In this clip @SenRandPaul FALSELY claims… that the @cambridgeWG has characterized work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as gain-of-function.
I and many other @cambridgeWG support proper investigation of SARS-CoV-2 origins including the lab leak hypothesis and continue to oppose many forms of GOF research but it is just fabrication to say we have made any statement as a group about work in Wuhan.
What we called for was a moratorium on GOF research until proper risk-benefit calculations can be done. Just as this pandemic was starting, two of us were strongly critical of how @NIH and @HHSGov evaluate GOF proposals…, calling for much more transparency.
Some members of @cambridgeWG may categorically oppose all GOF studies that enhance virulence, transmission, or immune escape. My personal view is that some such studies can be justified on risk-benefit grounds, while those on flu to date cannot…
I've been sharply critical of @NIH and @HHSGov on this topic, but am dismayed to see a physician and senator fabricating claims about what @cambridgeWG has said when questioning Dr. Fauci

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Marc Lipsitch

Marc Lipsitch 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 @mlipsitch

13 May
This tweet got me thinking again about a topic that's been on my mind for the last several weeks and throughout the pandemic. In principle I fully agree with @flodebarre that people should evaluate arguments for logical soundness and consistency with facts, not who makes them.
But many people have asked me (most recently @AmyDMarcus) how thoughtful people should know whom to trust in getting information (science) and advice (for personal actions) and opinions (about policy) on a topic like COVID
Consistent with @flodebarre's tweet, my first response was you shouldn't trust anyone intrinsically, but should trust good arguments. As a scientist, that is how we are (or should be, there is still too much hero worship in our field) trained.
Read 28 tweets
12 May
Really important @nytimes article on how easy access to vaccines remains a key issue not just hesitancy…. I’d add two points less explicit in article
1. People say that seeing others get vax without incident reduces their hesitancy. If so then each vaccine administered to those where access is the main problem can have a multiplier effect in overcoming hesitancy in others.
2. If we think of getting vaccinated like any other choice then hesitancy and ease of obtaining are two sides of same coin. If hard to get, a little hesitancy will stop. If easy to get, only the very hesitant won’t.
Read 4 tweets
30 Apr
Great that attention is remaining focused on #AMR a big problem.… . But the relentless claims that this is primarily or largely a problem of agriculture are not evidence-based.
Some years ago @BillHanage and I and @G_RegevY and our students pointed out the absence of strong evidence (while acknowledging challenges of generating it)…
Recent excellent genomic work from Prof Sharon Peacock's group, @MarcBonten's group among others has failed to find evidence of strong links between resistance in animals and resistance in clinical isolates. @BillHanage wrote about this…
Read 4 tweets
19 Apr
Is there some bizarre legal notion of causality at play here that the force used would have had to be such that it would have killed anyone, not just the actual person it did kill?
I'm willing to believe that the law traditionally has such a notion (or not -- hope some lawyers will help me understand) but if so it seems truly indefensible. We all have the preexisting condition of being mortal. We each have a different breakpoint for how much...
of a certain kind of abuse we can survive. It seems incoherent to have a standard that it's not murder if a different person would not have died under the same horrific abuse -- and I'm not saying that is true, only that this seems to be the defense's standard.
Read 4 tweets
22 Mar
.@alisonannyoung has been one among the most active, persistent, and fair-minded reporters covering lab accidents in the US @USATODAY. This long piece makes the serious case for investigating poss lab origin for #SARSCoV2.….
This is not about conspiracy theories or China-bashing. This is about the basic principle, at least as old as Rev. Bayes and Sherlock Holmes, that when something unusual happens, you have to consider explanations that are also individually unlikely.
To be explicit, the @WHO mission's conclusion that a lab accident was unlikely was unjustified (as @alisonannyoung notes they are frequent) but even if true, global pandemics are also uncommon, so by definition the sequence of events leading to one do not happen all the time.
Read 11 tweets
15 Mar
CONGRATULATIONS DR. @AccorsiEmma defending her PhD with flying colors today. Thanks especially to @chuttenh who supervised much of the work linking microbiome and #epidemiology #EpiTwitter and to committee members @SHaneuse and @BillHanage @HarvardEpi @CCDD_HSPH @HarvardChanSPH
Two of her thesis papers have been published.…
Read 4 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!