“based on what we know so far.. the W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient.. without full transparency and access to the primary data and records, we cannot understand the basis for any of the comments issued so far” nytimes.com/2021/03/04/hea…
... as @R_H_Ebright said, the open letter was released in anticipation of an interim report from the WHO-convened covid-19 origins study team. Our letter was communicated to high levels of @WHO on Tuesday, and we only heard this morning that no interim report is coming after all.
We can talk about the full report when it comes out but should not wait to call for global efforts as @FilippaLentzos described, possibly involving the U.N. General Assembly where all nations are represented and can vote on whether to formally investigate #OriginsofCOVID
The WHO-convened covid-19 origins study group is scrapping their overdue interim report amid "tensions between Beijing and Washington over the investigation and an appeal from one international group of scientists for a new probe." wsj.com/articles/who-i…
Many thanks to the experts & scientists who organized the open letter which is the basis of the @WSJ news story.
The letter describes limitations of the WHO-convened global study and what a credible investigation into COVID-19 origins should look like. s.wsj.net/public/resourc…
FYI journalists reporting on the @WHO convened COVID-19 origins collaborative process of discovery.
@DrTedros said it is not a WHO study or investigation.
It is an independent study by predominantly non-WHO experts. ~Half of the team is unidentified. who.int/publications/m…
The WHO-convened team had to work with Chinese counterparts (half of the team) in a collaborative process; they did not have investigatory powers to look into COVID-19 origin hypotheses that their hosts did not want them looking into.
Starting to wonder how many virus samples are sitting in freezers waiting to be sequenced.
The newest pangolin CoV in GISAID (EPI_ISL_610156) was collected in Yunnan in 2017. Someone implied that this was proof of the 2019 Guangdong pangolin CoV, but it's quite different...
The Yunnan pangolin CoV sequence is full of gaps, missing front half of the Spike, no RBD to even compare with the SARS2-like RBD in the Guangdong pangolin CoV.
Not sure why anyone would think this Yunnan pangolin CoV is useful to verifying the history of the GD pangolin CoV.
Meanwhile, the Guangdong pangolin CoV authors who haven't provided any of the novel raw data mentioned in their May 2020 @PLOSPathogens paper just released more short sequence fragments for another paper? ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/popset?DbFrom=…
“scientists expressed surprise and even disbelief that the further investigations, into both the first patient's contact history and the supply chain to the Huanan market that the WHO sought, had apparently not already been performed by China.” cnn.com/2021/02/21/chi…
“specialist Daniel Lucey.. said it was “frankly implausible” that such testing had not been done. “My question is why would it not have been done? It was known to be necessary and it’s in China’s scientific.. public health.. national security interest”” scmp.com/news/china/sci…
This would be like if in Stranger Things, the protagonists all neglected to investigate the local National Laboratory while searching for the inter-dimensional gateway (source of spillover).