A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Is this online?
-
This bit reads quite funny to me: "A number of eminent scientists, including Professor Holmes, initially had concerns that the virus may have a laboratory origin, so they organised a teleconference with a group of experts. Scientific discussion during the teleconference concluded that many of these concerns were unfounded. As the discussions took place, the first data from a coronavirus in pangolins became available"It makes it sound as if all of this happened on the conference call - which, of course, isn't true.
-
Just a draft. Can be changed.
-
"A number of eminent scientists, including Professor Holmes, initially had concerns that the virus may have a laboratory origin, so they organised a teleconference with a group of experts. Scientific discussion during the teleconference concluded that many of these concerns were unfounded. Professor Holmes and his peers did further analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome data, which pointed to a natural origin, and during this time the first data from acoronavirus in pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found inSARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature. The conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 likely has a natural origin was based entirely on available scientific evidence."
-
2022-02-16 13:33
Kristian G. Andersen
I think that might need some work - several things that people can poke holes in. Might be worth lifting some language from my previous answers on this (especially #3): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html
-
What's point #3? I can't read this. Also, it's only going to be used if people ask.
-
shared file(s): Lab-Leak Theory_ Kristian Andersen On His Fauci Email and Covid Origins - The New York Times.pdf
-
*In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that "we do not believe that any typeof laboratory-based scenario is plausible." Can you explain how the research changed your view?* The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren't. Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us toreject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other "lab"-based scenarios were still on the table. Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, welooked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses. Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of acompeting hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.
-
I honestly don't see how that differs from what we've said.