Thread by @GourlaySyd

SARS-CoV-2 ANIMAL ORIGIN: The evidence?

What strikes me about the animal market spillover (zoonosis) theory is how hard it is to get a straight answer out of those claiming it’s settled science … when it isn’t. 🧵

@Muchfaster @lovmoz1 @R_H_Ebright @IntegralAnswers @Biorealism

2/ Proponents of “zoonosis” say there was a “spillover” at Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China selling (among other things) wild animals i.e. transmission of an animal coronavirus to humans in late 2019.

Why? Because most of the early cases in 2020 had links to that market.

3/ The Covid-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2 is most similar (96%) to viruses found in Rhinolophus affinis Horseshoe bats in Yunnan province

They claim:

1⃣ there were animals at the market infected with SARS-CoV-2 (intermediate hosts) who had contracted the virus from bats somewhere else

4/ Problem 1⃣.1

Initially, 2 versions of human SARS-CoV-2 were detected: lineage A evolved ➝ lineage B with 2 mutations (within ~ a month).

▶ In the last 5 years, no intermediate animal host for the first detected virus lineages (A or B) has been found in Wuhan or anywhere.

5/ Problem 1⃣.2

Lineage A & B had a molecular signature ‘D614’ (aspartic acid ‘D’ at position 614 in spike protein). This quickly (Jan 2020) mutated to ‘D614G’.

▶ No animal species has been found that can maintain & transmit the D614 virus without a stabilizing D614G mutation.

6/ Huanan market animal zoonosis requires:

2⃣ 2 spillover events (at least)

- one for lineage B

- and a LATER (if you trust the flawed Pekar 2022 phylogenetic paper) spillover of lineage A which is 2 mutations closer (earlier in evolution) to a supposed bat reservoir virus

7/ Problem 2⃣.1

▶ ALL cases linked to Huanan Market were lineage B. No lineage A cases (including the earliest case who lived 2.8 km away) were linked to the market (didn’t shop there, work there, go there etc).

@lovemoz1

@lovemoz1 8/ Problem 2⃣.2

▶ Lineage B was detected (via PCR & sequencing) in market samples on stalls, floors & animal-related surfaces, but mostly in areas (eg toilets, majong room) unrelated to animal sales.

This is consistent with human spreading of an already circulating virus.

@lovemoz1 9/ Problem 2⃣.3

▶ Lineage A was not found on stalls, floors or animal-related surfaces, just on a glove in a seafood stall.

There should have been extensive evidence in animal stalls. This is consistent with an already circulating lineage A being brought INTO the market.

@lovemoz1 10/ If lineage B spread to humans by zoonosis at Huanan Market

▶ the 20 intermediate A/B versions found in human cases indicating within-human evolution A ➝ B must be laboratory errors.

(otherwise Huanan would be a human amplification or superspreading site, not a zoonosis).

@lovemoz1 11/ Problem 3⃣.1

▶ a 2024 analysis of 230,820 genomes in Shanghai & Wuhan (Jia-Xin Lv et al) shows evolutionary human continuity A ➝ B

Zoonosis proponents are happy to propose 20 lab errors when it’s convenient but deny a single error at a nearby virology lab when it isn’t.

@lovemoz1 12/ So there’s no evidence of zoonosis at Huanan market, only of amplification of an already circulating virus.

When asked whether there was proof that the virus originated in the market, Worobey replied:

“we don’t know that it got there through an infected animal or animals”

@lovemoz1 13 / This is the key question:

1:07:30 “this doesn’t prove that the virus originated there [Huanan Market], right?”

Worobey : “we don’t know … umm (pause) that it got there through an infected animal or animals” ✅