Virologists quickly dismissed the paper as “pseudoscience” and
“based on conjecture.” Some worried that the paper — laden with
charts and scientific jargon, such as “unique furin cleavage site”
and “RBM-hACE2 binding” — would lend her claims a veneer of
credibility.

“It’s full of science-y sorts of terms that are jumbled together
to sound impressive but aren’t supported,” said Gigi Kwik
Gronvall, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University who was among
several authors of a rebuttal to Dr. Yan’s report.