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)

TL;DR

This paper argues that Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's critique of the SARS-CoV-2 origin hypothesis is flawed, and the genetic evidence remains consistent with both natural and laboratory origins, requiring equal investigation.

Contribution

The paper refutes specific criticisms of the lab leak hypothesis and clarifies misconceptions, emphasizing the need for balanced investigation of SARS-CoV-2 origins.

Findings

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's criticisms are based on false premises.

Genetic evidence does not exclude a laboratory origin.

Both natural and lab leak hypotheses remain plausible.

Abstract

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several "points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis". As our paper is titled "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin", points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS-CoV-2 that could be consistent with the lab leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, and their other points of criticism are either incorrect or irrelevant to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly.