RT @ZhouLabUCR: 15/ It's understandable for NIH to ask questions related to RaTG13. After all, the first paper (https://t.co/lbwtPwME5f; #3…
Looking at the 6 questions, only the one omitted by @WSJ was reasonable for NIH to ask for EcoHealth/WIV accountability on. Missing tech, original SARS2 sample, roadblocks, BSL4 safety, site inspection would be nice but outside grant scope. But RaTG13 work
@Real_Adam_B @PeterDaszak @NIHDirector The NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth Alliance is actually acknowledged in the article where BtCoV/4991 (aka RaTG13) was first reported. But not a word on the viral COVID-like pneumonia that killed 3 out of 6 miners who
RT @ZhouLabUCR: 3/ Here's the publication the report referred to👇. The paper stated:"In the phylogenetic tree, RaBtCoV/4991 showed more div…
15/ It's understandable for NIH to ask questions related to RaTG13. After all, the first paper (https://t.co/lbwtPwME5f; #3 of this thread) reporting the virus (named RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016) cited NIH funding support-the same grant albeit in the original gra
RT @PeterDaszak: Re. point #5: Staff at Office of @NIHDirector didn't bother to Google authorship/acknowledgements in paper describing RaTG…
Re. point #5: Staff at Office of @NIHDirector didn't bother to Google authorship/acknowledgements in paper describing RaTG13 or its earlier name BtCoV/4991. We were not part of this work. Samples collected prior to our grant so clearly outside NIH's remit.
RT @goshofar: @thespybrief Discussed on this platform at length a few months ago. Interesting to follow their deductions. https://t.co/pQf2…
RT @goshofar: @thespybrief Discussed on this platform at length a few months ago. Interesting to follow their deductions. https://t.co/pQf2…
@thespybrief Discussed on this platform at length a few months ago. Interesting to follow their deductions. https://t.co/pQf2iMEJ0m
How is it possible that they detected RaTG13 in 2020 but not in 2013? |6 https://t.co/2aDqnmhfR9 https://t.co/ov7SnWtT9o
@x3nome @Ayjchan Shi is the one who's trying to confuse people or splitting hairs, respectively. This paper is from her. https://t.co/2aDqnmhfR9 https://t.co/AcknigK7p1
RT @ydeigin: I am referring to this 2016 paper: https://t.co/lK0p9onHj0
@_hoeman @VafaOmid @R_H_Ebright @PeterDaszak Re: "No evidence in the paper you quoted, sorry" Now you're just lying in order to maintain the paranoid conspiracy theory you've been peddling for months Evidence was cited by Gallaher even before the paper.
@_hoeman @VafaOmid @R_H_Ebright @PeterDaszak Re: "You don´t read" I read the evidence weeks ago and checked it. I'm not like you conspiracists; I actually do my homework, and understand the biology. You just use paranoia to fill in gaps in your knowledge
@fffeeerrr68
RT @__ice9: RaTG13 was discovered and disclosed several years ago. The name merely changed, giving rise to misunderstandings about having…
RT @__ice9: RaTG13 was discovered and disclosed several years ago. The name merely changed, giving rise to misunderstandings about having…
RT @__ice9: RaTG13 was discovered and disclosed several years ago. The name merely changed, giving rise to misunderstandings about having…
RaTG13 was discovered and disclosed several years ago. The name merely changed, giving rise to misunderstandings about having been conveniently provided during the pandemic. It came from a mineshaft in Yunnan Province, collected after the deaths of 3 min
@fffeeerrr68
RT @Ayjchan: The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the…
RT @Ayjchan: The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the…
RT @Ayjchan: The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the…
RT @Ayjchan: The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the…
RT @Ayjchan: The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the…
The Sunday Times recently confirmed that RaTG13 is actually a sample called RaBtCoV/4991 from this 2016 paper published by the WIV/Shi Zhengli's group. It was renamed and it's not a big deal. Sometimes new naming criteria are implemented. https://t.co/Gd7s
@BillyBostickson @nature Here’s the 2015/16 publication: https://t.co/NLAYvf9Nvw Why go from a specific sequence name to a more general one, not reference the earlier work, and then conveniently “lose” the original viral sample from which they obtained t
RT @schnufi666: @KhaledATalaat @PeterDaszak In the online version of the study "Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat coloni…
@doctorsoumya mineshaft Mojiang https://t.co/pdRnMXJwZ7 mineshaft Betacoronavirus, 4991/ RaTG13 origin https://t.co/WTY0Bntu8u https://t.co/CwqiSNM6wZ
Covid19 https://t.co/5s87353OfU Research.
