Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1092 [SLACK_001306] · slack_pm:msg:11372

Date: 2022-02-16 13:35
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Proximal Origin paper Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

*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.

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.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
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.	quoted / not their view	quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks	questions
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.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

quoted / not their view

quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks

questions

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.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

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

2022-02-16 13:31 Edward C. Holmes open

"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 open

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
2022-02-16 13:34 Edward C. Holmes open

What's point #3? I can't read this. Also, it's only going to be used if people ask.
2022-02-16 13:35 Kristian G. Andersen open

shared file(s): Lab-Leak Theory_ Kristian Andersen On His Fauci Email and Covid Origins - The New York Times.pdf
2022-02-16 13:35 Kristian G. Andersen

*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.
2022-02-16 13:37 Edward C. Holmes open

I honestly don't see how that differs from what we've said.
2022-02-16 13:39 Kristian G. Andersen open

It doesn't if you're a reasonable person. However, just two examples: "SARS-CoV-2 genome data" > how can you decide it's natural based on genome data alone? "pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found in SARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature" > so your conclusions are based only on the pangolin data?
2022-02-16 13:42 Edward C. Holmes open

I have to say I disagree.
2022-02-16 13:44 Edward C. Holmes open

Your lawyers letter says "This was indicative of the view of Dr. Andersen and his co-authors that it was impossible toprove or disprove specific hypotheses as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2" while the PO paper actually says "we do not believe that any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible".

Full conversation →