Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1092

coronavirus in pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found in SARS-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 13:33:15] [Kristian 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 [2022-02-16 13:34:45] [Eddie Holmes] What's point #3? I can't read this. Also, it's only going to be used if people ask. [2022-02-16 13:35:29] [Kristian Andersen] shared file(s): Lab-Leak Theory_ Kristian Andersen On His Fauci Email and Covid Origins - The New York Times.pdf [2022-02-16 13:35:58] [Kristian Andersen] *In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that "we do not believe that any type of 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 to reject 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, we looked 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 a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed. [2022-02-16 13:37:22] [Eddie Holmes] I honestly don't see how that differs from what we've said. [2022-02-16 13:39:18] [Kristian Andersen] 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 13:42:03] [Eddie Holmes] I have to say I disagree. [2022-02-16 13:44:01] [Eddie Holmes]