Zach Hensel
@zachhensel.bsky.social
single-molecule microbiology lab @ ITQB NOVA in Portugal
https://zach-hensel.github.io/
https://zach-hensel.github.io/
Never when I see some self proclaimed data driven quack talk about this do they discuss the relevant data — the exact details are complex but the major changes behind Lyme emergence aren’t controversial.
November 29, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Never when I see some self proclaimed data driven quack talk about this do they discuss the relevant data — the exact details are complex but the major changes behind Lyme emergence aren’t controversial.
it's the second result if you search specifically for a refutation; yikes
November 20, 2025 at 2:02 PM
it's the second result if you search specifically for a refutation; yikes
Top result; searching from Portugal and not USA. FYI @developers.google.com
November 20, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Top result; searching from Portugal and not USA. FYI @developers.google.com
You know it's rough for climate change denial when you can't even cherry pick "pauses" in the data without seeing that the pauses are getting shorter.
November 17, 2025 at 4:48 PM
You know it's rough for climate change denial when you can't even cherry pick "pauses" in the data without seeing that the pauses are getting shorter.
A ghost draws near!
November 10, 2025 at 11:05 PM
A ghost draws near!
I added a short section to this preprint describing another simple and inexplicable error that Bruttel et al. have repeated for years.
![Misinterpretation of previous work
One criteria of the
“IVGA fingerprint” described by Bruttel et al. is
“Two unique recognition sites may flank regions
meant to be further manipulated.
” I did not consider this in the analysis above, because its inclusion in the
“fingerprint”
arises from misinterpretation of work described in a previous paper. Bruttel et al. write that this work
“
used two distinct endonucleases for genome assembly, with two sites of one enzyme [BsaI] flanking a region of
interest, enabling efficient manipulations of the flanking region without having to reassemble the entire viral
backbone for each variant.
” In fact, BsaI sites used for this assembly were not retained in the final construct (Hu et al.,
2017). Furthermore, infectious clones produced in that work did have BsaI sites in the backbone and in other
fragments that would make this procedure impossible without additional mutagenesis. In general, I could not find any
precedent in the literature on similar reverse genetics constructs for introducing type IIS restriction sites. Bruttel et al.
exclusively list examples of introducing BglI sites (not type IIS). There are some examples of removing sites to enable
one-pot assembly, but the fact that RecCA shares the SARS-CoV-2 BsaI/BsmBI restriction map strongly suggests that
there is no history of this for SARS-CoV-2 (Pekar et al., 2025).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:x43yqs76dtuxqf7yzkqrlz4v/bafkreifstpgyyowj4m745ddrx5pbraua7j6aexqhoy4y4y5u7fgbr7hmpi@jpeg)
November 5, 2025 at 2:45 PM
I added a short section to this preprint describing another simple and inexplicable error that Bruttel et al. have repeated for years.
For sure, if this is what you read, I can understand thinking that our manuscript can be accurately summarized from picking one sentence out of the fourth paragraph of our discussion and misrepresenting what we wrote, though!
November 3, 2025 at 11:24 PM
For sure, if this is what you read, I can understand thinking that our manuscript can be accurately summarized from picking one sentence out of the fourth paragraph of our discussion and misrepresenting what we wrote, though!
That's not a claim in this manuscript; it's summarizing the result of analysis from another manuscript; results from supplemental tables from www.cell.com/cell/fulltex... and academic.oup.com/ve/article/1...
Not sure what Bloom is rebutting given the first sentence of our paragraph here.
Not sure what Bloom is rebutting given the first sentence of our paragraph here.
November 3, 2025 at 11:19 PM
That's not a claim in this manuscript; it's summarizing the result of analysis from another manuscript; results from supplemental tables from www.cell.com/cell/fulltex... and academic.oup.com/ve/article/1...
Not sure what Bloom is rebutting given the first sentence of our paragraph here.
Not sure what Bloom is rebutting given the first sentence of our paragraph here.
You have a very different definition of what "absence of traces" than most, I suspect.
November 3, 2025 at 10:45 PM
You have a very different definition of what "absence of traces" than most, I suspect.
What evidence do you have that lineage A was spreading before lineage B, by the way? Everything you cite simply posits that A must have been first, and that there must have been only one spillover, for one reason or another.
The lineage A sample in a stall with a suspected case, also...
The lineage A sample in a stall with a suspected case, also...
November 3, 2025 at 10:41 PM
What evidence do you have that lineage A was spreading before lineage B, by the way? Everything you cite simply posits that A must have been first, and that there must have been only one spillover, for one reason or another.
The lineage A sample in a stall with a suspected case, also...
The lineage A sample in a stall with a suspected case, also...
The people you are listening to definitely do not agree with you on this. Here's the figure from Bruttel's website, for example.
But, as far as I know, everyone else agrees that these sites were not used to assemble SARS-CoV-2 or any precursor.
But, as far as I know, everyone else agrees that these sites were not used to assemble SARS-CoV-2 or any precursor.
November 3, 2025 at 10:34 PM
The people you are listening to definitely do not agree with you on this. Here's the figure from Bruttel's website, for example.
But, as far as I know, everyone else agrees that these sites were not used to assemble SARS-CoV-2 or any precursor.
But, as far as I know, everyone else agrees that these sites were not used to assemble SARS-CoV-2 or any precursor.
I'm sure there are many examples but something like this comes to mind www.nature.com/articles/s41...
November 3, 2025 at 9:36 PM
I'm sure there are many examples but something like this comes to mind www.nature.com/articles/s41...
