@MFA_China Why don't you start by scientifically explaining the obvious manipulations of the 2019 cases by China?

Here is a good start from your very own CDC (27th Jan 20): Image
@MFA_China I have a full catalogue of your 'disappearing' confirmed cases.
pihabeach.micro.blog/2021/03/22/am-…

I am not sure what you definition of science but mine does not allow for crude lies and manipulations. Image
@MFA_China With a good example of the CDC gag order of the 25th Feb 2020 at play:

@MFA_China But there is plenty more. Just read our 'Silent Numbers', or the systematic distortion and misreporting of 2019 cases.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d… Image
@MFA_China Ans since China is so transparent, could it actually release the WHO investigation report of the very bad SARS leaks at the top Chinese P3 (Beijing) in 2003?

Funny enough, it was never made public. That's transparency with Chinese characteristics.

gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/the-good-the-b…
@MFA_China Is it because it exposes crass incompetence and incredible bad practices, such as a SARS sample fridge moved into the corridor outside of the lab, without forgetting an attempted cover-up?

news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-07-12/1… Image
@MFA_China Or maybe you could tell us how China was moving about a 100 patients out of hospitals to hotel rooms or just driving them in ambulances when the WHO was investigating the SARS outbreak in Beijing in 2003?

smh.com.au/national/sars-…
@MFA_China And don't forget to tell us hoe China tried to blame Honng Kong and even Thailand for the SARS outbreak in Beijing.

Bad habits die hard...
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.101… Image
@MFA_China Blame anybody (Italy, France, Spain, US) but China. - that's the usual answer of the Chinese government to epidemics.

Unfortunately everybody can see through your BS. Sorry, I know, it's so unfair.

link.springer.com/content/pdf/10… Image

• • •

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!

PDF

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

31 Mar
This was written in 2004.

Swap Covid-19 for SARS, Wuhan for Guangdong and 2003 for 2019 and the whole story is very similar. Image
If anybody thought that things would change, then they clearly got it badly wrong.

China - or more correctly its government - did not change when it comes to transparency in such matters.

No. It would rather change US.
ft.com/content/fb2b39…
The main problem is that we are using a 19th century governance framework to address 21st century threats.

This needs to be fixed before SARS3. Image
Read 7 tweets
30 Mar
This is the crux of the matter.

Add to that the team leader, Peter Embarek, is a foodborne diseases expert. Maybe that explains why China chose him instead of the 3 US candidates.

No surprise then that the report goes for food-induced zoonoses, despite any evidence for it.
When you have a hammer as only tool (and there was not one lab-forensic expert in the team) - then everything is a nail.

We needed people like Tony Della Porta.
linkedin.com/in/tony-della-…

But wait, China did not want him to do the investigation of the SARS Beijing leaks in 2004.
The problem is that Tony did a great job investigating the Singapore SARS leak and then the Taiwan SARS one in 2003.

Way too good a job for Beijing. So he was not picked up.

And predictably the WHO 'investigation' of the Beijing leak was a whitewash.
👉🏻No report ever published! Image
Read 8 tweets
30 Mar
I thought it would be useful to include the missing labels in this Chinese paper.

Always happy to help. Image
The paper is there: jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…

The incomplete graph is part of the supplements:
cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_pu…
Another one for the cabinet of clear data manipulations.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d… Image
Read 4 tweets
29 Mar
It strikes me as incredible that when in China to negotiate the Terms of References (ToRS) in July 2020, the WHO accepted totally restrictive ToRs despite deploring that China had hardly done any epidemiological investigation at all since Jan 20.

theguardian.com/world/2021/feb…
Peter Embarek even complained about it in an internal WHO memo that leaked.

Still China got a free pass and ToRs that forced the joint team to rely exclusively on Chinese studies (not even started - China having done near to nothing).
I cannot understand how one could accept that.

Is that because the ToR negotiation team leader, Peter Embarek, had spent 2 years in Beijing advising the Chinese government, and this could not imagine anything going wrong?
Read 7 tweets
29 Mar
60 minutes has just exposed on prime TV the total lack of evidence for the natural pathway and the flimsiness of the wishy-washy joint-study.

cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-…
The most amazing is that more than one year has now elapsed, and all there is to show is nothing: no positive animal at the market, no animal reservoir found, no traces of previous infection in South China - nothing.

It's the immaculate infection.

But for those with the faith it's good enough to rule out the lab-leak theory - because our Chinese friends are very clear about it.

You would believe them, wouldn't you? They tend to tell the[ir] truth.

Read 6 tweets
21 Mar
Am I the only one having problems making sense of the confirmed cases graphs in the WHO report of the 24th Feb 2020?

Page 7 is very troubling.

First there is an error of 2 days in the reporting dates of the 3 graphs (7/14/22 of Feb instead of 5/12/20).

drive.google.com/file/d/1cLW3dE…
Then the first case (8th Dec) in the 1st graph (reporting as of the 5/7? Feb) is missing in the 2nd Graph [12/14? Feb].

And all the Dec 19 cases are missing in the 3rd graph [20/22? Feb], and there is some shaving of the number of early Jan cases!

@MarionKoopmans
Now as these are all laboratory confirmed cases it's really odd. Once it has been reported a case should still be reported in the next graph (next reporting date).

Unless they play around with the onset dates and move the cases around, or simply 'disappear' them.
Read 9 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!