In my view, this is a problematic and polarizing coverage of the #OriginsofCOVID x the role of scientists in this situation x the impact of US politics.
Ironic for an article titled "Don't Politicize the Lab-Leak Theory" @TheAtlantic
It joins a list of apologist articles for why journalists didn't take the lab leak hypothesis seriously in early 2020 even though some top scientists and experts were already clearly explaining publicly and to journalists that a lab escape was plausible.
Short answer: Trump.
"When Chinese scientists cracked the virus’s genetic code early in January 2020, they promptly posted full results for all to read. That did not seem to most Western scientists to be the behavior of conspirators."
"Pro-Trumpers want to use Chinese misconduct—real and imagined—as a weapon in a culture war here at home. They are not interested in weighing the evidence... What the rest of us should want is the truth."
Someone pointed out that the title of the article wasn't what I said in the original tweet. But when I googled it, the title was "Don't Politicize the Lab-Leak Theory" - maybe some online formatting issue?
Please decide what title you're going to use for your article!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m putting together a primer pack of must-read layperson articles for anyone who’s just getting into the topic of whether SARS-CoV-2 could have come from a lab in Wuhan.
"As a citizen of the U.S. whose voting power is supposed to be used to ensure its government acts properly, I found all of a sudden that the question of the virus’s origin had to matter to me."
"if the virus “did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide... the more I thought about it, the more disturbed I was."
"One of the claims that I think Wade’s article proves beyond a reasonable doubt is that our understanding of COVID’s origins has been compromised by the involvement of a man named Peter Daszak." 🤣
Today, a thread debunking (unintentional) misinformation on the origins of covid-19 / SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Starting with the top 10 easily fact-checked ideas or statements that are not true, although a shocking number of scientists still think these are true.
(1) (FALSE) Before COVID, SARS research was done in a BSL4 lab at the WIV.
Actually, SARS research, even the (humanized) animal infection experiments were conducted at BSL2/3.
(2) (FALSE) There is no precedent of SARS viruses escaping from a laboratory.
Actually, SARS virus escaped from labs at least 4 times in 3 countries within a year. One of the labs was a BSL4 lab. Investigators said that SARS virus could have escaped 4 times from a Beijing lab.
As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with @WHO@DrTedros, US & 13 other countries, & EU that greater clarity about the #OriginsofCOVID is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about natural & laboratory spillovers seriously. science.sciencemag.org/content/372/65…
I'll be providing links to top threads and coverage of our letter in this thread. Thank you @jbloom_lab and @DavidRelman and the other 15 signatories!
Linfa Wang, long time collaborator of Shi and Daszak, was thanked in the thesis for his guidance on this Master's project: "再次,要感谢澳大利亚动物健康研究室的王林发老师对我硕士期间所做课题的指导。"
Watching my twitter feed implode because of Rand Paul vs Fauci, talking past each other with different definitions of gain-of-function research. forbes.com/sites/jackbrew…
The EcoHealth/WIV work did not fall under the 2014 moratorium definition of GOF research. Maybe it falls under some scientists' definition of GOF, but not the moratorium's.
Not just because there was a loophole in a footnote, but that the GOF definition literally excluded SARS or MERS viruses found in nature. That's what WIV was working with - viruses found in nature. As a result it wasn't counted as GOF in the moratorium.