Anybody who really wants to understand China's attitude today would benefit from reading Chapter 5 of this excellent book:

bit.ly/3fzHFbr
According to this table from the WHO update of the 16h March SARS had nothing to do with China. No case officially reported - just some unrelated atypical pneumonia.

SARS clearly must have started in Hong Kong or Vietnam.
Anyway according to Chinese scientists these atypical pneumonia cases in China were Chlamydia pneumonia, which can be treated with antibiotics - no worry it's all under control.

Keep moving and check Hong Kong instead.
That did not go too well with the WHO when they eventually met Chinese health officials in Beijing on the 24th March 2003.

And as usual there was no data to show. Also trust us it's Chlamydia.
No need to go ad visit Guangdong as well.
And it went on like this. April was not any better.
China kept saying that it had nothing to hide and was not covering up. Just trust us.
But soon the story started changing:
But then the problem moved to Beijing, where once, again - trust us - there was nothing particular going on.

It there are any cases in Beijing there are imported from Thailand.
However soon Dr Jiang Yanyong of the 301 PLA hospital in Beijing had enough of that charade and raised the alarm:
But China kept dragging its feet, especially blocking access to the military hospitals where many SARS patients were being treated.
Despite promises, China kept underreporting cases, using the PLA and its military hospitals to hide the cases.
Eventually the WHO had enough and rebuked Beijing:
But to the very end Beijing tried to cheat its way through.

After agreeing to the WHO team visiting some key hospitals, Beijing started moving the patients out to other facilities or even moving them around in ambulances for the duration of the WHO visits.
Things only started improving at the end of April.

In all 5 months were wasted due to Beijing's obfuscation - all the way paved with reassurances of its honesty and transparence.

washingtonpost.com/archive/politi…

• • •

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.
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.
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!
Read 8 tweets
30 Mar
I thought it would be useful to include the missing labels in this Chinese paper.

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

The incomplete graph is part of the supplements:
cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_pu…
That's nicely in line with my favourite China CDC update:

news.39.net/whfy/200128/77…
Read 5 tweets
29 Mar
@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:

Read 11 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

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!