1. The same “gang” of the Proximal Origin paper
https://t.co/Xmp20I58AQ
in action again (only Lipkin is missing, who knows why) to push once more faulty arguments in support of SARS2’s natural
https://t.co/0Goapx6cXj
https://t.co/5Z4Ndca98t
https://t.co/i9OZchD4LT
“adjusted by visual inspection” to push their false conclusion that all these CoVs have a partial FCS insertion at the S1/S2 junction and the FCS of SARS2 is therefore natural
https://t.co/viqvfzv1Xa
and that can be easily inserted with the Seamless technology.
https://t.co/U2qvG3tXBG
https://t.co/cNEwlgtnBb
https://t.co/1D7iVZc8Md
9/ Moreover, the QTQTN motive proximal to the FCS is beneficial for virus entry in presence of Cathepsin, which is naturally produced by kidney cells. https://t.co/xPOK6w931P
— Rossana Segreto (@Rossana38510044) October 3, 2020
https://t.co/GFrrxzCvbq
https://t.co/pBF4ZDqNat
You know virology is broken when one top virologist approvingly retweets another top virologist's complete nonsense.
— Yuri Deigin (@ydeigin) February 23, 2021
Look at the QTQTNS fragment's underlying nucleotides - they are identical. No way this has "arisen independently in multiple bat sarbecoviruses". EvoBio 101 FAIL! pic.twitter.com/SNxesiwYPg
https://t.co/DjbJm40hni
https://t.co/lp9C8vtBWg
https://t.co/viqvfzv1Xa
And of course, after millions of passages in humans the virus can mutate to bind even better than possibly obtained in cell culture or humanized mouse.