Thread
Lots of speculation about what went down in the infamous 2/1/20 teleconference. Lab leak proponents think Fauci conspired with an international group of experts to cover up lab origin because evil gain of function virologist cartel.
Unsurprisingly, they are wrong.
Unsurprisingly, they are wrong.
In this email, Tony Fauci tells Jeremy Farrar that what he's heard from Kristian Andersen is troubling. If it holds up, Fauci himself recommends contacting authorities immediately.
Doesn't seem like the knee jerk response of a guy trying to cover up a lab leak.
Doesn't seem like the knee jerk response of a guy trying to cover up a lab leak.
Here's what Kristian Andersen & Eddie Holmes showed that caused them concern:
-Comparing RaTG13 & SARS-CoV-2
-Lots of mutations in spike RBD
-Gain of furin cleavage site at S1/S2 junction
-Gain of BamHI restriction site in N-term of spike
-F to Y reversion to SARS-like RBD
-Comparing RaTG13 & SARS-CoV-2
-Lots of mutations in spike RBD
-Gain of furin cleavage site at S1/S2 junction
-Gain of BamHI restriction site in N-term of spike
-F to Y reversion to SARS-like RBD
Then they had the call. Then they sent emails summarizing what they discussed. First up, Jeremy Farrar. He suggests an independent expert group with "a completely open mind."
Hardly the words of someone who just conspired with Fauci to silence dissent and push a narrative.
Hardly the words of someone who just conspired with Fauci to silence dissent and push a narrative.
Next up, Ron Fouchier. He thinks a non-natural origin is highly unlikely but suggests approaching the question (and any conspiracy theories) "with factual information." He also provides copious notes explaining his reasoning. 
Here are Ron's notes. Basically he goes through every one of Kristian & Eddie's concerns and describes how, in his view, they are consistent with a natural origin. Yet he doesn't mention anything about lab origin besides such a claim would need to be supported with strong data. 
Now it's Andrew Rambaut's turn. He says he's agnostic on the issue & more data is needed, but still thinks the FCS is unusual & shares his views. He thinks it should be addressed urgently, both because of "lurid claims" on Twitter & implications for control if it is from a lab. 
And Jeremy Farrar reiterates the need to convene a group of international experts to "ask the neutral question, 'To understand the evolutionary origins of nCoV-2019...'"
As far as coverups go, these guys are either bad at it or so good they make it look like they're bad at it.
As far as coverups go, these guys are either bad at it or so good they make it look like they're bad at it.
Hello NIH Director Francis Collins! He thinks Fouchier & Drosten came on a little too strong for natural origin for his taste, but he's nonetheless leaning toward a natural origin being more likely.
If there was a NIH coverup, doesn't sound like the NIH Director was in on it.
If there was a NIH coverup, doesn't sound like the NIH Director was in on it.
I'll note that we just saw Ron Fouchier's notes on the topic, which was entirely based on evidence rather than his prior biases toward a natural origin. Though he may have been forceful on the call, it sounds like his arguments were data-driven rather than just yelling at people.
Jeremy Farrar is back to say he is still unswayed by either hypothesis. He is famously 50/50 on the question but still thinks there's value in convening an expert group. Maybe WHO could do it? But what if they don't do it quickly enough? What then? 
Jeremy also brought some other experts to the discussion. Here's more evidence-driven analysis from Michael Farzan, who thinks the RBD doesn't look engineered but the FCS is weird. He offers several hypotheses for why that might be & starts the famous 70:30/60:40 oddsmaking. 
And Bob Garry, with his infamous pre-ball alignment and his concerns that this just doesn't seem natural. He also offers several hypotheses why.
For any competent scientist, btw, the next step would be to *test* these hypotheses.
For any competent scientist, btw, the next step would be to *test* these hypotheses.
Finally Tony Fauci himself weighs in. He agrees the "concerns" (about lab origin) need to be taken seriously and addressed scientifically before Twitter conspiracists fill the knowledge void. Time to throw up the WHO signal!
Not the actions of someone trying to silence debate.
Not the actions of someone trying to silence debate.
While WHO deliberates, the conspiracymongers are already hard at work spinning their HIV-hybrid bioweapon bullshit.
