Skip to content

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.


On the Anniversary of the Pandemic, Considering the Bioweapon Hypothesis

A year ago, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, delivered the message that would divide time:

“WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction. We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”

What followed was a call to action to all. “We have rung the alarm bell loud and clear.” And instantly, the redundant “global pandemic” ricocheted across the media, reverberating still.

The name of the enemy had changed quickly as 2020 began, from the “Wuhan coronavirus” to “2019 novel coronavirus” shortened to “2019-nCoV,” and finally to SARS-CoV-2, acknowledging similarity to SARS, circa 2003-2004.

Whatever it’s name, did SARS-CoV-2 have an older guise, perhaps in a lab?

The Bioweapon Hypothesis

The possibility of a bioweapon occurred to me in early January, 2020, with the first reports of cases. And so I noticed “Virus outbreak: research says COVID-19 likely synthetic,” on February 23, 2020 in the Taipei Times. The short article was based on a presentation by a public health researcher at National Taiwan University the day before, who blamed the Wuhan Institute of Virology for seeding the scourge.

That presentation was one of the first mentions, outside of science journals, of RaTG13. It’s a virus that infects a type of horseshoe bat. The virus has taken center stage in the COVID origin story because it either illuminates the natural evolution of the novel coronavirus that’s killed nearly 3 million of us, or is an invention, perhaps not even real, intended to make us think the virus that’s killed nearly 3 million of us naturally evolved. That is, while SARS-CoV-2 was being created in a lab, was RaTG13 also being invented – in reality or digitally as a mere RNA genome sequence – to provide a plausible evolutionary scenario for the arrival of COVID-19? RaTG13 would have given rise to the new virus as it replicated, so that, for a time, the two viruses would co-exist and perhaps still do. (Evolution is branching, not the linear chimp-to-human path displayed on bumper stickers.)

Several succinct and strongly-worded articles from prominent scientists swiftly countered the idea of a bioweapon. Notable are “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” in Nature Medicine and a statement in The Lancet.

The Yan Reports

Much of the bioweapon narrative is spelled out in a preprint, “SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud,” published October 8, 2020, on a platform called Zenodo. A preprint is a paper that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed. Many COVID technical reports debut as preprints in medRxiv or bioRxiv, and appear in well-respected journals soon after.

The October 8 preprint was a follow-up to “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route,” which appeared at ResearchGate September 14, also not peer-reviewed. The early paper is by Limeng Yan, then of the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, and the later one by her and three co-authors using pseudonyms.

Wikipedia and other sources spell the researcher’s name Li-Meng Yan, amid some confusion over her training – degrees in ophthalmology and virology. Both “Yan reports” state affiliation with the Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation, based in New York City, which is connected to Steve Bannon. They have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Why did Dr. Yan write the second bioweapon preprint so soon after the first? (She has authored papers in standard journals). Because another piece of the viral origin puzzle fell out of the sky: discovery that bat virus RaTG13 could have picked up the key part of its receptor binding domain – where it grabs our cells – from a type of virus in a Malayan pangolin, a mammal.

Could the Chinese have created both bat and pangolin viruses, either as actual viruses or just their digital genome sequences, to set the stage for a genetic swap fantasy that could have spawned SARS-CoV-2?

Here are the arguments presented in Yan report #2.

A Bat and a Pangolin Meet in a Cave, a Meat Market, or a Lab

To recap the basic idea behind the bioweapon hypothesis: the Chinese government knew or created the genetic sequences of a bat virus and a pangolin virus that could have swapped parts to give rise to the virus behind COVID, providing a plausible natural explanation of the origin of the pandemic. At the same time, they created SARS-CoV-2.

Yan report #2 mixes the technical and the logical as follows, with my comments in italics.

