A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
*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.
-
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?
-
I have to say I disagree.
-
2022-02-16 13:44
Edward C. Holmes
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".
-
To me that's a straight contradiction
-
Straight from our paper - "The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 inhumans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses innature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible"
-
Right, but we do actually then state that no laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
-
If I were on the other side I would then ask why you wrote this second sentence?