Public allegations by doctors are extremely concerning as they bring back to the spotlight a scientific paper from the early days of the pandemic and demand answers from Sotirios Tsiodras regarding the impressive speed with which its publication was completed. And the first element that can hardly pass unnoticed is recorded within the scientific article itself:
Received: 27 January 2020.
Accepted: 28 January 2020.
Available online: 29 January 2020.
(Received on January 27 Accepted on January 28 Online on January 29)
In other words, from the official receipt of the paper by the journal until its acceptance, merely one day elapsed. One day later, it was already available online. This in itself does not prove irregularity. However, it is a completely legitimate point on which scientific transparency can be requested, particularly when concerning a paper published during the initial, chaotic days of a pandemic that was destined to shake the entire planet.
The study that even beat... Nature
The paper was titled: “Full-genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event.” Its authors were Dimitrios Paraskevis, Evangelia-Georgia Kostaki, Gkikas Magiorkinis, George Panayiotakopoulos, George Sourvinos, and Sotirios Tsiodras. The first version of the paper appeared on bioRxiv on January 27, 2020, while the scientific version of the journal records receipt on January 27, acceptance on January 28, and online publication on January 29. And here critical questions begin... How did everything move so fast? This is not an accusation. It is a question that can be answered very specifically: what really happened with the timeline of the paper. How many reviewers examined it? When did they receive the manuscript? When did they return their remarks? Were there revisions? Was there prior communication with the journal? Was a special fast-track peer review process applied due to the public health emergency?
RaTG13 and the critical timeline
The Greek study used the genomic sequence of BatCoV RaTG13, which the authors themselves state they downloaded from the GISAID database repository. This is crucial. The major paper by Peng Zhou, Xing-Lou Yang, Zheng-Li Shi, and their colleagues in Nature, which presented RaTG13 and its genetic proximity to the novel coronavirus, was published online on February 3, 2020. Nature records that the article had been received on January 20 and accepted on January 29. Therefore, the Greek paper indeed appeared online five days before the Nature article. This sounds impressive, but there is an essential detail: the Greek team did not claim to have discovered RaTG13. It explicitly states that it used the sequence from GISAID. Consequently, the fact that it preceded the publication in Nature chronologically is not in itself evidence that the Greek scientists had secret or privileged access. The real question is different: When exactly did the team gain access to these specific data and when did the analysis begin? This is the point that could be answered through download logs, working dates, code commits, metadata, or the scientific correspondence of that period.
The one-day peer review remains the big question mark
Where the allegations of Greek surgeon Dimitrios Gakis acquire real journalistic interest is in the speed of the evaluation. Receipt on January 27. Acceptance on January 28. Online on January 29. For a paper that included full genomic alignment, phylogenetic analyses, and investigation of potential recombination, the velocity is certainly remarkable. What exactly happened within those 24 hours? If a full peer review occurred in record time due to the global emergency, why not publish the relevant history? Transparency here would be far more convincing than any general public health assurance.
Human–chimpanzee and coronaviruses: The comparison that requires caution
Gakis in his allegations uses the genetic similarity between human and chimpanzee as an example to highlight how significant a seemingly small percentage of genetic distance can be. The general concept – that 96% does not mean "almost the same organism" in evolutionary terms – has merit. However, the direct numerical comparison of human–chimpanzee with two RNA coronaviruses is not a safe method for dating evolution. These are organisms with completely different genomes, generation times, mutation rates, and evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore, the "3.8% versus 1.2%" may serve rhetorically, but it cannot by itself function as a molecular clock.
RaTG13: There were indeed subsequent clarifications
There is, however, another point that should not be buried. The original Nature paper on RaTG13 was indeed supplemented later. On November 17, 2020, Nature published an Addendum by Zhou, Shi, and the other authors, providing additional information regarding the history of RaTG13 and samples connected to the mine in Mojiang. This is not the same as a new "correction sent now" following recent emails. The official page of Nature records this specific Nature Addendum as far back as 2020. At the same time, subsequent correspondence from Nature shows that an editor of the journal had asked Zheng-Li Shi for additional clarifications regarding how the sequence of RaTG13 was assembled, the chronological sequence of the work, and methodological details that scientists had called into question. Thus, questions surrounding the documentation of RaTG13 truly existed and are not fabricated. However, the leap from these questions to the certainty of an international cover-up requires evidence that, so far, does not emerge from these specific elements.
And the "Fauci system"
Here things become even more serious. And there is the critical question... as to whether the participation of Sotirios Tsiodras is connected to some "Fauci system". The well-known discussions of Anthony Fauci with scientists regarding the possibility of a laboratory origin and features of the novel coronavirus peaked in early February 2020, while the Greek study had already been published online on January 29. Therefore, if there is a specific element linking Tsiodras to this sequence of events, it must be presented. Insinuations are not enough.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών