I’m wondering how many folks are aware that a similar case of research misconduct is actually affecting the covid origin investigation? Essentially a lot of sc

I’m wondering how many folks are aware that a similar case of research misconduct is actually affecting the covid origin investigation? Essentially a lot of scientists in 2020/2021 cite the same two research papers on impounded pangolins to support that covid-19’s virus, SARS-CoV-2, had a close cousin(s) infecting pangolins. However, this analysis from an MIT Broad Institute genomics researcher, Alina Chan PhD, implicates research misconduct on the part of those two articles’ authors. https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1320344055230963712?s=21 https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1320344055230963712?s=21 Turns out the authors of the pangolin papers can’t provide the complete pangolin-infecting coronavirus sample genome (i.e. they can’t provide ‘the source code’ if you will), and they profess not having coordinated with each other or even knowing each other even though authors from both papers published a paper (notably also a pangolin cov genome oriented) together just a couple months before the outbreak came out. Mainstream virologists like Angela Rasmussen PhD now call the pangolin cov genomes ‘a mess’, https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1349841489384284160?s=21 https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/13498414893842841... and yet these papers continue to get cited to help prop up the natural origin line. U.S. Right to Know published the email traffic between the Nature Medicine & PLOS Pathogens editors and the two sets of authors of the research papers in question: https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1354455267656785925?s=21 https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1354455267656785925?s=21 . . . and after all that those authors still come up short. In other words, there’s ‘weirdness’ around the provenance of those pangolin cov datasets, and the lack of formal retractions from Nature and PLOS Pathogens (despite those journals’ editors’ posted Q&A with the authors) means that the natural origin line continues to gain unearned steam (beyond being reasonably treated as simply the pandemic origin’s null hypothesis).