The so called zoonatis are trying to mock the lab leak hypothesis, by criticising people who believe that the “RaTG13”, a virus which WIV introduced with sars2 couldn’t be the progenitor. They also mock people who believe that.
Following are the reasons that the RaTG13 or 4991 or a related virus from the Yunnan mineshaft could indeed be the progenitor:

When someone starts giving so long explanation, you become suspicious. Eg. no one has given so long explanation about why its impossible to build SARS-2 from RaTG13. Baric says: What if they had a close progenitor eg. the original sequence of 4991 of which they made a full length clone? As the pandemic broke out, it would show a very high % similarity to SARS-2. Hence, if a clone with 96.2% similarity was built, and mixed with some bat tissue, etc.

Here, in the Baric transcribed interview, he doesn't remember when he was added on the grant-he says 2019/2020! Wasn't it from early 2019? That's astonishing! He was added in phase 2, and look what he was supposed to perform: His role was "to study a couple of viruses that the WIV found that they were willing to share with him". Remember, that this is exactly the grant renewal where they talked about 10-25% differences in the spike compared to SARS1. They also were going to create consensus/synthetics

My poem, originally written in Marathi, translated:
Pl find as a thread:
Millions of people struggled for breath,
While suffering endlessly, they died alone..
Leaving the whole world a mission,
To find out why they were gone.. 'With the flame of knowledge,
You find the trace..
Why Destiny devastated,
The smile on our face..’

1. With no prior experience in public health area, just due to sincerity to dig the truth, I and @BahulikarRahul started studying RaTG13, early May. We both are a scientist couple. RaTG13/4991 looked unique and similar to sars2. 2.Connecting three papers: Shi Zhengli Interview in SA, a News in Science and Ge et al 2016 led us to the mine, miners and WIV connection to RaTG13, the closest relative that time, to sars2.

1. Our paper about the miners was originally submitted to Nature, under Matters arising category back on 16th May 2020. That time we never had explored Twitter so never heard that people were discussing COVID origins there. 2. Nature in their automatic reply suggested to publish as preprint which we did soon. Then contacted by @TheSeeker268 and got connected with the Twitter group. Later on found out that this group was named Drastic!

The paper tweeted by @franciscodeasis is very important: biorxiv.org/content/10.110… Here they are trying to say that they learnt about trypsin treatment for culturing sars-like coronaviruses. But they already knew that trypsin is the key, eg SADS paper. Plus the MERS paper by their own group.

With bare minimum tools like an internet connection and a laptop or a desktop, the internet sleuths, scientists have dug out tremendous information about covid origins! And of course with a functioning brain! 😃 We all were mocked, laughed upon or were made embarrassed for hypothesising the lab leak based on our set of investigations. Which were based on open source data, of course. But needed tremendous patience and hard work..

The question is, if this data from the dead pangolins was published on 22nd Jan 2020, but originally from the September 2019 paper, how did the exact RBD was detected in any coronavirus pre-pandemic. Unless this virus was from a pangolin/other coronavirus (natural/engineered). Or then, on 22nd Jan 2020, was some new data added and the whole set was published? As the pangolin data is published on Jan 22 2020, though the paper Liu et al was submitted in Aug/Sept 2019.

I think that if you look carefully in the metagenome data dates for pangolin covs, we get closer to our answer, if these were coverups. As per the dates, pangolin meta data showing sars2 like RBD was deposited on 22 Jan 2020. But the data was originally from September 2019.

1. I was just looking at papers published by Jie Cui. He/ she is the guide of Ping Yu, who was working on RaTG13 and other SARS-like CoVs.
2. Jie Cui published some signature papers including this review with Shi Zhengli:
nature.com/articles/s4157…. 2. Both, Shi and Jie Cui worked on the genome sequencing of RaTG13, the closest prepandemic virus to SARS-2. They found out that the Mojiang mine had 8 plus one virus and all of these formed the Clade 4.

