Read on Twitter
A few comms on the (lack of) scientific merits of the "Yan Report". It is non-scientific and false - cherry picking data and ignoring data disproving their hypotheses.
It's using technical language that is impossible to decode for non-experts - poppycock dressed up as 'science'.
It's using technical language that is impossible to decode for non-experts - poppycock dressed up as 'science'.
I'll focus on the 'scientific' claims as the connection of the authors to Steve Bannon and other political operatives has already been covered: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1305742845278470144?s=20.
Here's the report in question: https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X1922Wj0nIW.
Here's the report in question: https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X1922Wj0nIW.
- "SARS-CoV-2 was created using ZC45 and/or ZXC21 bat coronaviruses".
This simply can't be true - there are more than 3,500 nucleotide differences between SARS-CoV-2 and these viruses.
This simply can't be true - there are more than 3,500 nucleotide differences between SARS-CoV-2 and these viruses.
- The report ignores ALL recent coronavirus data from pangolins and bats.
Had this been included, the data would have invalidated all the 'mysterious' homology findings in the report as they relate to matrix protein, Orf8, receptor binding domain, etc.
Had this been included, the data would have invalidated all the 'mysterious' homology findings in the report as they relate to matrix protein, Orf8, receptor binding domain, etc.
- "Smoking gun" in the form of restriction sites.
These sites are not unique, are all present in genomes ignored by the authors (e.g., RaTG13), and are expected to be present by random chance. None of these would have been used for cloning.
These sites are not unique, are all present in genomes ignored by the authors (e.g., RaTG13), and are expected to be present by random chance. None of these would have been used for cloning.
- Blueprint for how to make SARS-CoV-2.
Instead of following the absurd 'recipe' for creating SARS-CoV-2 described in the report, here's how one could actually do it: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.21.959817v1
Instead of following the absurd 'recipe' for creating SARS-CoV-2 described in the report, here's how one could actually do it: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.21.959817v1
- "Proximal Origin" paper authors are conflicted.
Not correct - my lab has never received funding from China and we have no collaborations with Chinese investigators. I have no financial interests in China. All our analyses are scientific and unbiased.
Not correct - my lab has never received funding from China and we have no collaborations with Chinese investigators. I have no financial interests in China. All our analyses are scientific and unbiased.
And final comment - yes, I turned off replies on this thread because the insanity is frankly tiring - we all have real research to do, trying to get a handle on the COVID-19 pandemic.
I have no further comments on this report - let's keep focus on what's important. Together.
I have no further comments on this report - let's keep focus on what's important. Together.