P(leave in type IIS | reverse genetics system) is empirically zero. Misreading an unfunded grant application doesn't make it greater than zero.
Here's another example; "preserving ORF integrity" shouldn't be mentioned here according to your logic.
Here's another example; "preserving ORF integrity" shouldn't be mentioned here according to your logic.
November 3, 2025 at 8:33 PM
P(leave in type IIS | reverse genetics system) is empirically zero. Misreading an unfunded grant application doesn't make it greater than zero.
Here's another example; "preserving ORF integrity" shouldn't be mentioned here according to your logic.
Here's another example; "preserving ORF integrity" shouldn't be mentioned here according to your logic.
But, no problem, he has an explanation for that -- he thinks that one is a fake genome, too.
November 3, 2025 at 8:14 PM
But, no problem, he has an explanation for that -- he thinks that one is a fake genome, too.
Quay also bet against natural selection and lost. RmBANAL52 was already published when he made this and meets every cherry picked criterion.
November 3, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Quay also bet against natural selection and lost. RmBANAL52 was already published when he made this and meets every cherry picked criterion.
The theory was always 5-8 fragments, not 6 and only 6. Bruttel said it was a MIRACLE that SARS-CoV-2 had 5-8 fragments with the longest less than 8 kb when it turns out to be an extremely common feature of equivalent restriction maps.
November 3, 2025 at 7:53 PM
The theory was always 5-8 fragments, not 6 and only 6. Bruttel said it was a MIRACLE that SARS-CoV-2 had 5-8 fragments with the longest less than 8 kb when it turns out to be an extremely common feature of equivalent restriction maps.
😂 ok let's go check out the tape on the prophecy when it was laid down if we're restricting to that hypothesis.
Oops. Turns out it was yet another person with a conspiracy theory about introducing a pangolin binding domain, definitively disproven a few months later.
Oops. Turns out it was yet another person with a conspiracy theory about introducing a pangolin binding domain, definitively disproven a few months later.
November 3, 2025 at 7:49 PM
😂 ok let's go check out the tape on the prophecy when it was laid down if we're restricting to that hypothesis.
Oops. Turns out it was yet another person with a conspiracy theory about introducing a pangolin binding domain, definitively disproven a few months later.
Oops. Turns out it was yet another person with a conspiracy theory about introducing a pangolin binding domain, definitively disproven a few months later.
Yes now you understand it correctly. Here is the part of Bruttel et al. that is wrong. Eight different constructs in that work; not using the "convenient" system.
November 3, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Yes now you understand it correctly. Here is the part of Bruttel et al. that is wrong. Eight different constructs in that work; not using the "convenient" system.
On Bruttel's website, he has found *one* example of mutating to remove BsaI/BsmBI sites, by the way. There are others and reasons to do it. Useful in that case (HKU5) because different sites are very close together. Another group used BglI instead; adding new sites to the existing ones.
November 3, 2025 at 6:50 PM
On Bruttel's website, he has found *one* example of mutating to remove BsaI/BsmBI sites, by the way. There are others and reasons to do it. Useful in that case (HKU5) because different sites are very close together. Another group used BglI instead; adding new sites to the existing ones.
Cuts are along the red lines; red letters (restriction sites) are lost.
November 3, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Cuts are along the red lines; red letters (restriction sites) are lost.
The only uncertainties considered were that maybe they wouldn't use exactly 6 fragments or use BsaI. Zero uncertainty about engineers leaving a pattern behind.
November 3, 2025 at 1:02 PM
The only uncertainties considered were that maybe they wouldn't use exactly 6 fragments or use BsaI. Zero uncertainty about engineers leaving a pattern behind.
Just wow at the cognitive dissonance required to justify blaming people for the pandemic based on a fraudulent preprint.
It’s a plain reading of the text and it’s nearly verbatim. Pointed out to you immediately last year.
And there’s no precedent for what you think the text means.
It’s a plain reading of the text and it’s nearly verbatim. Pointed out to you immediately last year.
And there’s no precedent for what you think the text means.
November 2, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Just wow at the cognitive dissonance required to justify blaming people for the pandemic based on a fraudulent preprint.
It’s a plain reading of the text and it’s nearly verbatim. Pointed out to you immediately last year.
And there’s no precedent for what you think the text means.
It’s a plain reading of the text and it’s nearly verbatim. Pointed out to you immediately last year.
And there’s no precedent for what you think the text means.
Do you still think this after learning you were wrong about the sites being left in?
I showed that the language in the drafts is what’s used when the cites are removed.
There’s no significant pattern; just half rate Bible code.
I showed that the language in the drafts is what’s used when the cites are removed.
There’s no significant pattern; just half rate Bible code.
November 2, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Do you still think this after learning you were wrong about the sites being left in?
I showed that the language in the drafts is what’s used when the cites are removed.
There’s no significant pattern; just half rate Bible code.
I showed that the language in the drafts is what’s used when the cites are removed.
There’s no significant pattern; just half rate Bible code.
Oh... I see you got this from Yuri now. Again, it's worth reading the primary literature to avoid this confusion.
Isn't "nuclear localization signal" here and in another thing you cite a huge red flag that your sources are full of it?
Isn't "nuclear localization signal" here and in another thing you cite a huge red flag that your sources are full of it?
November 2, 2025 at 10:10 AM
Oh... I see you got this from Yuri now. Again, it's worth reading the primary literature to avoid this confusion.
Isn't "nuclear localization signal" here and in another thing you cite a huge red flag that your sources are full of it?
Isn't "nuclear localization signal" here and in another thing you cite a huge red flag that your sources are full of it?