Only a sample is there. This cell line don’t have NGS. But it was consistent with a cell culture, and the RBD of the virus is not suitable for binding to the ACE2 found there. The ACE2 is same as Ra4331 and Ra9479.

@stevenemassey And the RBD have a T403 that prevents infection of intestinal cells (hACE2 intestinal organoids, infection is restored upon T403R, but weaker than SARS-CoV-2) or lung cells (R.affinis primary, with supplemented hACE2. Infection is restored upon T403R).
@stevenemassey Also that there exist no Sarbecovirus RBD with a D501.

More from Daoyu

https://t.co/TVXC4QOjt0
https://t.co/QnMiOrdNhx
https://t.co/ZK2vfwYEFj
in fact, adaptation in CaLu-3 actually reverses changes that happened in VERO E6. P681 and RRAR is fine-tuned to growth in CaLu-3 cell cultures. P681 guards the cardin-weintraub motif against cleavage in

cell lines.

https://t.co/vytn6YVRYQ
https://t.co/fjg6ZXc2KN
the FCS is perfectly stable in anything that isn't VERO E6 classic or 293T-ACE2. anything that had TMPRSS2 and grown in trypsin-free media stably maintains the FCS.

https://t.co/NUrJ8AndTx
in fact, the PRRARS, as opposed to other mutated cleavage sites--even the "perfect" H5CS--confers the greatest infectivity in CaLu-3 cells.

https://t.co/TVXC4QOjt0
in fact, even P681R or S686G changes were less fit in CaLu-3 compared to PRRA virus--the P681R virus show either no difference or is slightly less effective compared to the P681 virus, and the S686G virus
https://t.co/DNtIR17r4S
https://t.co/nDNNw9OaWd
https://t.co/hXlo8qgkD0
Look like that they got a classical case of PCR Cross-Contamination.
They had 2 fabricated samples (SRX9714436 and SRX9714921) on the same PCR run. Alongside with Lung07. They did not perform metagenomic sequencing on the “feces” and they did not get


A positive oral or anal swab from anywhere in their sampling. Feces came from anus and if these were positive the anal swabs must also be positive. Clearly it got there after the NA have been extracted and were from the very low-level degraded RNA which were mutagenized from

The Taq.
https://t.co/yKXCgiT29w to see SRX9714921 and SRX9714436.
Human+Mouse in the positive SRA, human in both of them. Seeing human+mouse in identical proportions across 3 different sequencers (PRJNA573298, A22, SEX9714436) are pretty straight indication that the originals

Were already contaminated with Human and mouse from the very beginning, and that this contamination is due to dishonesty in the sample handling process which prescribe a spiking of samples in ACE2-HEK293T/A549, VERO E6 and Human lung xenograft mouse.

The “lineages” they claimed to have found aren’t mutational lineages at all—all the mutations they see on these sequences were unique to that specific sequence, and are the result of RNA degradation and from the Taq polymerase errors accumulated from the nested PCR process
https://t.co/SvP0tfbDki


https://t.co/k9mmL9e5kn


https://t.co/7fR13yb3qJ


https://t.co/EXerlaiG9u


https://t.co/iNCdLY1Pzn
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?

More from All

1. Mini Thread on Conflicts of Interest involving the authors of the Nature Toilet Paper:
https://t.co/VUYbsKGncx
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew Rambaut
Ian Lipkin
Edward C. Holmes
Robert F. Garry

2. Thanks to @newboxer007 for forwarding the link to the research by an Australian in Taiwan (not on

3. K.Andersen didn't mention "competing interests"
Only Garry listed Zalgen Labs, which we will look at later.
In acknowledgements, Michael Farzan, Wellcome Trust, NIH, ERC & ARC are mentioned.
Author affiliations listed as usual.
Note the 328 Citations!
https://t.co/nmOeohM89Q


4. Kristian Andersen (1)
Andersen worked with USAMRIID & Fort Detrick scientists on research, with Robert Garry, Jens Kuhn & Sina Bavari among


5. Kristian Andersen (2)
Works at Scripps Research Institute, which WAS in serious financial trouble, haemorrhaging 20 million $ a year.
But just when the first virus cases were emerging, they received great news.
They issued a press release dated November 27, 2019:

You May Also Like