zlacker

This is her entire argument:

"Gain-of-function research is also subject to intense scrutiny and governmental oversight, precisely because of the high risk involved in conducting it safely; thus, it is extremely unlikely that gain-of-function research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses (such as bat SARS-like coronaviruses) could occur under the radar."

This research was not happening under the radar. WIV has been openly publishing gain of function research on bat Coronaviruses for years. It's quite possible that SARS-CoV-2 was a research project that they fully intended to publish, but was accidentally released during the research.

>>cameld+(OP)
That seems pretty typical for a paper published in Nature. I thought it was meant to be good but basically every paper to do with disease or biology I've read in Nature over the past 12 months has been like this: it looks superficially scientific and when read carefully it just falls apart. They've also been suppressing critical commentary sent to them. The Flaxman paper was atrocious and they sat on a formal response that was sent to them about it for like 6 months.