Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2021-05-25 12:42 Kristian G. Andersen
   I'm now getting emails from the FBI. This could get interesting... Is everybody else being absolutely bombarded at the moment to respond about our conclusions from last year? It might be worth drafting something from the entire group - I'll work on it and have our comms folks take a look at it.
2. 2021-05-25 12:46 Robert F. Garry open
   Newsweek
3. 2021-05-25 13:02 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Same. The Epoch times too. BBC with a similar request - and just now NYTimes (their angle seems different). I just emailed our comms office - I'll share what they draft. The issue is that if we don't respond, they'll write whatever the fuck they want.
4. 2021-05-25 13:03 Robert F. Garry open
   PO1 holds up extremely well!
5. 2021-05-25 13:05 Robert F. Garry open
   Absolutely - The Proximal Origins papers has stood up very well since it was written, peer-reviewed and published. The only change since we wrote our manuscript on the Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 is that I now consider any of the lab leak hypotheses to be extremely unlikely. There is currently no scientific (or other ) evidence for a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2. The intelligence "declassified" at the end of the Trump Administration suggesting that 3 WIV workers were ill {with something] is disputed by WIV. There is no evidence that one of them was "patient zero." As reported by the WHO team they were negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.In contrast, there is significant scientific evidence pointing to a natural [zoonotic] origin for SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, the authors of recent letters in support of the Lab Leak hypotheses either ignore and/or misrepresentthis data. Our Nature Medicine article directly addressed the notion that that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered and/orsomehow pre-adapted to humans.We wrote, "However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone." This remains true today. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 or an immediate progenitor virus existed in any laboratory before the pandemic. The viruses from the Yunnan mine including RaTG13 are not close enough to SARS-CoV-2 to have served as a backbone (recently described in as preprint from WIV and discussed here: https://virological.org/t/spikeprotein-sequences-of-cambodian-thai-and-japanese-bat-sarbecoviruses-provide-insights-into-the-natural-evolutionof-the-receptor-binding-domain-and-s1-s2-cleavage-site/622/2). No virus close enough to SARS-CoV-2 has yet been described in any lab. For such a virus to have served as the backbone for SARS-CoV-2 in lab experimentationit would need to be 99% similar to SARS-Cov-2. If you believe that SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor was inWIV and being actively worked on then you are supposing a major cover up and complex conspiracy. The idea that infection of humans is a unique barrier overcome in the in the lab is incorrect. SARS-CoV-2 hasundergone continuous significant adaptation to humans over the course of the pandemic (the variants of concern). It's also not specially adapted (in the lab or otherwise) to replicate in humas. SARS-CoV-2 replicates in andtransmits among numerous animal species, including mink, cats, great apes, dogs, ferrets, etc which is precisely thecharacteristic you'd expect of a successful pathogen emerging from nature. ```The fact that the pandemic began in Wuhan is likely a coincidence. Wuhan is a major hub of travel andcommerce. It contains numerous live animal markets supplied by farms throughout China, including where the closest viruses to SARS-CoV-2 have been found.As I wrote here: https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691, genetic evidence adds further support that the wildlife markets played a key role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Two early lineages of SARS-CoV-2 (A & B)were each associated with cases at different live animal markets. Linkage of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife orthe wildlife trade fully accounts for the fact that the majority of early Wuhan COVID-19 cases were linked to different wildlife markets in a straightforward manner. Scenarios where a lab leak led to infections in different wildlife markets are difficult to rationalize. ```

Full conversation →