Thread by @MMKavanagh

Read 👇 Dear Journalism:Does this pass muster @VanityFair? Innuendo, implications, Eban teases as breaking story. Zero new evidence. Lots of fmr Trump admin people saying there's a cover up, with no evidence. How is this not just spreading misinformation?
vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/t…

YES we need more info on #COVID #Origins. Yes a lab leak is a possibility, but as many have said it has not been high on priority b/c there is quite literally no evidence for it. Eban doesn't find any either. But she does fall for all sorts of canards...

For example, Eban falls for the one about how @WHO didn't appoint US officials suggested for the independent expert team. This has been being shopped around by Trump admin folks for months. Eban takes the bait, reports it as if it's a shocking piece of new information. But...

The Trump Administration had QUIT the WHO. Formal letter and all. Pompeo was shopping lab leak publicly with no real evidence. But Eban is shocked and suspicious about why US personnel were not appointed at Trump admin's suggestion?

Eban never explains why she finds these people credible--which is remarkable since many of the people she quotes have literally no expertise in public health, virology, etc. Yet she suggests they are not only credible but more credible than US govt experts who...

were actively refuting their claims. Eban suggests expert staff refusing to collaborate in this was somehow nefarious, evidence of a cover-up. The alternative explanation? Her sources were wrong, doing poor work, and politically motivated.

Late in the story Eban writes "After listening to the investigators’ findings, a technical expert in one of the State Department’s bioweapons offices 'thought they were bonkers'"
But this story treats them as credible?? Why?

It's good storytelling--questions "raised" so the reader can be forgiven for thinking that Eban has revealed a vast conspiracy. In fact, she's repeated facts known for months with a lot of implications, innuendo from people who have repeatedly been caught driving lies

Eban, for example, tears into Shi Zhengli, claims a State Dept fact sheet proves she's lying (it doesn't), and discovers the breaking news (from her online CV) that she got funding from NIH and USAID. Yes! Yes she did. As has been widely reported.

There is plenty of scientific uncertainty, serious scientists debating evidence in meaningful ways. Several hypotheses to chase. And yes the Chinese government has not been transparent. But this is sensationalism not worthy of @VanityFair.

So instead of Katherine Eban can I suggest you read Drs. @angie_rasmussen & @stgoldst who DO give evidence. "If we make accusations and demands that aren’t firmly grounded in evidence, we run the real risk of having no origins investigations at all"
washingtonpost.com/outlook/virus-…

And instead of Jonathan Chait, read @hiltzikm's really thoughtful analysis.
latimes.com/business/story…

Read @amymaxmen getting on complex global politics, in which there is no easy answer in the real world about how to best improve public health, get more info to prevent further outbreaks, but it's probably not the current hot US-China rhetoric.
nature.com/articles/d4158…

Bad journalism can drive bad policy. Chinese scientists are critical to global public health; Chinese govt is key player in pandemics. So yes tell hard truths, dig, investigate. But dont pretend following former Trump admin + questionable intelligence=path to science & truth

... on #LabLeak story, Eban's @VanityFair story continues to fall apart as Sec Blinken confirms (as I noted above) her sources were not truth-telling about cover up, but instead doing a poor-quality investigation that didnt hold up to scrutiny.
reuters.com/world/china/bl…

"The Trump administration, it's my understanding, had real concerns about the methodology of that study, the quality of analysis, bending evidence to fit preconceived narrative. That was their concern. It was shared with us."

"the study was the work of one office and a few individuals... the Trump administration had asked a contractor to look into the origins... with a particular focus on whether it was a result of a lab leak.
"That work was done, it was completed, it was briefed, to relevant people"

So can we all take a breath? Is a lab accident still a possibility? Yes. Would digging into it be helpful? Yes. Do we have breakthrough info that makes this theory likely? No. Will spreading misinformation and conjecture in this highly political space help get answers? No.

... now for those following the #LabLeak story another voice heard from. Eban gives a ton of credence to “former state department officials” who were suspicious of WHO and “beginning to suspect that someone was actually hiding materials supportive of a lab-leak explanation”

Eban even titles a whole section “smelled Like a cover-up” and follows how “State Department investigators pushed on, determined to go public with their concerns”
Yet it seems increasingly clear Eban was taken for a ride (willfully? Sloppily?) by former Trump officials...

Here’s Dr Ford who Eban casts as a foe of these “investigators” writing publicly. Obviously he’s self-interested but the story he shares, backed up by evidence Eban clearly had access to, does not “smell” like a cover up so much as badly motivated work....
christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-i…

Instead it’s quite clear these “investigators” had no expertise in virology or health and were shopping a #LabLeak analysis that was shot down by their own actual experts when forced to subject their stats & work to review.

So @VanityFair break-through story making the rounds alongside WSJ and Fox News is actually just giving new wings to something even the Trump administration thought didn’t hold up. My take away: story is being driven by politically motivated actors not science. Can we stop now?