This was Rossana Segreto commenting on the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper very, very early on:

'I know that we have all the methods to manipulate genomic sequences without leaving any trace...Are some virologist scared that the true will come out and their research will be…

Alex Washburne Alina Chan I'd add Yuri Deigin and Rossana Segreto to that (very short) list. Their Nov 2020 paper (written at a very hostile time) was the first compelling lab leak explanation that was capable of being understood by laypeople. Still one of the best papers out there.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bi…

Dear Peter Daszak could you please release the copy of DEFUSE without weird gaps and with the DURC risk mitigation plan written by Baric?
twitter.com/Rossana3851004…

Tony VanDongen Baric should've been subpoenaed years ago, yet he's escaped all attention.
twitter.com/HansMahncke/st…

When will the U.S. test 2019 samples from EVALI (“vaping illness”) patients for SARS-CoV-2?

Retract 'The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2' - Sign the Petition!

'[M]essages..among authors..show..the authors did not believe the conclusions of the paper..It is imperative that this clearly fraudulent paper be removed from the scientific literature.'

change.org/p/retract-the-…

Absolutely Incredible.

From April 16, nearly a month after Proximal Origin was published.

Prof. Andersen: 'We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research)'

Bombshell by alex gutentag , Leighton 明 Woodhouse , Michael Shellenberger Matt Taibbi

public.substack.com/p/top-scientis…

A month after 'Proximal Origin' published saying no lab origin scenario was plausible, its lead author wrote:

'I’m still not fully convinced that no [cell] culture was involved ...We also can't fully rule out engineering.'

This should clear up any lingering ambiguity. They…

So true. After that The Lancet pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34543608/
and Science Magazine science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… recognized that a laboratory origin for SARS2 is plausible, @nature should retract 'The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2'.
That paper did enough damage to science.

It should be clear by now that Proximal Origin is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud in human history, if not the worst given the gravity of the situation.

Nature Medicine must retract this paper for the sake of scientific integrity.

So true. The widely cited The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 convinced the most at the beginning of the pandemic that the virus is natural, but we and others showed that the article has many flaws and its conclusions not valid. Time to retract it?

There is no evidentiary standard that will get Nature Medicine to pay attention and retract the deceptive-by-design Proximal Origins paper. You can show them literal slack messages detailing the political and self-interested motivations of the authors, and nothing happens.

House Republicans Accidentally Released a Trove of Damning Covid Documents theintercept.com/2023/07/12/cov…

'The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely – it's not some fringe theory.'

One of many hidden text messages uncovered by Francisco de Asis, like finding deleted security camera footage of OJ murdering Nicole and Ron.

Yet the media is totally ignoring it.

Rossana Segreto 💧 Ian "Engaging and Scary Lecturer" 🍩 🐀Musgrave Peter Daszak Daszak blocked me for asking this same question, so unfortunately, I think the chances he'll release the full DEFUSE proposal are quite low

Do you support the creation of bioweapon agents?

If the answer is NO, then please add your name alongside the nearly 3,000 others than support a ban on research that creates enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (aka, bioweapon agents)

#BiosafetyNow

change.org/prohibit-ePPP

Dear Peter Daszak could you please release the copy of DEFUSE without weird gaps and with the DURC risk mitigation plan written by Baric?
twitter.com/Rossana3851004…

Quelqu'un peut-il m'expliquer pourquoi le paragraphe sur le 'risque pour le grand public' semble coupé dans DEFUSE ? documentcloud.org/documents/2106… savons que la proposition a été rejetée en raison de l'absence d'un plan d'atténuation des risques DURC approprié. Manquait-il vraiment ?

Perhaps Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, or Baric Laboratory could clear this up?

First time I realise that the #DEFUSE document has a truncated paragraph towards the end ('Risk to general public'). With a reference that has disappeared from the text! 🤔