It has been reported German Intel has assessed that COVID19 originated via a lab leak
Swiss paper NZZ reports that our discovery of a MERS-related infectious clone with a chimeric spike from Wuhan sequencing datasets was considered by German Intel 🧵
2/ The study by @humblesci @Daoyu15 @BiophysicsFL @ydeigin @quay_dr and myself was published last year and demonstrated unreported GOF experimentation on novel MERS-related coronaviruses in Wuhan prior to the pandemic fortunejournals.com/articles/disco…
3/ Concerningly, we found evidence that a MERS spike (with FCS) was inserted into a HKU4r-CoV backbone, likely enhancing transmissibility in human cells, as the RBD is expected to have a high binding affinity for the hDPP4 receptor
Here is a thread on the preprint version of the paper:
4/ NZZ states that the initial assessment by German Intel was low (left figure), while reports in German papers Süddeutsche Zeitung and Zeit states the assessment is now 80-95 % (right figure)
5/ It seems that important ongoing sources of information utilized by intel services have been obtained from X, and demonstrates the power of decentralized investigation (and fundamental flaws in legacy academia)
Pekar et al have published a paper claiming that 2 SARS2 A/B intermediates from Feb 2020 are derived rather than ancestral
The existence of ancestral intermediates would falsify Pekar et al's earlier claim of 2 independent spillovers of lineages A and B at the Huanan Market 🧵
2/ Hence Pekar et al undergo extraordinary convolutions in order to try and claim the 2 A/B intermediates, identified by Lv et al 2024, are late arrivals rather than the original intermediates that led to the evolution of lineage B from lineage A
3/ To sum, they once again (ab)use modeling to support intuitively unlikely scenarios
They claim it is more likely that the 2 Lv et al intermediates arose from either Hu-1 (lin B), or its closest lin A relative (C8782T,T28144C) AFTER the 2 lineages had originally split
2/ This striking conincidence indicates that the novel pangolin-related coronavirus we identified from contaminated datasets (GX_ZX45r-CoV) was likely part of an infectious clone (IC), given that one of the reads was ligated to pUC57
From our paper:
3/ This can be inferred given that ZLS et al report using pUC57 for cloning genome fragments of HKU5 coronavirus prior to assembly into an IC in their recent Nature paper on engineering coronavirus receptors
A mating plug provenance resolves the long standing conundrum over the low amounts of bacteria in the RaTG13 sample, noted by @MonaRahalkar and others, which is inconsistent with a fecal swab as reported by the WIV, who collected the sample
I presented the evidence for a mating plug provenance in a previous thread 👇
A leak of polio from a research facility is indicated by a poliovirus genome sequence generated from a sample collected in 2014 in China by the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Why are virologists freely allowed to anonymize lethal synthetic viruses, but developers are put in jail for writing code that anonymize bitcoin transactions ?
Genetically enhanced infectious clones present a much higher risk than anonymous monetary transactions 🧵
@R_H_Ebright @SenGaryPeters @COVIDSelect @BiosafetyNow @CharlesRixey @HSGAC_GOP @RepBradWenstrup @RepRaulRuizMD Virologists often synthesize infectious clones (ICs), which are used to produce live infectious viruses
To make an IC of a coronavirus, due to its large size constituent fragments need to be synthesized, and then ligated together to form a complete genome
Unique restriction (cut) sites at the ends of the fragments allow them to be assembled in the correct order
These are often left in the genome as a signature of the ligation, as in this SARS1-related IC by ZLS and Daszak