Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several “points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis.” As our paper is titled “The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin,” points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS-CoV-2 that could be consistent with the lab leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, and their other points of criticism are either not valid, based on flawed mathematical analysis, or are unrelated to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly.

中文翻译：

---

SARS-CoV-2 的遗传结构与天然或实验室来源一致：对 Tyshkovskiy 和 Panchin 的反应 (10.1002/bies.202000325)

Tyshkovskiy 和 Panchin 最近发表了一篇关于我们论文的评论，其中概述了几个“与 Segreto/Deigin 假设的分歧点”。由于我们的论文标题为“SARS-CoV-2 的遗传结构不排除实验室来源”，因此分歧点应提供排除实验室来源的证据。然而，Tyshkovskiy 和 Panchin 没有提供这样的证据，而是试图批评我们的论点，这些论点强调了 SARS-CoV-2 可能与实验室泄漏假设一致的方面。引人注目的是，Tyshkovskiy 和 Panchin 的主要批评观点是基于一个错误的前提，即我们声称 RaTG13 是 SARS-CoV-2 的直接祖先，而他们的其他批评观点要么无效，要么基于有缺陷的数学分析，要么与我们的假设无关。因此，