Flavinkins (@Flavinkins)

In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it picks the closest sequence to the SARS-CoV-2 branch On “phylogenetic trees constructed on each (very short) segment of the genome”) mean that it is impossible to reconstruct an ReCCA without inputing the SARS-CoV-2 genome into the algorithm (as the reference genome to be aligned against) and thus biasing the result catastrophically—to the point that it is impossible to distinguish this process from what that would be used during the construction of an consensus genome for an infectious clone (fragments are picked with a requirement that the sites on the selected fragments lead to a genome that can be easily synthesized and constructed), and removes any statistical power of “ReCCA” to argue that the specific type IIS restriction pattern of SARS-CoV-2 to be the only possible combination of sites that is “evolutionarily likely”. It once again, failed to provide any biological reason why a specific, <1-in-100, easy-to-clone pattern being any more likely to end up being the spillover strain (that must not use the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself as the reference when such probability is assessed) compared to the >99-in-100 other possible combinations outside the S1 With the “ReCCA components” (where none were easy to clone by themselves) that are not easy to clone, in a non-circular manner. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109288626916761348