coronavirus but that is as expected for a genetically engineered construct. This does not rule out natural origin, but is more easily--much more easily--explained by lab origin.

10) The genome of SARS-CoV-has BsmBI and BsaI sites consistent with assembly from six segments. This does not rule out natural origin, but is more easily explained by lab origin. Especially since 2018 DARPA proposal explicitly proposed assembling six segments and using BsmBI.

11) No--zero--sound evidence has been presented that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. No natural
reservoir host or intermediate host has been identified, and claims
that SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan are unsound.

12) 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 easily could have cleared their name though cooperation with investigation.

All statements in all posts are demonstrable facts. Sources for posts 1-2 include the following:

1) Shi Zhengli interview at science.org/pb-assets/PDF/…

2) Articles at nature.com/articles/natur… and nature.com/articles/natur…; meeting report at nasonline.org/programs/scien…

3) NIH documents at documentcloud.org/documents/2105… and republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

4) NIH documents at documentcloud.org/documents/2105…

5) DARPA documents at documentcloud.org/documents/2106… and article at usrtk.org/covid-19-origi…

Sources for posts 6-9 include the following:

6) Shi Zhengli interview at science.org/pb-assets/PDF/…

7) WIV publication at nature.com/articles/s4158…

8-9) Articles at nature.com/articles/s4159… and onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bi…, and DARPA document at documentcloud.org/documents/2106…

Sources for post 10 include the following:

10) Articles at biorxiv.org/content/10.110…, usrtk.org/covid-19-origi…, alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-hunt-for…, and alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-strength…, and DARPA document at documentcloud.org/documents/2106…

Sources for post 11 include the following:

11) Articles at ayjchan.medium.com/the-evidence-f… and thebulletin.org/2022/03/the-or…

Sources for post 12 include the following:

12) NIH and HHS documents at republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…, republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…, oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…, oversight.house.gov/wpcontent/uplo…, and oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…, and House Select Subcommittee report at oversight.house.gov/report/after-a…

More complete information, and more sources, are provided in my June 18, 2024 US Senate testimony at .hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…

...and retraction requests at biosafetynow.substack.com/p/covid-origin…, and biosafetynow.substack.com/p/crits-christ…

@peterpoole And more evidence--much more evidence--will be released by the incoming administration and Congress.

@peterpoole As for the question why one should care:

https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1392005915528814593

@Publius0001 Additional information on gain-of-function research of concern is available in my August 3, 2022 US Senate testimony at .hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/upl…