Chat message

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

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 open
   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
   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. ```
6. 2021-05-25 13:05 Robert F. Garry open
   Some variations on a hybrid (natural/lab leak) scenario suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that infected ascientist while doing field work resulting in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic spread or that after being brought back to a laboratory SARS-CoV-2 was released unknowingly, but not successfully cultured or otherwise manipulated. Compared to the millions of worldwide encounters of humans with wildlife, including the trapping ofbats for food, the number of high-risk exposures of scientists doing field or laboratory work with samples from wildlifeis miniscule.
7. 2021-05-25 13:06 Robert F. Garry open
   Certainly we need to continue to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2. My colleagues and I have not stopped doing so since we wrote Proximal Origins. Indeed a urgent international investigation, which perforce must include China (that's where the "interesting" bats are), is necessary to fill remaining gaps in our knowledge of coronaviruses diversity.We need to "follow the animals" and explore every possible point of entry of potentially coronavirus infected animals into Wuhan, especially focused on the wildlife trade for food and traditional medicine.If - as some have argued - we should focus attention on an unsubstantiated hypothesis of lab leak, this would be aserious mistake. The world would be left much more vulnerable to future pandemics. Sure "investigate" the lab. But, arm-waving about a forensic investigation ( whatever that means) is not helpful. It's not even clear to me what the proponents of a "forensic" lab investigation hope to find. IMO notebooks from Shi's lab, sick days of WIV personnel, freezer inventories listing samples are not going to be informative in any way. What other scientific data or even other data do the Lab Leak proponent hope to uncover?Ironically, most "forensic" investigations at least those on TV involve looking at the DNA. Excepting the fact that it's RNA not DNA, we already did this in Proximal Origins.It would be nice to have additional information on the early case of SARS-CoV-2 patients in Wuhan, but this paper: March 26, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:1199-1207 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316 was very granular and clearly pointed to the wildlife trade as the origin of the virus.
8. 2021-05-25 13:07 Robert F. Garry open
   Yes, eventually the origin of SARS-CoV-2 will be described. A close progenitor in a bat or perhaps more likely another animal host will eventually be uncovered. Sometimes you get lucky (as in the first SARS) and other times not.
9. 2021-05-25 13:13 Kristian G. Andersen open
   This is great Bob! Let's have that be the response from you :wink:. I especially love this part: "Ironically, most "forensic" investigations at least those on TV involve looking at the DNA.Excepting the fact that it's RNA not DNA, we already did this in Proximal Origins"

Full conversation →