Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü & @CSRisks, asking questions and not getting straight answers from the @opcw does not constitute an 'intense defamation campaign'. Let's ask some of the key questions again shall we:- @Tim_Hayward_
https://twitter.com/CSRisks/status/1387829133015752710
1) Why was the original interim report secretly altered and findings distorted behind the back of the Douma team?:- hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/11/new-se… @ClarkeMicah
2) Why was the assessment of 4 NATO toxicologists, that the victims at Location 2 were not killed by chlorine gas, removed from the Final Report with all record of the NATO assessment removed? @2ndNewMoon 
3) Why were inaccurate witness reports of Sarin nerve agent symptoms (which was never found) clearly reported in the original interim report (see here) but obfuscated in the final report & with 'constricted pupils' (a key indicator of Sarin) deleted?:- wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/doc…
4) Why was confirmation that some victims had been re-positioned throughout the night of 7-8 April, clearly reported in the original interim report here, buried in the Annex of the Final Report?
5) Why was jewellery removed from victims through the course of the night, as shown by @ClimateAudit:- climateaudit.org/2018/04/24/dou…
6) Why was an engineering report, confirming the incompatibility between the damage on this cylinder and the hole in the roof, blocked from consideration?
8) Given all of these critical issues Ambassador (and @CSRisks), why do you not support an eminently reasonable request from leading experts & voices to allow *all* of the Douma FFM team to discuss the Douma Report and the science behind it? berlingroup21.org @aaronjmate
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