No consensus, but whatever the teleconferencers are going to do, they better do it fast. Conspiracies don't care if they get it right & won't wait for science.
No consensus, but whatever the teleconferencers are going to do, they better do it fast. Conspiracies don't care if they get it right & won't wait for science.
Jeremy Farrar reports again that he's heard from WHO and they are going to work out an approach for a working group. However, this is clearly going to take a while while WHO figures out the best approach.
Meanwhile, the scientists kept working.
Meanwhile, the scientists kept working.
By Feb 4th, Eddie Holmes shared a 1st draft of what became the Proximal Origin paper. It covers their subsequent analysis of issues from the teleconference. Eddie describes it as a "summary" & "fundamental science and completely neutral as written." 
Another thing worth pointing out:
A common refrain from lab leak people is "how did they change their minds so fast?" suggesting they were incentivized.
Eddie explains the incentive: "excellent basic science I think, which is a service in itself."
A common refrain from lab leak people is "how did they change their minds so fast?" suggesting they were incentivized.
Eddie explains the incentive: "excellent basic science I think, which is a service in itself."
And why did they change their minds from the hypotheses they were batting around on the teleconference?
It's right here in the draft. The hypothetical lab-origin scenarios turned out to be "largely incompatible with the data."
This is the scientific method in action.
It's right here in the draft. The hypothetical lab-origin scenarios turned out to be "largely incompatible with the data."
This is the scientific method in action.
But that said, they didn't really change their minds completely! Not yet.
They still considered lab passage in animals as a potential lab origin. Famously Eddie was 60:40. Francis Collins wondered about it too. And rather than cover it up, Tony Fauci wanted WHO to get a move on!
They still considered lab passage in animals as a potential lab origin. Famously Eddie was 60:40. Francis Collins wondered about it too. And rather than cover it up, Tony Fauci wanted WHO to get a move on!
Why was Tony Fauci in such a hurry to investigate? He had his own lab origin hypothesis!
Rushing to get an independent, WHO-convened panel investigating a question is not a very effective strategy to cover up NIAID involvement in experiments that may have caused a pandemic.
Rushing to get an independent, WHO-convened panel investigating a question is not a very effective strategy to cover up NIAID involvement in experiments that may have caused a pandemic.
And...uh...about the claims that NIH doesn't care about biosafety, I give you the NIH Director aghast at working with SARSr-CoVs in BSL-2 containment.
Again, hardly the actions of an insidious cartel who just can't wait to do risky research for their own evil ends.
Again, hardly the actions of an insidious cartel who just can't wait to do risky research for their own evil ends.
(BTW, attention all conspiracists: if you're looking for early drafts of Proximal Origin, you will find a rich vein to mine here. There's a bunch of them to sort through. Have fun, Alina et al! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.)
By Feb 5th, the conversation had moved on to whether a FCS could be acquired through cell culture passage. At the time, Kristian Andersen & Bob Garry explained it could.
They were still considering a lab origin as they were working on their draft. No CREID pro quo yet!
They were still considering a lab origin as they were working on their draft. No CREID pro quo yet!
Kristian & Bob turned out to be wrong re: the FCS. We know now that if you grow SARS-CoV-2 in Vero cells (most commonly used to culture CoVs), the FCS is lost.
They couldn't have known this then, because there was no precedent for growing SARS2 in a lab.
www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00346-z
They couldn't have known this then, because there was no precedent for growing SARS2 in a lab.
www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00346-z
Meanwhile, also on Feb 5th, the WHO sent along an update and Jeremy Farrar passed it on to Fauci & Collins.
The draft summary, rather than an attempt at hiding lab origins, was actually just that: a summary that could go on to lay out the work so far for the WHO expert group.
The draft summary, rather than an attempt at hiding lab origins, was actually just that: a summary that could go on to lay out the work so far for the WHO expert group.
And then Fauci suggested some names for the WHO committee.
My only complaint is that he only nominated one woman, who he initially forgot to name. This has been a perpetual issue at NIH—as Francis Collins & Larry Tabak have heard from me directly. But that's for another day.
My only complaint is that he only nominated one woman, who he initially forgot to name. This has been a perpetual issue at NIH—as Francis Collins & Larry Tabak have heard from me directly. But that's for another day.
