@R_H_Ebright @ydeigin @BretWeinstein @flavinkins @BahulikarRahul @BillyBostickson @franciscodeasis @AntGDuarte @CZilcho @luigi_warren @TheSeeker268 @RolandBakerIII @Ayjchan @BidoliNicola @Nomdeplumi1 @KevinMcH3 @OshZosh @Rossana38510044 @romromtin @DrAntoniSerraT1 let's rehearse

Please correct me if I missed anyone who had contributed to this international, non-governmental, volunteered scientific investigation on the origin of #SARSCoV2 #coronavirus #Covid_19

(4) Regarding the previous evidence and statements, the funding agencies for the related labs must examine their project reports and inquire the relevant people, including but not limited to: U.S. NIH/NIAID to Peter Daszak; China MoST/MoH/CAS to Shi Zhengli

(6) One record of the RaTG13 full sequence says it is sampled from fecal swab, another record says it is sampled from BALF; (7) By the same lab, an online-available database on bat-related coronaviruses was deleted from as early as January 2020

That is all. Neither the zoonosis nor the GoF hypothesis has yet sufficient evidence to stand and perhaps forever. However the goal here is to prevent the risk of future emerging SARS-CoV3, so it's enough if the above mentioned inquiries can be made for the general public.

I am a neuroscientist by career and with physics education background, not virology - meaning that my own career is in any case not affected by whatever outcome of the investigation would be - that justifies the no-conflict-of-interest criterium.

By collecting information so far, i was able to put the following evidence and logic into a chain: (1) BatCov4991 was a part (RdRp) of RaTG13; (2) BatCoV4991 was sampled at the same locaion (<50 km) and at the same time (+/- 6 months) as the MojV

i need to correct one statment boz i just learned something. here is the updated one: 3) SZ must explain why her lab publishes two record of one virus (RaTG13) with conflicting sampling method descriptions

(3) MojV was found in a cave, where 3 of 6 miners dead of viral pneumonia; (4) RaTG13 is first sequenced in 2018 and then published on https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 (5) RNA sequence data of RaTG13 was uploaded twice by the same lab with two different contact people (6) next page

(2) Neither PD or SZ had mentioned anything in their publications and talks about the Mojiang mineshaft with dead miners, however it is clear that BatCOV4991 (part of RaTG13) was sampled from there if not exactly the same cave. An official inquiry by the journal shall be made

With these solid evidence (from peer-reviewed publications, official media reports and geographical data) one can make the following statements: (1) Either Peter Daszak or Shi Zhengli is lying, or both. (PD: RaTG13 is a fecal swab; SZ: RaTG13 is a fecal swab, and is a BALF)