To the people on twitter mad that @antonioregalado wrote a profile of me: I'm not asking anyone to do profiles of me. People around me consistently advise me not to agree to interviews and especially profiles because you have no idea what journalists are going to quote/write.
Journalists don't show you the piece before it is published. You can't tell them what to write or how to frame your quotes. I've gotten in trouble again & again.
Even up to the day before the profile was published, I was still worried that I would be portrayed as a conspiracist.
Thankfully that didn't happen. @antonioregalado was objective. He didn't let me get away with anything in the interrogation & got lots of quotes from scientists who disagree with me (scientifically &/or personally). The profile made me think about my missteps & how to do better.
@antonioregalado If I can be frank, many of the criticisms of the profile I've seen mainly come down to "Why do journalists want to profile Alina instead of XX?"
I'm not in control of that. I don't decide for the journalist who they want to write a profile of and what the profile looks like.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Timely article by @Schwartzesque on risky pathogen research.
I think the point that almost everyone can agree on is that the current framework+process for assessing potential pandemic pathogen work has to be completely revamped. businessinsider.com/covid-pandemic…
Now that more scientists are becoming able to process that Covid-19 might've (regardless of how likely) emerged due to research activities, it's time to transparently create a new set of functional review processes with non-scientist and international stakeholders.
US intelligence should really release what they know and put to bed all the confusion once and for all.
Were there WIV staffers sick with Covid symptoms in Nov 2019? Did one of their wives die? Or is this intelligence not solid? bloomberg.com/news/features/…
Dr Anderson was a visiting foreign scientist at WIV up to Nov 2019.
This might be the most extensive article written in support of natural origins of Covid-19 that I've seen. I think this was an incredibly well-written piece @factcheckdotorg@jjmcdona with well-rounded quotes from respected experts in the field. factcheck.org/2021/06/sciche…
@factcheckdotorg@jjmcdona If I can summarize the top 3 points for natural origins, it would be these, according to the article and interviews with experts:
(1) There is no direct evidence of a lab accident or SARS2 having existed in a lab. Instead, we have observed SARS2-like viruses in nature.
(2) An early cluster of Covid-19 in Wuhan was based at a live animal market. The vendors might’ve hidden their illegal animals when they heard there was an outbreak. China has not tested enough animals to find the animal source of the outbreak.
"I asked Chan how she would feel if the virus did prove to have emerged naturally..."
How would people (especially scientists) feel if the virus proves to have come from a lab?
@antonioregalado@techreview@rowanjacobsen@BostonMagazine I said “I have days where I think this could be natural. And if it’s natural, then I’ve done a terrible thing because I’ve put a lot of scientists in a very dangerous spot by saying that they could be the source of an accident that resulted in millions of people dying.”
This @nytimes piece by @zeynep should break whatever is left of the dam on the lab origin hypothesis.
Thank you for correcting many of the public misunderstandings surrounding this issue. nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opi…
Last month, top scientists came together to publish a letter in a top scientific journal calling for a credible investigation into both natural and lab origin hypotheses.
Shortly after, @POTUS asked the Intelligence Community to redouble their efforts in collecting and analyzing information that could bring us closer to a conclusion, distinguishing between natural vs lab origins. Their report is due in August.