We shall see what the US administration recommends at the world Health Assembly, starting on the 25th May.

In the meantime the NIH is expected to answer the request from the Republican Leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Our latest provides some clear reference points for such a proper enquiry: 'Essential Data', 'Essential Questions' and a clear distinction between the possible lab-related accident scenarios.

It also shows the big gaps and flaws in the WHO-China joint-study conclusions on these.
The World Health Assembly is a once a year chance to get things moving.

Three millions deaths is not a minor matter that does not require a proper investigation.

It would be beyond shameless for countries that pride themselves on their humanist values to look somewhere else.

• • •

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!


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

2 May
Sir Richard, who was 'C' (MI6 head) from 1999 to 2004, says that the WHO joint study report was a "farcical investigation".
Worth listening to...
and he makes a good point about scientific journals:
Read 5 tweets
1 May
Does someone remember that?

"it seems that Australia, this giant kangaroo that serves as a dog of the US, will hit a deadlock with China on trade disputes in sectors like coal and beef. Hopefully, the US will compensate it!" one netizen said in a Weibo  
A slap to the face to countries like Australia - the most active player in pushing forward a so-called independent probe into China over the coronavirus outbreak, which was then rejected by the international community. Such moves, clearly backed by Washington, are doomed to fail. Image
So thanks to China's efforts, we got a 'trully independent' enquiry, which promptly pointed to frozen food imports and no case officially recorded in China before 8th Dec 19.

That's the 'immaculate infection', nothing to do with China.

Read 6 tweets
30 Apr
They did it so quietly that I missed it.
Quite amazing.

But note that NZ does not have the courage to mention the need to keep investigating the lab related accident hypothesis.

The statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade simply does not go as far as Dr Tedros and never mentions that hypothesis!
It's all about the critical importance of the OneHealth approach

"[The report] has helpfully highlighted the critical importance of the One Health approach between human health and animal health regulatory agencies, shining a spotlight on an area that deserves greater attention"
Read 8 tweets
27 Apr
This is very important (T/H @Byron_Wan):

"However, China, Russia, Syria and Pakistan specifically ask to delete a reference that would include the WHO’s coronavirus origins study in this report".

Why does Pakistan pop up?

Pakistan is in full collaboration with China under the Belt & Road Initiative.

See for instance the Nature series of article, written by Ehsan Masood, 'Editor of Editorials' (!) at Nature, in particular #2 in the series:

This collaboration includes civilian research with the WIV.
Read 10 tweets
16 Apr
Here is an interesting article worth discussing.

This was published in 2016 in the journal of Military Medical Research, a Springer Nature journal which is edited by the PLA.

[Nature and its pangolins papers, the PLA... Yes, I know!]
The paper is about the positive role the PLA is playing in infectious disease prevention and control.

The 2nd sentence of the paper gives you the theme, praising the contribution of the PLA to the prevention of SARS.
Maybe they have in mind keeping secret military files that made it impossible for the WHO to control and monitor the spread of SARS in Beijing in 2004.
Read 11 tweets
16 Apr
What could go wrong?

'The ministry has examined and approved the construction of three biosafety level-4 labs [on top of already 3], or P4 labs, and 88 biosafety level-3 labs, or P3 labs, in China'
Well, first and foremost, Chinese experts have been very concerned about the lack of qualified biosafety personnel, adequate budgets, and proper regulation for years.

Yes you read it correctly:

[…] several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes. Due to the limited resources, some BSL-3 laboratories run on extremely minimal operational costs or in some cases none at all.
Read 11 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!