This letter from members of US Congress to Ecohealtth Alliance contains some very interesting information related to a lab leak hypothesis ... it is fair to say that authoritative investigations of a lab leak are now proceeding on multiple fronts ⤵️ republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/upl…
Some highlights and questions:
Does anyone actually have this review?
Why this database was shut down 12 Sept 2019 has never been satisfactorily answered.
"Hacking" doesn't cut it
The fact that the US Congress does not know the answers to these questions itself suggests that much stronger regulation of PPP research is needed
Similarly, hard to fathom how potential dual-use research could have been funded by the US government in another, potentially adversarial nation
Lab leak aside, this itself is incredible
Again, PPP research needs much stronger oversight
This is nuts
Whatever the ultimate findings of lab leak investigations, we already know enough to put in place much tighter regulations of and oversight for potential pandemic pathogens... seeing how incredibly lax everything was, if there hasn't been a lab leak, it would only be due to luck.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now bear with me... imagine a 19th/20th century alternative history with the western world female dominated & our female leaders created a modern Olympics centered on exalting female athleticism - like in gymnastics and synchronized swimming (as above), with men cheering along...
If we view the future through the lens of plausible IPCC scenarios (AR5 & SSP consistent with 2005-2020 reality & 2020-2040 near-term projections), the below shows fossil fuel CO2 emissions without application of an negative emissions technologies
One comment we have received on this analysis is that the envelope of emissions in 2100 from plausible scenarios may not actually reflect all plausible outcomes
We agree!
That is an argument (which we make) for updating IPCC scenarios & not continuing to use outdated scenarios
How we talk about disasters has changed dramatically (since ~2006)
The IPCC definition of "climate change" as a detectable change in the statistics of weather (and outcome metric) has been increasingly rejected in favor of "climate change" defined as a causal actor that changes weather
These definitions are 100% incompatible
17 years ago I wrote about how the different definitions of "climate change" used by the FCCC and IPCC was problematic for connecting science and policy sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicat…
The increasing use of "climate" (or "climate change") as a causal actor adds to this dissonance
1⃣
First, improve the process for the WHO’s declaration of a public health emergency.
2⃣
Second, countries should agree on common standards for data collection and dissemination during a pandemic, to inform responses and enable relevant research to be undertaken.
3⃣
Third, nations should agree to establish international standards for the recommendation of vaccine and drug approval in a pandemic.
4⃣
Fourth, nations should agree on procedures for investigations of pandemic origins.