English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper inwhich they outline several "points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deiginhypothesis". As our paper is titled "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 doesnot rule out a laboratory origin", points of disagreement should provideevidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchinprovide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments thathighlight aspects of SARS-CoV-2 that could be consistent with the lab leakhypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism isbased on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitorof SARS-CoV-2, and their other points of criticism are either incorrect orirrelevant to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 remainsconsistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both thezoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equallythoroughly.

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)