In 2016, at 1:15:50 of video linked, Peter Daszak describes research done by Chinese colleagues to increase the pathogenicity of SAR-like viruses ("you insert the spike protein") from bats to produce viruses that "really do look like killers" c-span.org/video/?404875-…
We can now conclude with certainty
a) There exists a reservoir of pathogenic SARS-like viruses among bats in caves in Yunnan
b) There exists a reservoir of pathogenic SARS-like viruses among labs in Wuhan
Both reservoirs could be proximal origins of Covid-19
That's just logic
#DRASTIC documents the taking down of the WIV database associated w/ work discussed by Daszak above
The database was taken down 12 Sept 2019 & never put back online
Its characterization was changed 30 Dec 2019 when China announced 1st case
The taking down of the database is suspicious indeed & prima facie evidence of covering something up
But what?
It could be associated with hiding human error in both a lab leak scenario (obviously) & a natural origins scenario (eg, to protect mink industry & hide mismanagement)
I wonder if Biden IC assessment now underway has access to the database & if not, that alone is a major scandal as research (at least in part) funded by USG resulted in knowledge of viruses unavailable to either USG or US researchers #DRASTIC thinks there's some relevant info⬇️
What do I wish leading media would discuss & investigate?
For instance
More coverage & investigations of missing database
More on inconsistencies in statements by key actors
More on using science as a "game of chess" (eg, pangolin head fake)
Less advocacy for favorite theories
Regulation of potential pandemic pathogens shouldn't be a partisan issue
Using the issue to cheerlead for or denigrate your most/least favorite politician is a unique form of ridiculousness
Don't do it on my timeline else mute
This is a crucially important policy issue for all
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵
Last month my op-ed in @FT on outdated climate scenarios of the NGFS used by central banks around the world to assess future climate risk & climate policy risk
I argued that the NGFS baseline scenario projected an implausible future for CO2 emissions ft.com/content/a82a7b…
Today the NGFS has published newly updated climate scenarios ... and guess what? I was correct and to their credit, they are moving their baseline scenarios in the right direction
👀I was blocked by an academic at the center of the Covid lab leak questions for asking the question below
People are free to block whomever they want, but publicly-funded researchers send an interesting message when blocking peers for asking reasonable questions
Apparently Andersen was also caught out today selectively deleting old Tweets (in addition to blocking me)
This is not the behavior of someone interested in transparency, I wonder what is up
I've never met Andersen and my interactions with him consist of two friendly Tweets
This is an exceptionally well done documentary on COVID-19 origins, with English subtitles
Sars-Cov2 anatomia di un complotto - PresaDiretta 29/03/2021 via @YouTube
This is the most remarkable new information I learned from it
Chinese government views the publication of scientific research on COVID-19 like “moves in a game of chess”
This just further supports the need to carefully analyze the research record — that in public and that behind the scenes — to better under stand these “moves in a game of chess”
Science has been enlisted in a propaganda “game” in plain sight
Mike Hulme's blistering critique of Michael Mann's Machichean world view and longstanding & successful effort to demonize his invented "enemies" is spot on: "Wars, battles, attacks, fights, and enemies litter its 260 pages" issues.org/new-climate-wa…
🧵
The policy questions related to trans athlete inclusion in mainstream sport are actually straightforward
Here is the question: Should trans athletes be allowed to participate in mainstream sport under the gender category that they are recognized in broader society?
There are just three answers to this question:
➡️No
➡️Yes, but regulated
➡️Yes
I am in the "yes, but regulated" category
I am aware of very few who argue "yes"
I hear a lot from the "no" folks
Let's take each in turn
"Yes"
This position is functionally equivalent to abandoning male/female categories in sport & calling for open competition
It is a great point of discussion for the classroom, but it for a range of reasons - practical, ethical, legal, societal - it is not desirable in practice