A detailed analysis of the BAT cages patents show that the WIV must have been breeding bats **since at least Jun 16**.

It took the WIV 4 years to go from capture of parents to reproductive maturity of bat pups.

Here is a DRASTIC summary at bit.ly/3pxL8IR
Breeding means successful births in cages and from which a new generation of bats is obtained that is itself ready to reproduce.

But we also know that Shi Zhengli had been keeping bats for experiments since at least 2009.
bit.ly/2ZvIOrt Bats kept in cages at WIV since 2009
Some rather odd wording:
"During this spring festival the students are back home on holiday, [so] teacher Shi **silently** assumed the task of raising bats. ** For this reason, a lot of people do not know about this until now. **"

Thanks to the OSINT specialist who shared this.
But some well respected people obviously know better - they must live in a parallel world though:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Gilles Demaneuf

Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gdemaneuf

16 Feb
Post WHO conference, let's remember that paper published on the Saturday 22nd Feb by a very unlikely team lead by conservation biologists from Yunnan on a Chinese preprint site, that:

(1) systematically rejected the wet-market hypothesis based on a careful analysis of available
sequences to that date

(2) tried to unravel the evolutionary links between the novel coronavirus and RaTG13

(3) complained about not enough sequences of early cases being published

(4) clearly stated that the breakout may have started in November

One year later, the WHO mission basically repeated these findings.

That paper was made available to the WHO a year ago, just before they went to Wuhan. Someone was generously trying to help them.

Shame that it took the WHO one year to essentially reach the same conclusions.
Read 5 tweets
15 Feb
This is the $1mln question still without an answer: why were these workers cleaning bat guano from that abandoned mine?

Surprisingly we simply don't know.

China would have all interest in clarifying that point if for instance they were prospecting or selling guano. It did not.
What we know is that EcoHealth + WIV were sampling bat sites in the vicinity at the exact time of the workers being in that mine.

#DRASTIC wrote about this and about other oddities in the official story:

Maybe it's just one of these coincidences.

Then it gets interesting: about a year after the miners death, Olival & Epstein from EcoHealth Alliance co-authored a paper about the coronavirus risk infection from bat guano collection.

No mention of the mine

Read 11 tweets
14 Feb
An interview full of insights.
The sense of frustration and the pressures they were subjected to is palpable.

"Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world [--]. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. ***Beyond that we didn't have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option. ***"
That's a weird statement. It cannot justify in any way declaring during the conference that the lab-related pathway was off the table.

It is patently clear that China has to kill it then and there, especially given the retained approach of continuously updating their assessments
Read 7 tweets
13 Feb
Here is my summary of the Silent Numbers: the creeping numbers of semi-official 2019 cases and the related leaks (which we are now starting to match).
It was updated for the disclosure of 174 confirmed cases.

I also list some ham-fisted attempts at manipulating the data.
A direct link to the (draft spreadsheet) is here: bit.ly/2OyytJ4

A previous thread on the absurdities in the data is here:

The CNN count (~200) and even the SCMP count (~300+) are actually very plausible. That would mean min 250 to 300 conf cases with onset in 2019 (taking some from the 1st Jan 20 which is artificially bumped up), with some Nov cases and possibly late Oct cases.
Read 4 tweets
13 Feb
Please note that Liang Wannian effectively confirmed the Epoch Times leak at 35'04 in the WHO conference:

This is a leak that DRASTIC always considered as credible after careful review, however partisan the Epoch Times may be.

I wrote about it there and it may be worth reading it again.

Note that that data collection had a bunch of October and November cases, which now seems to have vanished into thin air.

But more importantly, there are at least 3 levels of information feeding into each other:

First that rushed data collection likely feeds into official national database of cases managed by Pr. Yu Chuanhua and his team. (Pr. Yu Chuanhua has strong links to the PLA).
Read 6 tweets
12 Feb
So here now we are with 174 semi-officially confirmed cases in Dec 29, up from the 124 backdoor disclosure of the ToRs.

My bet is still on minimum 250 to 300 confirmed 2019 cases.
See this thread about the obvious manipulations in the number of 2019 cases.

How do you possibly track the start of a pandemic if you are not given access to the details of the early cases?

This is beyond being called a joke.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!