See https://t.co/5s87353OfU @MedCramVideos @drbeen_medical
@mauricedehond Paper 2016: Coronavirus Related to SARS-CoV-2 Found in Chinese Mine in 2013 Was Sent to Wuhan Lab Scientific report below 👇 https://t.co/RwNVzZewVp
3/ Here's the publication the report referred to👇. The paper stated:"In the phylogenetic tree, RaBtCoV/4991 showed more divergence from human #SARSCoV than other bat SL-CoVs and could be considered as a new strain of this virus lineage". https://t.co/lbwtP
@fffeeerrr68
RT @VWHORUSHD: @mattwridley @jtLOL @Ayjchan @ydeigin Here is the paper: https://t.co/A1ADeepiSU
RT @VWHORUSHD: @mattwridley @jtLOL @Ayjchan @ydeigin Here is the paper: https://t.co/A1ADeepiSU
@mattwridley @jtLOL @Ayjchan @ydeigin Here is the paper: https://t.co/A1ADeepiSU
Coronavirus Related to SARS-CoV-2 Found in Chinese Mine in 2013 Was Sent to Wuhan Lab Scientific report below 👇 @mauricedehond @rivm https://t.co/RwNVzZewVp
RT @RaikuP: あの科学論文発は2016年に発表されていたけど 研究が2012年6月と9月から2013年4月と7月まで期間で作られたと科学論文が書かれた。(英語ですみません) https://t.co/dfgwjyzpqd
あの科学論文発は2016年に発表されていたけど 研究が2012年6月と9月から2013年4月と7月まで期間で作られたと科学論文が書かれた。(英語ですみません) https://t.co/dfgwjyzpqd
@RibbonChieko あの科学論文発は2016年に発表されていたけど 研究が2012年6月と9月から2013年4月と7月まで期間で作られたと科学論文が書かれた。(英語ですみません) https://t.co/dfgwjyzpqd
@xastraltvx @Newsweek seems to have caught on check this out from 2016 published about the #RaBtCoV and how its a 96.2% #COVID19 match https://t.co/zYsJRC05ka
@fffeeerrr68
RT @BillyBostickson: 19/ Wuhan Institute of Virology's published sequence of BatCov 4991, the Putative Legless Deadbeat Dad (from a Yunnan…
19/ Wuhan Institute of Virology's published sequence of BatCov 4991, the Putative Legless Deadbeat Dad (from a Yunnan Cave House ;) of RaTG13 who spent 7 years hooked on ICE ;) https://t.co/UMyRqLanRR WIV 2016 paper on BatCoV4991 (abandoned mineshaft) htt
This is the strongest evidence that RaTG13 came from the same place which caused 3 miners death of viral pneumonia. Thank you @luigi_warren
RT @luigi_warren: @_coltseavers @TrueOriginCOVID No question, RaTG13/4991 came from the Mojiang mineshaft where miners fell victim to an ou…
@_coltseavers @TrueOriginCOVID No question, RaTG13/4991 came from the Mojiang mineshaft where miners fell victim to an outbreak of an officially unexplained, fatal, Covid19-like disease in 2012. https://t.co/qsTwFhaAiA https://t.co/WrmOw1aDup
@emmecola @TrueOriginCOVID They also failed to mention the dead miners in these papers: • Ge et al (2016) where BtCoV/4991 was first reported https://t.co/pFcxDBG7Mc • Zhou et al (2020) where they reported the 96.2% identity of SARS-2 & BtCoV/4991, ren
RT @schnufi666: Isn't it ironic that the accuracy of the work done back in 2013 (not like the mess today) seems to falsificate the claim th…
@schnufi666 @fffeeerrr68 1 > ? 2 > des données 3 > données recueillies où et quand ? 4 > données analysées où et quand ? 5 > données conservées ? 6 > données " re -crées " ? 7 > données partielles ? 8 > données renommées ? 9 >
@RolandBakerIII 2016 !!!!! https://t.co/VJ5ZZedHVe
Isn't it ironic that the accuracy of the work done back in 2013 (not like the mess today) seems to falsificate the claim that RaTG13 was detected this year in old samples from 2013? #RaTG13 #SARSCoV2 #Coronavirus https://t.co/2aDqnmhfR9 https://t.co/6hpzu
@hound_liberty @PeterDaszak @BretWeinstein 2) So a screenshot w/ no link. 3) Nature paper: https://t.co/RPy2eYWx5d BtCov/4991 work: https://t.co/ueFOAtnzri https://t.co/pG5NRpqAKn No need for diaboloical insinuations, since they know BtCov/4991 is there f
@babarlelephant Possitive rate depend on the month of the year https://t.co/39uYQbx3C2 https://t.co/nDXyqYUd20
RT @BillyBostickson: @PeterDaszak Now we will investigate any subsequent research by all the authors of the abandoned mineshaft paper (http…
@LawrenceSellin 6 of those 7 co-authors were also co-authors in Ge et al. (2016) where they published RdRp of 4991 (supposedly the same as RaTG13). Ge also in "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence" (2015)
@AntGDuarte @scanpemovia Plus another Beta-CoV, clade IID I believe. 150 alpha sequences, probably just 5 species though. Alpha's also cause human disease and some alpha antibodies can cross-react to SARS also. The V sinica paper, https://t.co/dQezlvzczx
We do not think it's a coincidence by any means, & that this #Coronavirus is a sort of 'franken-virus' born out of gain-of-function research going on in that lab - potentially a #Pangolin sold to #Wuhan market that was cross infected with the lab-studi
@AntGDuarte @PeterDaszak @MyFrogCroaked That's true https://t.co/cg7Ha9uFQB "in the same mineshaft in Mojiang (Wu et al., 2014)" What kind of idiots are they to not have made it clear ?
RT @biosleuth: Ge et al. from the WIV authored two papers, one describing the base strain (RaTG13) in 2016 isolated from a Yunnan mineshaft…
Ge et al. from the WIV authored two papers, one describing the base strain (RaTG13) in 2016 isolated from a Yunnan mineshaft https://t.co/IEVH9Jw1EG as well as one describing the RRAR furin clevage site we see in SARS-CoV-2 in 2017 https://t.co/M3zyiktbSg
RT @franciscodeasis: De RaBtCoV/4991 solo se publicó en 2016 el segmento RdRp. Sin embargo, se secuenciaron 816 bp más de la proteína S (in…
1st paper on RaTG13 //RaBtCoV/4991 was detected in a R. affinis sample with the conserved 440-bp RdRp fragment having 89% nt identity with SL-CoV Rs672. it showed more divergence from human SARS-CoV than other bat SL-CoVs and could be considered as a new
I am referring to this 2016 paper: https://t.co/lK0p9onHj0
RT @BillyBostickson: Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016…
RT @BillyBostickson: Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016…
RT @BillyBostickson: Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016…
RT @BillyBostickson: Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016…
RT @BillyBostickson: Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016…
Xingyi Ge discovered BatCoV/4991 with WIV team & Daszak in mineshaft back in 2013, publishing partial sequence in 2016: https://t.co/kV1C8f2hM4 He co-authored recent paper referencing BaTCov 4991 https://t.co/os4WGyDbj3 without citing his own earlier