Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1093

Your lawyers letter says "This was indicative of the view of Dr. Andersen and his co-authors that it was impossible to prove 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 13:46:48] [Eddie Holmes] To me that's a straight contradiction [2022-02-16 13:47:42] [Kristian Andersen] Straight from our paper - "The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. 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 in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible" [2022-02-16 13:51:19] [Eddie Holmes] Right, but we do actually then state that no laboratory-based scenario is plausible. [2022-02-16 13:52:27] [Eddie Holmes] If I were on the other side I would then ask why you wrote this second sentence? [2022-02-16 13:54:02] [Kristian Andersen] 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". [2022-02-16 13:54:17] [Andrew Rambaut] not-plausible to me means has a non-zero probability but still small [2022-02-16 13:54:23] [Kristian Andersen] Yup [2022-02-16 13:54:46] [Andrew Rambaut] As Kristian says - the categorical bit is 'any' [2022-02-16 13:55:18] [Eddie Holmes] My problem your letter is that it ends with the its impossible to prove/disprove statement whereas the paper has more. [2022-02-16 13:55:23] [Kristian Andersen] "Believe" does a lot of heavy lifting here too - clearly this is our opinion (based on all the data, expertise, etc). [2022-02-16 13:55:33] [Robert Garry] Maybe we should jump on that call?