After studying the spike protein of RaTG13, SARS2 and BANAL-52, I noted the following. At the amino-acid level RaTG13 and BANAL-52 are virtually identical, except at the most important part, the RBM, highlighted in brown (438-508). In this region Banal and SARS2 are identical. Also, as per Shi Zhengli's student's thesis, RaTG13 was pathogenic to human. The RBM of RATG13 seems to be the issue why it cannot bind to bats and humans. So, did they swap the RBM to show that it was uselessand later on showed it in BANAL-52. Banal came much later post-pandemic

It’s hard to believe that WIV had RaTG13 sequence since 2018. They made several pseudo viruses from the assembled sequences, mentioned in Hu 2017. When they knew that RaTG13 was from Mojiang mine where miners died due to pneunonia, they would have been tempted to make pseudo 4991 What type of experiments were done with the 4991 virus? Did they have more of these types of viruses, eg viruses which now published as Banals? Did they make pseudoviruses, consensus or engineered ones using these backbones? Or serial passaging?

In case of this patient, the first miner who died, had severe decline in all of the lymphocytes (27.4 date of admission, 7.5.2012: death) He recieved antifungals from day one. And the treatment regime: antivirals, steroids and antibiotics.

1. The email exposure of Farrar, Fauci, etc. Clearly shows how they killed the lab hypothesis prematurely! Andersen 2020 paper and the Lancet Calisher note were thrown on public’s face to prove only one fact, the virus was natural, and we should accept this. 2. The work of Daszak, Shi was glorified, and we were told that if we don’t want future pandemics, we should listen to them, and allow them to dig out the complete iceberg of unknown viruses!

Friends, the Dutch virologist in this mail (@BillyBostickson points out that she is Koopmans, ending the suspense! ) says the word BACKBONE. And insert! Remember she is referring to the FCS or the spike to be the insert and guessing the backbone virus. Already means engineered! If all of them already thought that this was or could be an engineered virus, what made Andersen write and convince us in his Proximal paper!

Based on the emails exposed, it’s clear that one more scientist was thinking if it’s an artificial virus, or atleast discussing in “the backbone and the insert” language! And this was a Dutch person. First Feb 2020, time 8 pm CET!

1. What Zhengli Shi told in Zhou 2020 could be true, that they sequenced RaTG13 after the pandemic. In reality they could have sequenced a similar virus like 7896 or 7909, RdRp showing 94-95 percent similarity and just swapped the RdRp, a few reads. 2. Later on in July 2020, she told the other story, as if someone asked for the sample, she could said that it’s over long back!

1. Could this be the case: Viruses 7896, 7909 were obtained in the expedition of Mojiang mineshaft in 2015.
2. Later on, they could have sequenced one of these and found ~4-5 percent in the genome with cov2, constructed in the lab or modified from a progenitor. 2. When cov2 was sequenced, they found 4991 to show more RdRp similarity, 98.8 percent, which they might have known. Therefore, they sequenced one of the 7896 clade and named it as RaTG13 by swapping the RdRp with 4991. This would make look like RaTG13 is 4 percent diff.

According to the Master's thesis, in April 2012, six miners were given a job of clearing bat waste and bat feces from a copper mineshaft in Tongguan, Mojiang, Yunnan. After working for ~14 days in the case of four miners, and 4–5 days in the case of the last two miners, they started facing breathing problems, cough, and fever which required immediate admission to the Kunming hospital in late April and early May (7). Three of the miners died in the course of ~100 days and three survived (Table 1A).

2. Blast analysis of randomly chosen ~150 reads showed similarities to either predicted in-silico transcripts from a single sequence (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, MPI89
CBG mRhiFer1) NC_046302.1 genomic sequence or to a Rhinolophus ferrumequinum clone
90 AC155226.4 (~40 kb clone). 3. No sequences showed similarity to Rhinolophus affinis sequences. Incidentally, the same group had deposited a Rhinolophus affinis anal swab SRA data, SRR11085736 (Figure 2), which would have some sequences from Rhinolophus affinis,