Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
Aug 6, 2021 8 tweets 4 min read Read on X
The irony is that this repeats word for word the Guangdong regulations of 2010.
It's just like a broken record.
See the article about the 2010 regulations from Guangdong:

"Some used laboratory animals are on the table, and no one knows what kind of experiments they have been used for."

translate.google.com/translate?sl=z…
For the Guangdong regulations (June 2010), see:
translate.google.com/translate?sl=z…
@ParkSuAm1996 @R_H_Ebright
There have been local regulations (for instance Zhejiang province in 2009, Guangdong province in 2010) and national regulations since then, especially the Biosafety Law of the People's Republic of China adopted on October 17, 2020.

More regulations just betray the problems.
For the Oct 20 Biosafety Law: lascn.net/Item/88747.aspx

That law came in force on the 15th April this year, and they are already updating it... !!

• • •

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

Keep Current with Gilles Demaneuf

Gilles Demaneuf 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 @gdemaneuf

May 8
Daszak did 4 months of detention in 1986 for stealing a TV set, a hi-fi, a statue and some other items, so that he could indulge in his alcohol fuelled ‘fun’ at other people’s expense.

This fraud later managed to get hold of 100s millions of US taxpayers money.
Someone saw through him very early:

“Judge Lloyd-Jones told Daszak that he had been given more chances than most and had abused other people trust.”
Daszak was such a precocious character:

“He is being maintained by the State at a cost of GBP 1,500 per year, and this is the way he repays the state”.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 4
Another retraction for Robert Garry.

I may be losing track, but it is at least his third retraction.
There is also on expression of concern for one of his papers.
@thackerpd @KatherineEban @emilyakopp
At this stage that should raise alarm bells all around.

Next one should be Proximal Origin.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 13
Here is an important reminder to the Kindergarten epidemiologists who aim to compare themselves to John Snow.

Epidemiology 101:
John Snow never considered his map as proving anything. He relied on fortuitous control groups and cases reviews to establish causality
@mvankerkhoveImage
See for instance this image and extract from a recent paper:

Confirmation of the centrality of the Huanan market among early COVID-19 cases
Reply to Stoyan and Chiu (2024)
arxiv.org/pdf/2403.05859…

Image
Image
John Snow was not a colourist of maps, sorry.

I know that popular culture has transformed the Broad Street map into a meme, but that is totally wrong and can only hurt the discipline.
@RichardKock6 @JamieMetzl Image
Read 16 tweets
Mar 12
1/10 Good Judgment superforecast on COVID-19 Origins:
#DRASTIC Image
2/10 Final probabilities of a research-related accident: Image
3/10 Final probabilities of zoonosis: Image
Read 10 tweets
Feb 16
1/5 It is difficult to be more mistaken than Robert Garry below, when discussing a supposed essential finding of Worobey et al:

@TheJohnSudworth @MichaelWorobey @hfeldwisch Image
2/5 As a matter of fact, that pattern is exactly the one expected if proximity to the market was used as a criteria when identifying cases (as is amply recorded).

Going further, there is no easy way to explain that pattern otherwise.

Here is the mathematically correct version:Image
3/5 This was first pointed out by @mbw61567742.

Here is my explanation in simple words:
Read 5 tweets
Feb 3
1/26 My comments about this just published poling of experts, examining their opinions on the plausible origins of Covid-19.

There is a lot to unpack. Much more than I have seen so far in reductive tweets.

So here it is.

@RogerPielkeJr @BallouxFrancois
2/26 First, a key limitation:

Polling must have been done before Oct 2023, so before:
- Key Science erratum for Pekar et al (invalidated their model)
- Peer reviewed paper showing key statistical flaw in Worobey et al
- DEFUSE draft showing planned work at P2 in China and more Image
3/26 Then we need cumulative numbers to express the results in a natural way:

- For 19% of experts, a research accident is at least 50% likely
- For 44.6% of experts, a research accident is at least 20% likely
- For 61.3% of experts, a research accident is at least 10% likely Image
Read 26 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(