Tweet

https://twitter.com/theseeker268/status/1439602291632328704

https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1431400779508862978

https://twitter.com/facethenation/status/1439628627897946123

More from @Ayjchan

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

20 Sep

Possible ways for a virus with an ancestral origin in bats to have made its way to Wuhan.

It's good that scientists are finding more bat viruses related to SARS2 in South China/SE Asia, but it still doesn't identify the route by which SARS2 arrived in Wuhan.

https://twitter.com/drsanjaygupta/status/1439750478544478208

Yes, it took about a decade to track the closest bat virus relatives to SARS1.

But only 2 months from isolating the virus to find the proximal animal source in Guangzhou in 2003, and only days in 2004.

https://twitter.com/drsanjaygupta/status/1439750478544478208

Read more here:

Despite less advanced technologies, Chinese investigators rapidly tracked down early cases, likely animal sources, and a well-substantiated path for SARS1 to have been introduced into human beings via the trade of infected animals.
ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…

Read 6 tweets

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

20 Sep

@cnn

Wish the @cnn @drsanjaygupta special was longer. Must have so much more valuable footage from each of the interviewees. Q&A with @PeterDaszak and Dr Ralph Baric was 👌 Thank you for having me on the show ☄️producer and team!

Take home messages were:

1. No definitive evidence for natural or lab origin - jury still out

2. No actual investigation of lab origin yet

3. Extensive SARS-related virus work done at low biosafety levels

4. Large pathogen database MIA

5. But natural origins still possible

Ancestral bat origin most likely according to most experts and WHO.

Problem is we don’t know how a bat virus evolved and transformed into the SARS2 virus that was detected in Wuhan in December 2019.

Were research activities involved?

Read 5 tweets

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

19 Sep

@peterdaszak

I think something’s very wrong if evidence of this nature exists and yet is not being shared with the public in a timely manner.

“Expect more bat-CoVs closer to SARS-CoV-2 & some likely w/ FCS or related in nature.” - @peterdaszak

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1439256801292259329?s=20

@peterdaszak

“Op Eds & books planned & many more FoIAs on their way. But if we looks at the scientific data…” - @peterdaszak

Actually the scientific data in @theintercept FOIA has been very illuminating as to the GOF work being performed by EcoHealth and WIV.

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1439256810108620806?s=20

@peterdaszak

“There have been dozens of FoIA’d docs, emails, reports, proposals (even ones that didn’t get funded!).” - @peterdaszak

The FOIA’ed emails show us how @TheLancet letter condemning non-natural origin hypotheses was orchestrated by Daszak.

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1439256807160090627?s=20

Read 15 tweets

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

18 Sep

https://twitter.com/thelancet/status/1438994634945056771

I didn’t realize it was comedy night.

https://twitter.com/thelancet/status/1438994634945056771

“After inspection of the WIV biosafety laboratory, the WHO–China joint expert group also concluded that the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through a laboratory incident was “extremely unlikely””

“as mentioned in the phase 1 joint report of the WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2, internal audit is a better alternative for all high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide to further exclude the “laboratory incident” hypothesis.”

Read 8 tweets

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

10 Sep

@theintercept

Thorough analysis by ⁦@theintercept⁩ ⁦@fastlerner⁩ ⁦@MaraHvistendahl⁩ ⁦@maiahibbett⁩

“The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans.” theintercept.com/2021/09/09/cov…

“All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research.”

Although the study describing 4991/RaTG13 for the first time and Latinne et al.’s paper were described as having been funded by the EHA grant, I didn’t see even a glimpse of the 9 Mojiang mine SARSrCoVs throughout the 900+ pages of text, phylogenetic trees and other figures.

Read 4 tweets

Alina Chan

@Ayjchan

7 Sep

@fastlerner

"More than 900 pages of materials related to US.-funded coronavirus research in China were released following a FOIA lawsuit by The Intercept."

Piping hot piece by @fastlerner and @MaraHvistendahl @theintercept
theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new…

@fastlerner

@fastlerner @MaraHvistendahl @theintercept “they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten—and they kept records of everyone who got bitten. Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?”