The purported doxxing attempt by Flo Debarre was potentially more nefarious than I realized. Perhaps when a journalist finally investigates whether the Proximal Origin fraudsters tried to silence Alina by emailing MIT in 2021-22, they can ask Flo about her interaction w/ Nod.

It’s rare to have a scientific article debunked even before its publication, but that’s the case for the Crits-Christoph et all paper, “Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the #COVID19 pandemic,” which will come out tomorrow in Cell. The paper

Is Gronvall suggesting here that there is going to be a major PR effort around pushing this laughable “negative correlation = causation” raccoon dog paper? Will The New York Times send another push alert? Does Jon Cohen have a PR puff piece ready to hit the presses?

Reminder that in 2021, scientists who went to Wuhan to explore #OriginOfCovid said the data they saw could suggest infections as far back as September 2019. Baric, a collaborator of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, said the virus likely emerged in October 2019.

Journalists covering the #COVID19 origins article released today in Cell should reference the work of Bloom Lab and Dali L. Yang. Bloom's genetic analysis negates the new paper's conclusions. Yang's book makes clear the dataset used by the authors is defined by sampling bias.

They really are going with: 'the fact that all the market cases were B implies the market was just an amplifier and demolish our core argument... But don't worry! A single low-quality glove with lineage A, plus two people who were nearby counts as links' cell.com/cell/fulltext/…

Letter to Cell: "Crits-Christoph et al. 2024 has unsound premises, has unsound conclusions, and may be a product of scientific misconduct. We urge Cell to issue an Expression of Editorial Concern for this paper and to initiate…investigation of this paper for possible retraction"

New Scientist New Scientist in 2024 means reporting ‘science’ according to the political narrative. The virus was the result of gain of function research admitted by the US part funded NIH/DARPA/Wuhan collaboration, which then leaked from the lab because of poor security at the Institute.

Nsikan Akpan, PhD Alina Chan Thank you for the clarification but many experts have pointed out multiple spillover theory is unlikely: 1. Lineage A and B are just two mutations apart (Bloom 2021, see also comments by François Balloux and Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo). 2. The new sequences analyzed in Lv et al

1\ Ok, now that the lie and libel crew is pushing their crap again: cell.com/cell/fulltext/… It's time to debunk it again. Lets look at their highlights first First point: They claim A and B were at the market, and globally, all cases are A and B, so the MRCA is the same

Derek Pederson 🇺🇸🇺🇦 Try reading this and let me know (e.g. in Comments) what's wrong/missing. Statisticians a lot smarter than me think it's right on target. The only new stuff in Cell is that HSM mammal DNA didn't look like it came from Yunnan, which weakens their case. michaelweissman.substack.com/p/an-inconveni…

3 years ago today, #DRASTIC released our analysis of the DEFUSE proposal, which had been given to me to leak. All evidence that has emerged since has simply confirmed our conclusions - that DEFUSE was an instruction manual to produce a virus like SARS-COV-2. Historians will

Those pesky reviewers

"There was a WSJ editorial that made me want to pull my hair out" In Oct 2021, ~2 years before the Proximal Origin Slack chats became public, Sri Narasimhan, Deputy Editor of Cell, commented on a WSJ Op-Ed discussing the "lab leak theory" during a Zoom panel with other editors.

No, there is no new evidence that Covid originated with a raccoon dog in a market in Wuhan. The public relations blitz that surrounded the publication this week of a paper in Cell from a team whose previous papers have been debunked caught some headlines, as it was designed to

Arthur Dent Kyle Ferriter Have a look at the criticisms on BioRxiv in the comments last year. David Bahry noted they ignored his observation about using p values for their heat map despite acknowledged bias and oversampliing of the animal stalls (Liu et al (2023). They are also placing weight on Pekar

New Scientist It is amazing how many factors must be ignored to even entertain a “natural origin” story. New Scientist, you have fallen so far.

I highly recommend this thread that lists the distortions and errors in the Cell paper that claims the proximal origin of the #coronavirus that has caused the #COVID19 #pandemic worldwide. The laboratory leak hypothesis is the most likely.

Their claim is that with zero (or one) adaptive mutations, a virus that spilled directly from animals was already transmissible between humans and causing significant illness.

Correct