Why is a journal with an impact factor of 3.74 publishing such clearly erroneous, innuendo-filled, unsubstantiated garbage? @ACSPublications tagline: "Most trusted. Most cited. Most read." Clearly false statements that are damaging to public health... pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…
This is not science, it's conspiratorial pseudo-science: "An indicator that the NIH-funded research had gone too far arose when the tinkered CoV-RaTG13 became endowed at the spike protein"
Completely false, clearly political statement here: "NIH funded $3.7 million grant was approved by Trump’s COVID-19 advisor Anthony Fauci in 2015. The gain-of-function research was outsourced to the WIV.."
I'll leave it to others who know more than I do about virology to comment on the actual 'science' in here, but for a peer-reviewed journal to publish articles that make such important claims, but don't cite a single primary reference, is shameful.
I'm calling on the Editor of @ACSMedChemLett, Dr. Dennis C. Liotta of @EmoryUniversity to investigate how this could have made it through peer-review & insist that the paper is retracted.
Surely this doesn't fit a journal with the stated goals of publishing "experimental or theoretical results of exceptional timeliness in all aspects of pure and applied medicinal chemistry and its extension into pharmacology."
Here's the author's citation on @RetractionWatch "Ariel Fernandez‘s list of papers w/ editorial asterisks next to them grew again this week: 1 paper retracted, 2 subject to Expressions of Concern (incl.1 from Nature), another on hold over data concerns." retractionwatch.com/category/ariel…
Here's the author's section on Wikipedia re. this: "4 of his articles have been questioned by journals that had earlier accepted them. Publications in BMC Genomics, Nature, and PLOS Genetics[20][21] have been flagged with expressions of concern.."& more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Fer…
2006 paper in @PNASNews retracted because it was an apparent "duplicate publication".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@mvankerkhove "Let the scientists be scientists.” against moves for political not public health gain "..forcing China to keep blocking an investigation has a point said @JamieMetzl. It makes “completely clear..that China intends to continue its..cover up” washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/…
Alternatives to @WHO study are inadequate: @LawrenceGostin "said..[US] domestic efforts would likely be hindered..'Members of Congress have zero access to the kind of data & specimens that it would need on the ground in China'. as far as he could see, it was 'political theater.'"
Here's what happens if you call out politicization of origins study. Shoddy piece about how I "sympathised with the Chinese government". Actually, I reported what WIV director said to WHO mission. telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/3…. Actual quote at 58:20 @profvrrmicrobe.tv/twiv/twiv-760/
Looking forward to taking part in Congressional briefing today on Science Diplomacy at @UDBidenSchool hosted by the awesome @saleem_ali Q: What is the role of science on the public stage in a post-pandemic world? hillhappenings.com/list/2021/5/14…
...how will geopolitical factors influence research and policy on science re. the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, the research enterprise, and supply chains and national security? Key goal – building scientific trust and collaboration in an increasingly fragmented world
Prof Shi Zhengli re. call for more focus on lab-leak hypothesis: ".. will definitely damage the reputation & enthusiasm of scientists [working] on animal viruses which have potential spillover risk ..& weaken our ability ..to prevent the next pandemic.” technologyreview.com/2021/05/13/102…
Robert Garry @utmbhealth "“distracts from important work needed to identify the source of SARS-CoV-2..& completely misrepresents the outcomes of @WHO report [that] adds to the large volume of epidemiological and genomic data supporting zoonotic emergence" wsj.com/articles/scien…
.@K_G_Andersen "Letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape & natural origin scenarios. To this day no credible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded in speculation.” nytimes.com/2021/05/13/sci…
"The NIH has not ever, & does not now, fund 'gain of function research' in the Wuhan Institute." Dr. Fauci of @NIAIDNews testifying today. thehill.com/policy/healthc…
Re. funding @EcoHealthNYC to study bat-CoVs: "Let me explain to you why that was done, the SARS COV-1 originated in bats in China. It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses & the serology to see who might have been infected," Fauci said.
So much energy spent on the lab-leak hypothesis, following illogical lines of argument, poorly understood science, to support pre-conceived ideas. Here's a story on the pathway that the @WHO origins mission found "likely to very likely" for COVID origins: telegraph.co.uk/global-health/…
So, in just 1 day of Twitter responses, an @NIH statement that they did NOT fund GoF studies at WIV & the Furin cleavage site is NOT a 'smoking gun'. I guess Wade got paid & the conspiracists got their chance to point fingers. Meanwhile, somewhere in a wildlife farm in SE Asia...
Exciting to see this! This antibody treatment was tested against the bat-CoVs discovered by @EcoHealthNYC & our collaborators at WIV, China. It showed that it is broad-acting, able to neutralize COVID variants and other potential future pandemic viruses. clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/adagio-tr…
A big congratulations to @AdagioTx for their strategic vision with ADG20. We're going to need these broad-acting therapeutics to fight upcoming variants, and future pandemics.