Thread by @Ayjchan

Quote: WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual press briefing on Friday that the UN agency was continuing "to establish the origins of the virus to prevent future outbreaks." straitstimes.com/world/europe/f…

"Scientists believe the killer virus jumped from animals to humans, possibly from a market in the city of Wuhan selling exotic animals for meat."

Unclear where this statement came from. @WHO ? But it's in a few articles - no person or organization identified as the source.

It could be helpful for the @WHO to publish the collective affiliations of the international experts it has engaged to conduct the independent investigations into SARS-CoV-2 origins who.int/director-gener…

The experts engaged in this controversial investigation are possibly better left anonymous, but if their extensive affiliations are published in a list, without assigning affiliations to individuals, this can be a way to ascertain conflicts of interest w/o exposing individuals...

... for example, if EcoHealth Alliance, Thousand Talents program, or other somehow implicated institutes/programs are listed multiple times (also useful to know how many experts in total have been engaged), this should raise some flags.

At the very least, I'm hoping that this list of international experts is shared with WHO members who can consult with their own governments (maybe at the level of Congress?) on whether the list makes sense.

Wait, is the US still a member of the WHO?

"In any case, the United States cannot leave the agency until July (2021), because American law requires that the administration give one year’s notice and pay all back dues owed."
nytimes.com/2020/10/30/wor…

Someone asked what I think an ideal team for conducting an independent investigation of SARS-CoV-2 origins should look like. These are the top criteria imo:

1. None of the experts on the team should be buddies with each other or come from the same institute/organization/program.

2. Each member should ideally come from a different country; every continent or major geographical region must be represented on the team. Still keeping in mind these members should not have history of co-publishing, collaborating in international projects, funding each other etc

3. There should not be an over-representation of experts from any one particular field, e.g., a team that is 50% evolutionary biology experts.

This should avoid peer pressure to agree with one another or the top expert in that specialization on the team.

4. If it is necessary to have members with conflicts of interest on the team, then the reasons for this appointment should be published AND an expert with an opposing conflict of interest should be appointed to the team so as to increase accountability in the investigation.

For example, if an expert who has clearly expressed their scientific opinion that SARS2 is 100% natural is appointed to the team, then it makes sense that an expert who has clearly expressed their opinion that SARS2 is from a lab should be appointed to balance the investigation.

I think the above are very reasonable criteria that should even appeal to China if they're worried about a US-biased investigation.

Would be useful for someone in the know to check the current team membership using the above criteria.