More Personal Attacks Than Scientific Insight

Wade's essay frequently shifts to personal attacks against key coronavirus researchers whose scientific observations challenge his views. A primary target is Dr. Kristian Anderson, who co-authored a letter in Nature early in the pandemic, explaining why an engineered origin of the virus was improbable.

Wade's initial critique of Anderson's Nature letter is that it’s merely “an opinion piece, not a scientific article.” Given Wade's experience as an editor at reputable journals like Nature and Science, he should know better. His assertion that a Nature letter is not a scientific article is a significant misrepresentation.

According to a blog by Nature, the distinction between articles and letters is clear: Articles are original reports that significantly advance understanding of important issues with broad implications. Letters are brief reports of original research focused on significant findings of interest to scientists across various fields.

Nature letters are not simply opinions and have a long-standing reputation for being significant scientific contributions. A prime historical example is the Watson and Crick discovery of DNA's double-helical structure published in a Nature letter.

Any science writer should recognize that journals like Physics Letters A and Physics Letters B are also reputable scientific platforms.

Wade’s attempts to undermine Anderson’s data showcase his personal biases rather than sound scientific critique. He makes dismissive comments like, “Unfortunately this [Anderson’s article] was another case of poor science.”

Wade's continued personal attacks throughout his essay suggest he positions himself as more knowledgeable than the scientists he critiques, despite peddling inaccuracies and alternative facts as legitimate science.

A Misguided Approach to Molecular Biology

When Wade does engage with Anderson's data, it becomes evident that he struggles to grasp the core arguments, opting instead to damage reputations rather than address scientific points where he is evidently unqualified.

Wade’s first argument against Anderson involves seamless cloning techniques. He references outdated molecular cloning methods that leave detectable remnants in DNA sequences, despite Anderson not mentioning genomic scars in his work.

Wade mistakenly links this to “No see’m” technology, which has been employed by coronavirus researchers. However, his misunderstanding of the terminology and relevance of seamless cloning to Anderson's article highlights his lack of comprehension.

Anderson's paper discusses various reverse-genetic systems employed for betacoronaviruses, clarifying that the genetic data disproves the notion that SARS-CoV-2 is derived from any existing virus backbone.

Wade goes on to mischaracterize Anderson's argument regarding the spike protein's affinity for human ACE2 receptors, oversimplifying it to imply that natural selection must have played a role, rather than recognizing the complexity of the binding mechanisms.

Wade's failure to accurately represent Anderson’s research indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of molecular biology principles, further underscoring his lack of qualifications to critique established scientists.

Discrediting Natural Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Wade attempts to undermine the natural emergence theory of SARS-CoV-2 by highlighting the lack of evidence from the WHO’s visit to China. He claims, “the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.” However, he fails to acknowledge the political context that may have influenced China's willingness to share data.

The absence of data from China highlights the need for transparency in global health matters, but it does not inherently validate the lab escape theory. The prevailing biological evidence continues to support natural emergence.

Wade’s assertions about the ease of tracking viral hosts and previous pandemics misrepresent the complexities involved in such research. He implies that the lack of discovery regarding SARS-CoV-2's origins undermines the natural emergence hypothesis, which is a flawed conclusion.

Moreover, Wade's narrative about the Chinese research grants misinterprets their intentions, suggesting malicious intent rather than an effort to understand how animal coronaviruses can evolve and jump to humans.

Concluding Thoughts

Wade's essay is laden with inaccuracies and personal biases that detract from a meaningful discussion on the origins of COVID-19. His failure to accurately represent scientific data and his penchant for personal attacks reveal a troubling trend of misinformation surrounding this critical issue.

The discourse surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be rooted in sound scientific evidence rather than conspiracy theories and personal vendettas. As we move forward, it is imperative to focus on truthful, evidence-based discussions to understand this global health crisis.

Thank you for reading. Please share! If you found this analysis insightful, you may also appreciate further explorations into the implications of the pandemic and its origins.