Oct 27, 2022·edited Oct 27, 2022Liked by Alex Washburne
Excellent, Alex! Keep up the great work!
Not only did SARS-2 emerge right next to the WIV (nothing to see here), it showed up highly adept to human-human transmission, as if it took a mysterious pit-stop before making its debut...
Great, great article. I particularly applaud your comments about the quality of the metagenomic sequences that are being discussed. This was very obvious in the Methods sections of the earliest SARS2 papers, which incidentally used only one of the methods for detecting recombination rather than the RDP suite. Another point you don't mention is that there is no reason to believe that viruses have a fixed mutation rate, especially when changing hosts, and so the estimates of 11 years between YN0?? And SARS2 may be quite wrong. Finally, the 'recombination' in 'flu is a shuffling of separate segments of the genome, and is usually called "reassortment". Please keep up the good work. Adrian
Look at how those involved conducted themselves. Surely any rational person could easily see that no honest people would have conducted themselves like that.
Liars, unless they are pathological, don't like for no reason. They lie to cover up something unpleasant!
I have initiated a conversation on your work at a blog called Peaceful Science. In post no 48 of that conversation, a guy named Nesslig20 analyzed your claim that most Cov infectious clones predating the SARS2 pandemy were produced by the same methodology you’ve described in your preprint. What he claims in his piece is that whenever they are used, the restriction sites of type IIS restriction enzymes (such as BsaI and BsmBI) are never retained in the final assembly in any of these synthetic coronaviruses. If true, I think that may be fatal for your argument. What do you think?
Here is the link to the aforementioned conversation, with the piece by Nesslig20 at 48.
Excellent, Alex! Keep up the great work!
Not only did SARS-2 emerge right next to the WIV (nothing to see here), it showed up highly adept to human-human transmission, as if it took a mysterious pit-stop before making its debut...
Love your work, Alex, and the issue-focused (not person-focused), gracious way you articulate your position. Thank you!
Great, great article. I particularly applaud your comments about the quality of the metagenomic sequences that are being discussed. This was very obvious in the Methods sections of the earliest SARS2 papers, which incidentally used only one of the methods for detecting recombination rather than the RDP suite. Another point you don't mention is that there is no reason to believe that viruses have a fixed mutation rate, especially when changing hosts, and so the estimates of 11 years between YN0?? And SARS2 may be quite wrong. Finally, the 'recombination' in 'flu is a shuffling of separate segments of the genome, and is usually called "reassortment". Please keep up the good work. Adrian
https://drjessesantiano.com/evidences-of-splicing-shows-sars-cov-2-is-man-made/
Your work is covered here by Dr. Santiano - he writes great articles - I'd take that as a nice happening.
Great work man. Loved your response to the hate and love this response too.
God bless.
"By their deeds shall ye know them."
Look at how those involved conducted themselves. Surely any rational person could easily see that no honest people would have conducted themselves like that.
Liars, unless they are pathological, don't like for no reason. They lie to cover up something unpleasant!
Badoom doom ching!
Excellent work, Alex. Keep fighting the good fight. Charlatans can never win a data driven argument.
Hi Alex, Gilbert Thill pointed to message 48 in a thread which discusses your preprint, Bruttel, Washburne and VanDongen: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.18.512756v1. I looked further up this thread, at https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/evidence-of-a-synthetic-origin-of-sars-cov-2/15509/24 . Both these posts, and most of the thread in general, seems like a constructive criitique of your article.
I lack the expertise to reliably evaluate the arguments, but would be interested in reading your response to these critiques.
Dear Alex,
I have initiated a conversation on your work at a blog called Peaceful Science. In post no 48 of that conversation, a guy named Nesslig20 analyzed your claim that most Cov infectious clones predating the SARS2 pandemy were produced by the same methodology you’ve described in your preprint. What he claims in his piece is that whenever they are used, the restriction sites of type IIS restriction enzymes (such as BsaI and BsmBI) are never retained in the final assembly in any of these synthetic coronaviruses. If true, I think that may be fatal for your argument. What do you think?
Here is the link to the aforementioned conversation, with the piece by Nesslig20 at 48.
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/evidence-of-a-synthetic-origin-of-sars-cov-2/15509/48