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...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |