Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bibi's avatar

Igor Thank you for all the effort, skill, knowledge, attention to detail you put into every single article you publish. Your thinking & consistency in adhering to the principles of critical thinking as well as clarity in which you present and approach the themes you cover is exemplary. Your work is perfect in so many ways and should be used to teach critical thinking & Big Data Analysis in schools and/or on the job learning. Public Service in Australia, every policy department is lacking adequate Data Analysis skills. Thank you for the outstanding articles that are well researched, analysed, presented, easy to understand and accessible.

Expand full comment
Brian Mowrey's avatar

There were multiple mouse-adapted (gain of function) studies, not just MA10. All of them used either pre-B.1.1 isolates or in the UNC case, a house-grown clone of the Wuhan strain, and none of them "reproduced" the B.1 mutation signature (including D614G). That includes MA / MA10 (the latter is the subject of the patent, see the mutation list in Fig 1 of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510428/ - no D614G).

So if Omicron (BA.1 / BA.2) has the B.1 mutation signature, it didn't come from any published mouse study. This was extensively considered in my own review of the evidence. It had to be from a non-published lab "experiment" (i.e. intentional gain of function using a B.1 template) https://unglossed.substack.com/p/omicron-origins-part-2

Expand full comment
93 more comments...

No posts