A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Opens the door for a counter letter or tech comment. _I for one would like to see @Andrew Rambaut math in print.
-
Same...
-
The lab escape idea is not a scientific hypothesis - it is an allegation. It can't be investigated by scientific methods because were it true it would also imply a cover-up which by definition is to avoid discovery.
-
Let's put a Science logo on that and we're done :wink:.
-
2021-05-13 12:30
Andrew Rambaut
I am not sure about presenting the maths up front but we can use it to hone our arguments. The point is that collecting samples have no way of enriching for human transmissible viruses so they have one in a million shot offinding one. Carnivores are act like a filter - selecting at source for transmissible viruses.
-
WHO and PD noticed... [shared file(s): image.png]
-
The editor of science is inviting a scientific 'debate' in his mag. Why don't we see if Nature is interested in acommentary written as a sub-tweet
-
Should we consider it? We can get Angie involved and I'm sure we could get a good list of people to sign - but weshould focus on people with _actual_ experience and not ivory tower academics. Andrew, you have by far theclearest voice here...
-
I think we should. Ian has gone over to the the Lab Leakers (aka FOMOs) . Angie good. From Gorman and Zimmer: " While this group of scientists does not single out any researchers by name, the letter finds fault with those who have also been vocal in supporting the theory of a natural origin, citing a lack of evidence. Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., has been a strong proponent ofthe overwhelming likelihood of a natural origin. He was one of the authors of an often cited paper in March 2020 that dismissed the likelihood of a laboratory origin based largely on the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. "We do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," that paper stated. Speaking for himself only, Dr. Relman said in an interview that "the piece that Kristian Anderson and four others wrote last March in my view simply fails to provide evidence to support their conclusions."Dr. Andersen, who reviewed the letter in Science, said that both explanations were theoretically possible. But, "the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios," he said. "To this day, nocredible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation_."_Instead, he said, available data "are consistent with a natural emergence of a novel virus from a zoonotic reservoir,as has been observed so many times in the past." He said he supported further inquiry into the origin of the virus.Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at University of Saskatchewan's Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, has criticized the politicization of the laboratory leak theory. She supports further investigation, but said that "there is more evidence (both genomic and historical precedent) that this was the result of zoonotic emergence rather than a laboratory accident."