4 ms·
Peter Miller addressed this in the Rootclaim debate[1] so I'll quote from there: > Even if WIV did try to create COVID, they couldn’t have. As Yuri said, COVID
by Shawnecy 2y ago
Peter Miller addressed this in the Rootclaim debate[1] so I'll quote from there:
> Even if WIV did try to create COVID, they couldn’t have. As Yuri said, COVID looks like BANAL-52 plus a furin cleavage site. But WIV didn’t have BANAL-52. It wasn’t discovered until after the COVID pandemic started, when scientists scoured the area for potential COVID relatives. WIV had a more distant COVID relative, RATG-13. But you can’t create COVID from RATG-13; they’re too different. You would need BANAL-52, or some as-yet-undiscovered extremely close relative. WIV had neither.
> Are we sure they had neither? Yes. Remember, WIV’s whole job was looking for new coronaviruses. They published lists of which ones they had found pretty regularly. They published their last list in mid-2019, just a few months before the pandemic. Although lab leak proponents claimed these lists showed weird discrepancies, this was just their inability to keep names consistent, and all the lists showed basically the same viruses (plus a few extra on the later ones, as they kept discovering more). The lists didn’t include BANAL-52 or any other suitable COVID relatives - only RATG-13, which isn’t close enough to work.
> Could they have been keeping their discovery of BANAL-52 secret? No. Pre-pandemic, there was nothing interesting about it; our understanding of virology wasn’t good enough to point this out as a potential pandemic candidate. WIV did its gain-of-function research openly and proudly (before the pandemic, gain-of-function wasn’t as unpopular as it is now) so it’s not like they wanted to keep it secret because they might gain-of-function it later. Their lists very clearly showed they had no virus they could create COVID from, and they had no reason to hide it if they did.
> COVID’s furin cleavage site is admittedly unusual. But it’s unusual in a way that looks natural rather than man-made. Labs don’t usually add furin cleavage sites through nucleotide insertions (they usually mutate what’s already there). On the other hand, viruses get weird insertions of 12+ nucleotides in nature. For example, HKU1 is another emergent Chinese coronavirus that caused a small outbreak of pneumonia in 2004. It had a 15 nucleotide insertion right next to its furin cleavage site. Later strains of COVID got further 12 - 15 nucleotide insertions. Plenty of flus have 12 to 15 nucleotide insertions compared to other earlier flu strains.
Peter goes further into it in the link. Those interested can dig in further.
[1]=https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
- chasil 2y agoThat is interesting information. Perhaps the answer is that both events happened - the furin cleavage escaped the lab on a precursor, which found BANAL-52 in the market.
- tripletao 2y agoMiller's claim rests on the assumption that the WIV would have published every virus it had collected. That's a facially odd claim--there's no research group in the world without unpublished work in progress, since even with no deliberate attempt to conceal, it takes time to write stuff up. We also know it to be specifically false here, since Deigin and some other authors found an unpublished merbecovirus in contamination of published datasets from agricultural sequencing on equipment shared with the WIV: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36865340/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36865340/ That merbecovirus is unrelated to SARS-CoV-2; but with unequivocal evidence that the WIV had at least one unpublished virus, it's hard to reject the possibility they had two.