There are no valid points of criticism in Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's response (10.1002/bies.202000325) to our paper "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin" (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240)

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several "points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis". As our paper is titled "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin", points of disag...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Deigin, Yuri, Segreto, Rossana
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several "points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis". As our paper is titled "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin", points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS-CoV-2 that could be consistent with the lab leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, and their other points of criticism are either incorrect or irrelevant to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly.
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.2106.02020