A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Our Feb 6 conclusion, btw. ```"The evolution scenarios discussed above are largely indistinguishable and current data are consistent with all three. It is currently impossible to prove or disprove either, and it is unclear whether future data or analyses will help resolve this issue. Identifying the immediate non-human animal source and obtaining virus sequences from it wouldbe the most definitive way of distinguishing the three scenarios. The main limitation of what is described here is our clear ascertainment bias. We are looking for features orevolutionary aspects that could help explain how 2019-nCoV lead to such a rapidly expanding human epidemic, yet the specific features we are trying to find may be the exact features one would expect in a virus that could lead to anepidemic of the magnitude currently observed. Before 2019-nCoV 'took off' and started the current epidemic, it isplausible that many stuttering transmission chains of highly similar viruses could have entered the human population, but because they never took off they were never sampled. It is extremely important to keep this in mindas any inference about the plausibility of various scenarios about the evolution and/or epidemic potential of2019-nCoV is attempted.To further clarify the evolutionary origins and functional features of 2019-nCoV it would be helpful to obtain additional data about the virus - both genetic and functional. This includes experimental studies of receptor binding and the role of the furin cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans. The identification of a potential intermediate host of 2019-nCoV as well as sequencing of very early cases, including those not connected to the market, could also help refute the passage scenario described above. Even in the light of such data, however, it is not guaranteed that data can be obtained to conclusively prove all aspects of the initial emergence of 2019-nCoV."```
-
But, we were settled on "engineering" at that point. ```Analysis of the virus genome sequences clearly demonstrates that the virus is not a laboratory construct or experimentally manipulated virus```
-
Yup - the multi-transfer hypothesis - I think this got cut from PO1 - brilliant though in hindsight...
-
Yup - we were on-point pretty darn quickly. Honestly, the way I remember it, it took us longer - but those were someveeeeeeeeeeeery long days, I do remember that!
-
2022-05-31 13:25
Robert F. Garry
what's remarkable is the amt of speculation about that call and then PO1 itself - just crazy. But, I suspect we'll get torevisit all this again - and then probably again - under oath...which will be just fine...
-
BTW isJOsh Levy making progress on revising the figures? Sone iof the font sizes are way to small and Science willbe picky...
-
I think we'll wait until the proof - full focus on getting the submit button pushed as fast as possible.. :wink:
-
OK
-
Hangup is making one combined reference list and getting the supplemental material references into the style of Science.