1. The genetic sequence of bat virus RaTG13 was uploaded to NIH database GenBank on January 27, 2020. Was it the same virus that was one of several that infected six miners in Mojiang, Yunnan province, in an abandoned mineshaft, excavated in 2012 and 2013? Three miners died of pneumonia. If this widely accepted explanation is true, why the delay in uploading the viral sequence? Yan argues. (“RaTG13” represents the host bat Rhinolophus affinis, the town of the mine Tongguan, and the year of discovery, 2013). The bat virus is more likely a recent invention, Yan writes. (Logic)

Instead, the genome of the bat virus, Yan and colleagues claim, originated as a cut-and-paste of two military-lab-made viral sequences (ZC45 and ZXC21). The genome could have been created by synthesizing pieces of RNA, overlapping their sequences and joining them, and throwing in a few bits of RNA from fecal samples (to mimic viruses living amid bat excrement) to avert suspicion. This paper and others debunk Yan’s claim of a simple laboratory creation. (Yan’s technical description reads a little like instructions to make a bomb posted on the Internet.)

As I read on, the refrain “RaTG13 does not exist in nature” began to appear.

2. RaTG13 went by different names years ago, and that’s suspicious. (Not really. HIV was once HTLV3 and then LAV.)

3. RaTG13 differs from related coronaviruses in a part of its anatomy crucial to its ability to spread and sicken us: the precise site where the two subunits of the spike protein meet. (Technical, logical, and human hubris: the virus behind COVID is so perfect a weapon that someone must have created it.)

4. The high number and severe nature of the mutations in RaTG13 are too unlike those of its coronavirus cousins to have occurred naturally. (Experts estimate it would have taken at least 50 years for the bat virus to have mutated itself into SARS-CoV-2. The genome sequences are 96.1% alike.)

Here begins another refrain, like the intertwining musical themes in the score of Hamilton. The word “fabrication” starts to crop up, providing subtext to “RaTG13 does not exist in nature.” (If a virus is unnatural AND invented, it must be a bioweapon. Repeat until accepted.)

5. The tale of the bat and pangolin viruses meeting and swapping parts, with SARS-CoV-2 emerging, just seems too neat. Yan’s answer to that? The pangolin coronavirus was invented too. She questions four studies frequently cited as supporting the pangolin connection, claiming that the quartet of research groups got their virus from the same pangolin, diluting the strength of the assumption of independent corroboration of findings.

6. The timing is suspect. The paper in Nature introducing bat virus RaTG13, published February 3, 2020 and submitted just two weeks earlier, was a day after Yan first presented the bioweapon hypothesis on social media. Online comments beneath the Nature paper suggest a rush to publish.

Yan concludes “… the unleashing of the virus must be a planned execution rather than an accident.” It is an “unrestricted bioweapon.”

A Checklist for a Bioweapon

SARS-CoV-2 fits general criteria of a bioweapon: it spreads easily even among the asymptomatic, resists environmental changes, can be transported and intentionally released in a targeted manner, and can cause severe disease and death.

The Grunow-Finke assessment tool digs a little deeper, helping public health officials tell whether a scary new pathogen is more likely of natural or unnatural origins. Some criteria:

1. A political or terrorist environment that could inspire invention of a bioweapon.

2. Novelty. Odd place of origin? Traits that suggest genetic modification, such as increased virulence and unusual environmental hardiness? Persistence despite public health measures or treatments? Difficult to detect?

3. High concentration in the environment (air, soil, and/or water).

4. Many cases.

5. Patterns of transmission that differ from those of related pathogens, like the coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

6. Rapid spread, reflecting the pathogen’s virulence, resistance, concentration, and ease of transmission as well as the host’s exposure and susceptibility.

A factor that argues against SARS-CoV-2 being a bioweapon: it doesn’t target, by a biological mechanism, specific groups of people in terms of their ancestry.

Composing the Narrative of SARS-CoV-2

Anyone who’s ever watched Law and Order or played Clue, or is actually in law enforcement, or in science for that matter, knows that evidence can be assembled in more than one way. It can be re-ordered, ignored, or amplified to propel alternative narratives.

