A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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.
-
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".
-
2022-02-16 13:46
Edward C. Holmes
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?
-
Well, that's the genius of that sentence - it says "we do not _*believe*_ that any type of laboratory based scenario is_*plausible*_". "Not plausible" does not mean "impossible".