By February 8th, the pangolin studies came out and also the draft summary was starting to look like a paper. Kristian, Andrew, Bob, and Eddie who actually wrote it were starting to wonder whether it was worth publishing as the draft—and the data, & thus their views—matured. 
Sir Patrick Vallance thought it was useful and balanced. He suggested looking into whether pangolin viruses might have implications about an intermediate host & also do more analysis on the glycans.
Again, not the actions of interested parties trying to force a conclusion.
Again, not the actions of interested parties trying to force a conclusion.
And here's what the "glycan point" refers to: it's suggestive of evolution in the presence of an immune system, so not cell culture. Tony Fauci's question is, would this differ between lab animals vs wild animals?
He wouldn't have to ask if he knew it was from a lab animal.
He wouldn't have to ask if he knew it was from a lab animal.
Christian Drosten then wondered why this was still going on. So Eddie Holmes posed a key question that speaks to their motives:
"whether we, as scientists, should try to write something balanced on the science"
Not "should we cover up a lab leak."
"whether we, as scientists, should try to write something balanced on the science"
Not "should we cover up a lab leak."
Jeremy Farrar is even more explicit about their aims:
"to bring a neutral, respected, scientific group together to look at the data and in a neutral, considered way provide an opinion and we hoped to focus the discussion on the science" to keep the public debate evidence-driven.
"to bring a neutral, respected, scientific group together to look at the data and in a neutral, considered way provide an opinion and we hoped to focus the discussion on the science" to keep the public debate evidence-driven.
And take it from Kristian Andersen, Dr. Why-Did-You-Change-Your-Mind-So-Fast himself: this was the scientific process in action.
He admits to testing the lab origin hypothesis directly and giving it serious consideration.
He also didn't believe they had enough to publish.
He admits to testing the lab origin hypothesis directly and giving it serious consideration.
He also didn't believe they had enough to publish.
However, Marion Koopmans felt that perhaps a publication would be useful if it were more broad and balanced, addressing some of the challenges of this research. She suggested focusing on the evidence & leaving the uncertainties for the discussion. Not suppressing them. 
And other than some more drafts of Proximal Origin, that's what was in these extremely revealing emails.
Not evidence of a sinister cabal of evil virologists plotting to hide their wrongdoing. Evidence of a bunch of scientists doing their jobs cautiously & competently.
Not evidence of a sinister cabal of evil virologists plotting to hide their wrongdoing. Evidence of a bunch of scientists doing their jobs cautiously & competently.
Pretty removed from what some others have suggested:
that the teleconference that started this all was essentially misconduct, resulting in a paper intended to advance a false narrative to support Tony Fauci's interests, aka "wanting the subject squashed."
that the teleconference that started this all was essentially misconduct, resulting in a paper intended to advance a false narrative to support Tony Fauci's interests, aka "wanting the subject squashed."
Or that the participants here were "piece(s) of shit" for
saying that the speculative, fact-free mischaracterization of scientific colleagues discussing an open scientific question was just that, and not a conspiracy.
saying that the speculative, fact-free mischaracterization of scientific colleagues discussing an open scientific question was just that, and not a conspiracy.
Or "conspiring to bury lab leak." 
I fail to see how black redaction boxes supported this claim that the "teleconference conveyed clear message" to cover up a lab leak or else gain of function mastermind Fauci would start taking people's grants away. 
In a perfect world, these people would apologize to the scientists who were doing their jobs, addressing a crucial scientific question, in the face of great uncertainty and have been relentlessly attacked ever since for their trouble.
But that assumes these lab leak promoters actually care about the truth, much less the consequences of their lies for other people. As Emily Kopp is already "reporting" demonstrable lies about these emails, I'm not holding my breath. 
She's even QTing this very thread, calling it gaslighting that I'm describing what the emails literally.
This is why you are blocked, Emily. Because you are the one gaslighting. You are lying about emails we can all now read.
This is why you are blocked, Emily. Because you are the one gaslighting. You are lying about emails we can all now read.
But this is an imperfect world, and there will be no apologies, and there will be yet more lies as the liars scramble to cover their asses so they can keep lying.
I'll just be content with the knowledge that as a culpably misfeasant troll once noted, stooges will be stooges.
I'll just be content with the knowledge that as a culpably misfeasant troll once noted, stooges will be stooges.
