https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1306037072914866178
Here's the paper Anderson is criticizing: https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X2IGMXlKj7z
"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.
Problem: Anderson implies Li-Meng says SARS-Cov2 is identical to earlier viruses. She never said that. Li-Meng's argument is SARS-Cov2 was evolved or recombined from earlier 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.
Problem: references would be nice here, why are they missing?
"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.
Problem: Ristriction sites aren't the smoking gun. That honor goes to the SARS-Cov2's human optimized ACE2 receptor binding protein.
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
Problem: The use of the word "absurd" hints at Anderson's lack of objectivity. Li-Meng's research has been referenced 577 times in the past. She has theorized about several possible origins of SARS-Cov2 and Anderson is attacking her for that suggesting vindictiveness which further erodes his objectivity.
"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.
Problem: Anderson eliminated China from the list of possible conflicting interests he has. That narrows it down to: (Possible Conflicts of Interest - China). Anderson used a Straw Man.
Okay, I know I said I wouldn't include this, but it's relevant…https://gnews.org/349115/
Problem: This is a valid point and suggest Li-Meng may have an agenda. But that doesn't automatically invalidate her research. In the end the truth depends on facts alone not politics. Li-Meng has pointed out a devastating fact about SARS-Cov2: it's optomized to fit the human ACE2 receptor. That simply could not have happened naturally. Until an intermediate host is found Li-Meng's argument is completely reasonable.
I'm not sure Anderson really wants to go down the "conflict of interest" road as Joe Biden's son Hunter accepted $1.5 BILLION in Chinese capital in 20??. Joe Biden has a conflict of interest larger than the Great Wall of China a problem even the New York Times has brought up: https://archive.vn/Lmfhq
-
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.
Problem: This is further evidence Anderson has lost his scientific objectivity. Had Anderson mentioned the inexplicable fact SARS-Cov2 has a higher affinity for the human ACE2 receptor then Anderson might have the right to be "tired". But Anderson did not mention ACE2. That's Li-Meng's strongest point. Search for ACE2 here: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1306037072914866178. You won't find it. That's not good.