[caperfee]

> Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2

Paraphrasing from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2

> BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2; one section in BANAL-103 and BANAL-52 could have shared an ancestor with sections of SARS-CoV-2 less than a decade ago.

> RaTG13 is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago.

[hunterb123]

> The results, which are not peer reviewed, have been posted on the preprint server Research Square

It's a CCP propaganda piece. I find that "study" pretty fishy, the results would have been easy to verify if true.

Same as the CDC study they tried to use against Israel's study for natural immunity.

[mrtesthah]

Once you let ideology infiltrate your reasoning, you’re no longer doing science. Just because you don’t like the implications of a particular piece of research doesn’t mean you get to dismiss it.

[hunterb123]

That's not what I said. I said it should be easy to peer review but it hasn't been.

That's a very common ask especially among HN, is it not?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

From my perspective it looks dubious and the only goal is to shift attention away from the RatG13 sample.