The story of the coronavirus bioweapon makes me think of the “Paul is dead” myth that Time magazine dubbed one of the most enduring of conspiracy theories. In both cases – the supposedly deceased Beatle and the new virus – I think the clues are too sparse to connect into conclusions that reflect reality.

The “evidence” that Paul McCartney died on November 9, 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike is familiar to those of a certain age: Paul walking out of step and barefoot on the cover of Abbey Road, John supposedly chanting “Paul is dead” at the end of “I Am The Walrus” played backwards, and the lyric “here’s another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul” in “Glass Onion.”

Paul McCartney isn’t dead. And I don’t think that SARS-CoV-2 is an invention, a bioweapon that’s killed millions. The story of an intentional origin, with faked evolution from other viruses, is just too convoluted.

But I’m not 100% certain.

Determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2 may be a moot intellectual exercise at this point – the “global pandemic” is, after all, a year in. But knowing with greater certainty whether terrorists tinkered with nature could be a first step in preventing future bioterrorism at this unprecedented scale. I’ve only scratched the surface of the bioweapon hypothesis here and welcome comments and corrections.

  1. What you are MISSING is the alleged genetic genealogy or provenance of SARS-CoV-2. The Lin-Meng stuff is distraction..

    The 2015 study cited below demonstrates without a doubt that gain of function research was being conducted on coronaviruses aimed at increasing transmission. This research was considered so dangerous by many experts that they petitioned to have fed funding pulled, which it was. In my humble opinion, there is a good chance there was an inadvertent lab release of a chimeric virus that many countries had played a role in manipulating:

    Hou, Y., Peng, C., Yu, M. et al. (2010). Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry. Arch Virol 155, 1563–1569 (2010).
    • “Here, we extended our previous study to ACE2 molecules from seven additional bat species and tested their interactions with human SARS-CoV spike protein using both HIV-based pseudotype and live SARS-CoV infection assays. The results show that CE2s of Myotis daubentoni and Rhinolophus sinicus support viral entry mediated by the SARS-CoV S protein, albeit with different efficiency in comparison to that of the human ACE2.”

    Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence nature medicine, 21(12 ). DECEMBER 2015

    B. Coutard, C. Valle, X. de Lamballerie, B. Canard, N.G. Seidah, E. Decroly, (2020) The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade. Antiviral Research, 176, 2020,104742 (

    The known and problematic existence of genetically engineered coronaviruses does not in itself prove the lab leak theory but it does provide some strong circumstantial evidence.

  2. Too many coincidences not to be manmade. The end of simulated pandemics ‘Criminson Contagion’ by HHS for 7 months in August 2019, and Event 201, in October 2019 in NY by Gates, and then the real pandemic, the worst in history. BtKy72 – Kenya coronavirus evidenced in Covid-19 RdRp phylogenic trees and the Covid-19 genome itself, a virus 1st isolated and sequenced by the Atlanta CDC in 2019. Enhanced gluconate sites in the Covid-19 spike gene, to fend off human immune system attacks, as well as increased binding affinity in the Covid-19 RBD in relation to other coronaviruses. A ‘Proximal Origin of SARs-Cov-2’ paper by Lipkin, Robertson, and company which makes no sense whatsover, to justify Covid-19’s alledged origin in ‘nature’. Not too hard to figure out where Covid-19 came from.

    1. I totally agree with your assessment. There are things about this virus and actually what it is capable of doing that seem “enhanced”, even though it supposedly does not target any particular group per WHO. What BS! One of the first papers on this virus noted the susceptibility was greater in Chinese men and southern Han Chinese. See Another paper discussed certain blood types with greater propensity when there is tons of work on crispr gene editing with blood types and antigens, so maybe that is just a distraction. When you look at who succumbed, you see Polynesians who live on some very plum real estate, Puerto Ricans where land grabbing is already going on from a hurricane, poverty struck Brazilians, Italians who have increased ACE 2 per Ranieri who inferred a method from studying autism cases: So the researchers decided to treat each patient as an independent case, following the example of autism spectrum disorder. “In this way we were able to identify for each patient an average of three pathogenic (disease-causing) mutations involved in susceptibility to Covid infection,” says Prof Renieri. “This result was not unexpected, since we already knew from studies of twins that Covid-19 has a strong genetic basis.”
      Add to that E4E4 of APOE in Alzheimer’s carriers and note that Carribean blacks had greater susceptibility than Africans and what I see is some long term manipulations to control populations. In long Covid the symptoms appear to show mitochodrial disfunction which might account for the fatigue and brain fog, but what I seem to get from all of this is some sort of bioweapon that was loosed to control population long term. It would not be surprising that some madman did this if you look at various political nutcases like Trump, Bolsonaro, Dutarte who actually did things to promote the spread. Then, look at the statements of the athletes who said they got sick during the August 2019 military games in Wuhan and what happened to Iran’s team who must have gotten megadoses to take home as they died-people in their 20’s. Something stinks!

  3. Yan Li Meng’s research experience of COVID-19 has been rejected by her mentor Mr. Keiji Fukuda, Dean of the Hong Kong University School of Public Health, and declared that Yan’s comments were rumors. Yan Li meng, Guo Wengui, and Bannon’s conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 were also exposed by the New York Times. But the rumor that “the epidemic came from Asia” spread widely in American like a virus, causing misunderstandings of the Asian-American community in white American society.

    1. There is no evidence to conclusively prove the wet market hypothesis. It could be unintentional or intentional lab release scenario. Which has not been ruled out by W HO. They don’t have evidence to prove one theory over another because Chiba has destroyed all the evidence. This proves their complicity in this disaster.

    2. Good response, but in science we never use the word prove, because conclusions change with new data. I fear that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is in fact unknowable. Yes, a series of strange things are part of the virus – but those strange things (like the furin cleavage site, for example) or similar things – exist in nature too. Perhaps we can get closer to the truth through genome sequencing, which could get around destruction of evidence.

    3. I believe the virus was invented in America after the “ban on disease patents” was lifted in 2017. It was then flown to China and placed in their lab in Wuhan by a Dr. Shi. A breach happened and the disease was then released into the environment before its completion into what it was supposed to become. When Dr. Shi tried to warn people about it, she disappeared. It was accidentally released before it’s true and full potential was realized. I believe in my heart of hearts that all these international disease “control” operations are a part of it. It is a weapon designed, as one of the WHO’s top dog’s (whose name escapes me) to “pick off the more vulnerable “. Why? Well, there’s got to be an agenda that has roots so deeply embedded within human or otherworldly greed that is completely unfathomable to anyone with a conscience. “The universe tends to a maximum in terms of perversion.” I don’t know if I, personally, want to live through to whatever the plans are for the survivors. Do not be brainwashed. All of these events happening at the same time are no coincidence and for those of you who cannot see this, you are in for a huge, universal, major league slap in the face, the fatal kiss of the end of what you think you are comfortable with now.

    4. From all I have read I think that the virus that became SARS-CoV-2 originated in a cave or abandoned mine in southern China and got to the lab in Wuhan, where the source of funding that research is up for discussion. Or … we haven’t yet identified the virus’s immediate ancestors. Many hypotheses are still out there. We may never know what happened. But right now, I think we should focus on where we’re headed, not where it came from.

  4. A chain (Covid-19 and his ancestors) is only strong as its weakest link (BtKy72) , and a squeaky wheel (BtKy72) gets the grease. The Atlanta CDC bat coronavirus BtKy72 (from Kenya) is a fundamental part of Covid-19’s evolutionary history, as evidenced by phylogenic trees (figures 2b & 2c) in Ralph Baric and Christian Drosten’s Feb 5, 2020 (received by publisher date) article, ‘The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2’. This article was written to explain Covid-19’s new name, but they spent more time justifying coronavirus BtKy72’s existence. – In May 2019, the Atlanta CDC explained their isolation and sequencing of BtKy72 in their article, ‘Complete Genome Sequence of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus from Kenyan Bats’, by Ying Tao and Suxiang Tong. Tao and Tong used consensus degenerate primers, sets of seminested or nested consensus RT-PCR primers, sets of sequence-specific primers to fill the gaps and generate the ’full genome sequence’ for BtKy72. That is, they determined the sequence of genes in BtKy72 genome, ie, 5= UTR-ORF1ab-S-ORF3a-E-M-ORF6-ORF7a-ORF7b-N-3= UTR. A ‘full genome sequencing’, is not necessarily a ‘complete genome’. Because they also wrote, “Complete genome sequencing was not performed due to limited viral loads in fecal samples from the other four betacoronavirus-positive bats”. (That is, Kenyan coronaviruses BtKy73, 4, 5 & 6 whose RdRp gene sequences were filed with NCBI June 2016, lacked sufficient RNA for BtKy7* genome determination.) This is why in May 2019, Tao and Tong stated, ‘no complete genome for BtKy72’, because of lack of RNA from other four betacoronavirus bat fecal samples. Tao and Tong are experts at sequencing coronaviruses. What percent of the genome for BtKy72 was ‘complete’ in May 2019 (date of publication), you guess . How much of the 29,259 nt genomic RNA had been collected from bat fecal swabs? Not nearly enough for the primers to be determinative. Tao and Tong were too professional to use Crispr to create a fake. Between May 2019 and February 5, 2020 when BtKy72 virological sequences were filed with NCBI database, the Atlanta CDC ‘somehow’ obtained a ‘complete genome’. How? You guess. Or, ask them. No BtKy72, no Covid-19 as we know it. – But, Baric had the BtKy72 ‘complete genome’ as early as his Feb 5, 2020, evidenced by his “received by publisher” dated article above attests, which references, blesses, and legitimates BtKy72 ‘complete’ genome, calling it a ‘basal clade’, Feb 5, 2020. And the Beijing CDC had the ‘complete genome’ for BtKy72 at least by Jan 29, 2020, their article ‘Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding’, figure 3 full genome tree references BtKy72. They both had prior knowledge of the BtKy72 ‘complete genome’ before it was published Feb 5, 2020. Investigate this BtKy72 part of the evolutionary history of Covid-19. – Back to May 2019, Tao and Tong article’s Table 1, degenerate primers F1440_Fwd, F15830_Fwd, F16455_Fwd (all about 24 neucleotides each) were used in the attempted sequencing BtKy72, are also sequences in the genome for bat coronavirus BM41-38 (Bulgarian bat sequenced in 2018 by Christian Drosten group). BM48-31 coronavirus also in Covid-19’s evolutionary history . Because of lack of RNA for BtKy72 ‘complete’ sequencing in May 2019, and the creation and use of at least three degenerate primers, from known BM48-31 sequences, in partial sequencing of BtKy72 in 2019, and 93% amino acid similarity BtKy72 to BM48-31, to what extent/percent was BM48-31 genome used in the sequencing of, or as the model for BtKy72 later 2019 ‘complete’ genome? And did the current NCBI Feb 5, 2020 version of Kenya BtKy72 coronavirus, every exist in nature? Reverse wokeism. A chain (Covid-19 and his ancestors) is only strong as its weakest link (BtKy72), and a squeaky wheel (BtKy72) gets the grease.

  5. Questions for Atlanta CDC scientists Ying Tao and Suxiang Tong who attempted to sequence bat coronavirus BtKy72 in April 2019

    Reasons for the questions to scientists Tao and Tong: Because “Complete genome sequencing was not performed due to limited viral loads in fecal samples” for BtKy72 bat coronavirus in May 2019, the existential integrity and validity of that coronavirus may be in question. Only by verifying the existential validity and integrity of BtKy72 coronavirus (distant cousin coronavirus to Covid-19), can the evolutionary history of Covid-19 coronavirus be verified and insured.

    Tao and Tong state in their May 2019 article, regarding coronavirus BtKy72, “Complete genome sequencing was not performed due to limited viral loads in fecal samples from the other four betacoronavirus-positive bats”. On May 5, 2019, when you sent your article, “Complete Genome Sequence of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus from Kenyan Bats”, out for publication, what was the total nucleotide count for BtKy72 sequence on that day? How was BtKy72 genome completed? What exact date did Tao and Tong complete the “complete genome” for BtKy72? Who was that “complete genome” shared with in 2019? Who was the ‘complete genome for BtKy72’ shared with in 2020, before February 5, 2020 filing date? E-mails.

    How many sequences from bat coronavirus BM48-31 were used to create primers to sequence BtKy72? What was the total length of the sequences from BM48-31 coronavirus, that were incorporated in BtKy72’s genome? Who instructed or suggested you to use sequences from BM48-31 to create primers, to sequence BtKy72? E-mails.

    We don’t see an assembly method or sequencing technology in the NCBI entry for BtKy72, nor in the May 2019 article. Can you provide a complete typed written account as to how BtKy72 was sequenced, especially the steps taken in May through December 2019.

    Did any non-Atlanta CDC person help or assist you in your attempted sequencing of BtKy72 coronavirus before you published your article in May 2019? Who? When? E-mails.

    Did any non-Atlanta CDC person help you sequence BtKy72 coronavirus, after you published your article in May 2019? Who? When?

    How did you ‘complete’ the genome sequence for BtKy72, after you published your article in May 2019, after stating that you had “limited viral loads in fecal samples”? If you used different swabs containing fecal samples, from which collection site in Kenya were that or those swabs samples collected from?

    Did anyone at the Atlanta CDC suggest or ask you to isolate and sequence BtKy72, at anytime in 2019? Who? Can you provide e-mails to that extent? Did any non-Atlanta CDC person suggest or ask you to isolate and sequence BtKy72, in 2019? Who?

    Did you have any e-mail or phone contacts with anyone outside of the Atlanta CDC regarding bat coronavirus BtKy72 during the year 2019? Who? What was the nature of those contacts.

    Did you send any e-mails to anyone in Wuhan or Beijing China in 2019? To whom did you send them?

    Who filed the virological sequences for BtKy72 with NCBI on Feb 5, 2020? Can you produce copies of all documentation pertaining that filing?
    Did you ever try to determine the subspecies of BtKy72 using cytochrome (cytb) DNA extracted from the feces or swabs? Why not? Subspecies sinicus, affinis, blasii?

    Question for Ralph Baric — Where did you obtain the genome for BtKy72 that you used to create the phylogenic trees (Figures 2B and 2C) in the Feb. 5, 2020 article, ‘The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2’, by Ralph Baric, Christian Drosten, and others (Coronavirus Study Group) from? When did you obtain that genome? Did you give a copy of BtKy72 genome to anyone else in 2019? Who? In 2020? Who? E-mails related.

    Question for Christian Drosten — Where did you obtain the genome for BtKy72 that you used to create the E-sarbeco-assay and N-Sarbeco-oligos in the ANNEX of the article ‘Diagnostic detection of Wuhan coronavirus 2019 by real-time RTPCR -Protocol and preliminary evaluation as of Jan 13, 2020’ from? When did you obtain that genome? Did you give a copy of BtKy72 genome to anyone else? Who? —- January 13, 2020 version January 17, 2020 version

    Question for the Chinese National CDC in Beijing. They published the article, ‘Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding’, on the Internet January 29, 2020. Lancet 2020; That article’s “Figure 3 phylogenic analysis of full genome of 2019-nCov”, references BtKy72 complete genome, seven day before that genome was filed with NCBI on Feb. 5, 2020. Where Beijing get the pre-knowledge of that genome? The January 29 version has been replaced with a February 20 version on the Internet, to cover up their mistake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Add your ORCID here. (e.g. 0000-0002-7299-680X)

Related Posts
Back to top