A very strong point made by @SharriMarkson in this exclusive about the slow release of info pertinent to tracing #OriginsOfCovid

Early 2020, I remember the internet flooded with pics of Chinese people eating bats. It's now 1.5 years later, and we're finally seeing bats in labs.
If, in Jan 2020, we had known all of these key points, I suspect it would've been clear that a lab leak was plausible:

1. WIV worked with at least 9 closest relatives to SARS2 known at the time, collected from Yunnan mine where people suffered viral severe respiratory disease.
2. WIV did their SARSrCoV live virus work at BSL2, and the animal infection experiments at BSL3.

3. WIV kept bats in the lab and did virus infection experiments with them.
It also would've been good to know:

4. None of hundreds of animal samples from the seafood market tested positive for the virus.

5. No bats (or pangolins) were sold at the seafood market.
Getting questions about evidence for bats inside WIV. WIV filed a bat cage patent in 2018. The design of the cage matches the one shown in the 2017 video taken inside of a lab.

Some are asking how do we know that lab is inside WIV. We don't know for sure.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Alina Chan

Alina Chan 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!

PDF

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 @Ayjchan

15 Jun
Must watch. ⁦@jonstewart⁩ and ⁦@StephenAtHome⁩ discuss the lab leak hypothesis on ⁦@colbertlateshow

Also, to correct Stephen, Wuhan is not a place where SARS2-like viruses are known to circulate in bats or spillover into people.
The Wuhan institute of virology existed prior to 2003 SARS. A lab there pivoted to SARS research after the 2003 epidemic, and spent close to 2 decades ferrying 10,000s of potential SARS samples (animal and human) from more than 1000 miles away up into the Wuhan lab.
During the course of these virus hunting expeditions, the lab even used the Wuhan human population as a negative (no SARS virus) control.
Read 7 tweets
14 Jun
I want to impress that there is a lot to lose for scientists (esp virologists) to say they think Covid-19 could’ve emerged in connection to research activities.

All at once you’re dealing with your colleagues, institute, reviewers of papers & grants, & the Chinese government.
You’re literally acting against your self interest in every way possible except the interest of not having a future pandemic caused by a research-related accident.
I’ve spoken very highly of sleuths and data analysts who’ve worked on tracing the #OriginsOfCovid

But I also need to emphasize that the consequences for scientists are much worse. You could become a pariah overnight, accused of fanning the flames of conspiracy and AAPI hate.
Read 7 tweets
14 Jun
I don't think this is good reporting. Sorry @nytimes you had one good article earlier today though.
nytimes.com/2021/06/14/sci…
Because so many experts are deleting their tweets now, people have had no choice but to look at archived pages to see what they said just over a year ago:

3pm Jan 30, 2020.
@SenTomCotton posts this still existing tweet:
Read 27 tweets
14 Jun
Calisher, CSU virologist & lone signatory to completely change his position, told ⁦⁦@ABC⁩ he now believes "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory & "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."
H/t ⁦@TheSeeker268abcnews.go.com/US/nature-base…
For more context, Calisher was the unfortunate first author of @TheLancet letter which ordered its signatories alphabetically.

Peter Daszak with ties to the WIV was the drafter of the letter who even considered taking his name off said letter.

usrtk.org/biohazards-blo…
Actually another virologist signatory of @TheLancet letter also had a striking change of mind @ABC please update your story! Thanks!
H/t @lab_leak
Read 5 tweets
12 Jun
Starting my 🧵 discussion of gain-of-function research based on yesterday's twitter survey.

This might be incredibly long so I will be using gifs and graphics to help keep people awake on a Saturday morning.

First things first. I made the survey yesterday morning to get a sense of the public perception of "gain of function" (GOF) research.

This phrase has exploded in the media, even making its way into a congressional hearing.

c-span.org/video/?c496233…
It is clear that the public needs to know what GOF research means.

What does it mean when people say that the US might have funded GOF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
Read 45 tweets
11 Jun
I’m starting a 24h poll to check the public understanding of gain-of-function research.

What will follow is a series of experiment scenarios. Participants are invited to pick: Yes, No, I don’t know.

Please don’t Google to find answers. Answer based on your understanding.
First one should be easy.

Is this gain-of-function?

Serially (consecutively, repeatedly) passaging a virus through cells or animals (infecting these with the virus) to intentionally derive a more infectious or lethal virus.
Second one:

Is this gain-of-function?

Serially passaging a novel virus from nature in cells to find a version that can be grown and studied in the laboratory.
Read 22 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!

:(