On the earliest covid cases, WHO is correcting virus sequence IDs & clarifying the 1st cluster was not linked to Huanan Seafood Market, but did not explain why the 1st patient who lived in Wuchang (near WIV) was mapped elsewhere in the WHO-China report. washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…
This report suggests to me that the @washingtonpost has a better handle on highly important details of the early covid cases in Wuhan than the @WHO
Can we please have a different organization convene and lead an international investigation into the #OriginsOfCovid ?
We can't have any more unintended editing errors muddling the sequences, locations, and exposure factors of the earliest Covid-19 cases.
This is not conducive to understanding when the virus first emerged and what potential sources might have been.
"“Even as few as 13 new sequences, which if you think about it, is a tiny amount, can fairly substantially modify the understanding of the pandemic origin,” Pond said." washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…
I've been saying since April that the China-WHO report needs some form of peer review. There could be more editing errors that need to be identified and corrected.
It's very problematic because "data" from the China-WHO report is being cited & incorporated into new analyses. For example, a recent critical review extracted dots from the China-WHO report maps of early cases, using Adobe Illustrator, to make a figure in their own manuscript.
If these maps have editing errors, it would compromise analyses and manuscripts built on these unintended mistakes.
I attempted to reproduce the figure by using Adobe Illustrator and noticed that the resolution of the mapped "data" in the China-WHO report annexes looks like this:
*note that the first covid case is mapped on the wrong side of the river*
Tracking the #OriginsOfCovid should not rely on the powers of the pathfinder tool in Adobe Illustrator applied to highly pixelated diagrams.
I know that these maps are plotted by home address, but you can jitter the coordinates slightly and share that plot data publicly without compromising anyone's location or identity.
Taking this opportunity to give a shoutout to the reporters at the @washingtonpost and @WSJ who have been persistently covering and investigating, digging up new important information about the #OriginsOfCovid for the past year.
"In a rare departure from his usual deference to powerful member countries, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said getting access to raw data had been a challenge..." washingtonpost.com/health/who-chi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The wording of this letter by ASM & Partners could have been much more precise rather than scientists rejecting "attempts to impose restrictions on federally funded research... based on premature conclusions about how the pandemic emerged." asm.org/Articles/Polic…
The title "Don't Restrict Valid Pathogen Research" was not in the letter shared with me, but I agree valid research should not be impacted.
The problem is how do the people in charge decide what is valid pathogen research vs what is pathogen research with more risk than benefit?
I don't know who is signing this letter (it's just a string of associations and societies) and maybe that is for the best.
It will be up to scientists who are members of these associations to ask them why this letter was submitted on their behalf.
For the people who have been following the search for the #OriginsOfCovid the House Science Committee hearing is now discussing questions on the matter (opening remarks by each expert just concluded).
Live video available here!
1st question is about setting ground rules or treaties for the country of origin/first detection to share data in the event of outbreaks.
There are currently only ad hoc international collaborations. One of the best is @ProMED_mail that notifies global members of outbreaks.
@ProMED_mail 2nd question is about @TheLancet@NatureMedicine letters dismissing lab origin hypotheses as conspiracy theories or saying no lab-based scenario is plausible. Were these statements of scientific fact, consensus, or opinion?
According to the China-WHO joint study: "Compared with the entire population in Wuhan by age and gender (Fig. 6), the “40-”, “50-” and “60-” age groups accounted for a higher proportion among the 174 [earliest Dec 2019] cases (70.7% vs 42.3%)." who.int/publications/i…
Having difficulty following this timeline:
December 30, 2019.
Shi is called by WIV director to investigate novel SARSrCoV causing atypical pneumonia in Wuhan.
Hops on train back to Wuhan.
Goes through her lab’s records. “I had not slept a wink for days.” scientificamerican.com/article/how-ch…
Within first days of Jan 2020, the WIV had obtained the full genome of SARS2. They were investigating the ICU cases, worried about SARS2 evolving to become more transmissible among humans. They knew little about the virus, source or specific treatment. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Some scientists are worried that the lab leak hypothesis, even if unproven, could lead to new regulation of research (& research orgs).
I heard that there is a petition letter being circulated asking scientists to add their names to reject these possible new changes in advance.
Needless to say, I think this is a terrible mistake and a trap that scientists are setting for themselves again.
It implies that the signatories are not taking lab origins seriously and their names will be on the line if and when a lab leak causes a future outbreak.
Why not write a letter calling for a public forum where both scientist & non-scientist stakeholders can reason with each other in a transparent way about what needs to be done to make research safer.
This cannot be an issue that is decided by just scientists in relevant fields.
This is happening next Wednesday: @DavidRelman will be speaking to the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Science Committee on "Principles for Outbreak Investigation: COVID-19 and Future Infectious Diseases". science.house.gov/hearings/princ…
I wish more experts were invited to give a balanced and clear-minded assessment of the existing evidence surrounding the #OriginsOfCovid
I think @DavidRelman is one of the best scientists to speak on this topic - finding the source of a pandemic that could’ve arisen naturally or involved research activity. pnas.org/content/117/47…