@China__Focus Sorry @China_Focus, but you have been caught lying.

The 700 tests ILI samples from the Wuhan Xiehe Hospital - not from the WIV (which anyway has 590 staff and students).

#DASTIC @franciscodeasis @Tantalite
From Annex D7 of the China-WHO study report:
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite The WIV did test some lab staff in April 2019 and March 2020.

It should have tested all 590 staff and students, plus construction workers.

Given that the prevalent IgG+ rate in Wuhan was about 4.4% at the time then there would have been positive tests.
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite First let's be clear that the prevalent IgG+ rate was around 4.4% in urban Wuhan around April 2020
(95% confidence interval: 4.0%-4.8%).

See jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite The let's me show you the probability of 0 IgG+ (positive test for pas Covid-19 infection) amongst 590 staff and students at the WIV:
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite Let's try again with the lower value of the confident interval: 4%.

Let's say that the WIV was a bit lazy and tested only 100 students and staff (which make the test quite irrelevant actually):

1.7% is one chance in 60.
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite Said otherwise people at the WIV MUST have tested positive for Covid-19 antibodies (IgG) in March 2020.

Either a ridiculously small group of people was tested (17 people gives 50/50 chance of 0 positive with a 4% background rate) or the whole story is just lies.
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite Now going back to that paper jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…, it's interesting to see that 'Informed consent was waived because de-identified data were used.'

Basically no need to ask people for consent as data is anonymised.
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite But for some reason the joint-team mission could not have access to raw data due to the very strict privacy laws in China.

Not sure how that works - since you can apply a waver with anonymised data, as was done for that paper.

I call that a LIE.

prospectsconsultation.co.uk/who-coronaviru…
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite Maybe that explains why @DrTedros lost patience with all the nonsense and foot dragging from the Chinese authorities.

@JamieMetzl
@Ayjchan
#DRASTIC

• • •

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

10 Apr
The SCMP makes for some very interesting reading this morning. Image
I cannot fail to recall that Beijing is forcing Jack Ma to sell the SCMP and more of his media assets.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
These are the best pieces: Image
Read 10 tweets
9 Apr
A courageous article by @ParkSuAm1996 in the HK South China Morning Post.

Well done Eduardo and the SCMP, the questions of transparency and willingness to oppenly learn from mistakes are essential.

archive.is/ECbSC
It is also very nice to see Tony Della Porta, one of the foremost experts on lab safety, stepping in.

His work on the 2003 Singapore and Taiwan SARS lab leaks set the standard.

Unfortunately he was not selected for the bad Beijing SARS leak in 2004.

researchgate.net/publication/34…
We cannot keep going back to the same transparency failures.

This is really starting to feel like a Truman Show.

We need to escape that silly staged world which is totally uncompatible with a country running many (and building many more) labs. Image
Read 6 tweets
2 Apr
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.
Read 15 tweets
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

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!