1/F
SARS-CoV-2 lab conspiracy theorists are again misrepresenting scientific fields they have not bothered to try to understand.
This time they're applying their paranoid distortions to immunology. So that deserves a thread.
SARS-CoV-2 lab conspiracy theorists are again misrepresenting scientific fields they have not bothered to try to understand.
This time they're applying their paranoid distortions to immunology. So that deserves a thread.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/891040491214688257
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1397909774356803589
2/F
When SARS-CoV-2 infects a person, the person's immune system increases production of proteins known as antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2.
So if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the WIV by infecting staff, then that would show up in antibody tests.
Yet...
who.int/docs/default-s…
When SARS-CoV-2 infects a person, the person's immune system increases production of proteins known as antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2.
So if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the WIV by infecting staff, then that would show up in antibody tests.
Yet...
who.int/docs/default-s…
3/F
Conspiracists don't like that result, so they abuse an antibody study I discussed awhile back.
That study estimates ~4% of Wuhan had increased antibody levels; i.e. ~4% seroprevalence, so ~4% of people previously infected.
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
Conspiracists don't like that result, so they abuse an antibody study I discussed awhile back.
That study estimates ~4% of Wuhan had increased antibody levels; i.e. ~4% seroprevalence, so ~4% of people previously infected.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1358220907374854153
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
4/F
Conspiracists use that ~4% to estimate the probability that none of the WIV staff would have increased antibody levels.
They say the probability is low, so the WIV results are untrustworthy.
Conspiracists use that ~4% to estimate the probability that none of the WIV staff would have increased antibody levels.
They say the probability is low, so the WIV results are untrustworthy.
https://twitter.com/InWuchang/status/1398554648622120971
https://twitter.com/RolandBakerIII/status/1404472743786024963
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1409101662497693699
5/F
The conspiracist's analysis is incompetent. But that's typical of lab conspiracists, especially those linked to DRASTIC.
For example, the WIV testing is for March 2020. Yet the Wuhan-wide ~4% is mid-April 2020, when there would be more infected.
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
The conspiracist's analysis is incompetent. But that's typical of lab conspiracists, especially those linked to DRASTIC.
For example, the WIV testing is for March 2020. Yet the Wuhan-wide ~4% is mid-April 2020, when there would be more infected.
thelancet.com/journals/lanwp…
6/F
SARS-CoV-2 infections often happen in clusters, such as infections among those living together or at indoor events.
So infection risk is not equal for everyone, especially if you're not linked to a cluster.
SARS-CoV-2 infections often happen in clusters, such as infections among those living together or at indoor events.
So infection risk is not equal for everyone, especially if you're not linked to a cluster.
https://twitter.com/HansonM90/status/1398557427390464002
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1406090297063493634
7/F
The Wuhan-wide study shows infection risk varies with various factors.
Laboratory workers would presumably spend more of their work day in conditions that lower infection risk, unlike, for instance, store employees exposed to infected people
thebulletin.org/2020/05/let-ev…
The Wuhan-wide study shows infection risk varies with various factors.
Laboratory workers would presumably spend more of their work day in conditions that lower infection risk, unlike, for instance, store employees exposed to infected people
thebulletin.org/2020/05/let-ev…
8/F
Infection rates vary by location, even in populations that don't have more procedures + equipment preventing them from being infected (ex: outpatients).
Makes it more unsurprising that infection rate could be lower among lab workers tied to 1 site
jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
Infection rates vary by location, even in populations that don't have more procedures + equipment preventing them from being infected (ex: outpatients).
Makes it more unsurprising that infection rate could be lower among lab workers tied to 1 site
jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
9/F
Also note that the conspiracists assume its ~600 people who tested negative for antibody increases. Unclear where they're getting this from.
who.int/docs/default-s…
Also note that the conspiracists assume its ~600 people who tested negative for antibody increases. Unclear where they're getting this from.
who.int/docs/default-s…
https://twitter.com/RolandBakerIII/status/1404471861631586310
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1397909774356803589
10/F
So we have a bunch of paranoid non-experts running a shoddy calculation that doesn't take into account things like time-frame, infection clustering, infection-preventing behavior, location, etc.
And they criticize the WHO team with this. 🙄
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
So we have a bunch of paranoid non-experts running a shoddy calculation that doesn't take into account things like time-frame, infection clustering, infection-preventing behavior, location, etc.
And they criticize the WHO team with this. 🙄
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
11/F
Looks like a major source of a lot of this misinformation was Steven Quay.
Again. 🤦♂️
Why is any sensible person still taking him seriously on the topic of COVID-19?
Looks like a major source of a lot of this misinformation was Steven Quay.
Again. 🤦♂️
Why is any sensible person still taking him seriously on the topic of COVID-19?
https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1397870330199248902
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1402334996921262086
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
