Virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 spilled over at multiple markets are, imo, unintentionally, participating in a disinformation campaign.
It has been repeatedly clarified that the market the earliest "known" covid case visited was a Walmart-equivalent RT-mart. Not a wet market.
Please see page 38 of the China-WHO annexes.
This superstore market that the first case was brutally exposed to was *GASP* in the same district as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. who.int/docs/default-s…
Yet, journalists are still reporting misinformed experts as saying that they're stunned that a lab escape virus would make its way to a market/superstore.
Do some scientists no longer buy their own groceries? How do you expect Wuhan scientists to get food to cook and eat?
If experts continue to be stunned by why so many early cases were linked to markets, please take a good look at the criteria used to identify early cases in December 2019/early January 2020.
Page 161 China-WHO joint study annexes.
At the time, a superspreading event had occurred at Huanan Seafood Market. Unsurprisingly, investigators raced to track cases linked to Huanan. Without a link to the Huanan market, cases were only considered if they exhibited 3 severe pneumonia symptoms - favoring the elderly.
This is corroborated by the map (has errors!) of December 2019 cases in Wuhan. The home addresses of patients colocalizes with where the elderly were concentrated in Wuhan. ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
Compare left (figure from Holmes et al. preprint, they didn't have access to data so used Adobe Illustrator to reverse engineer China-WHO figure) and right (population density in b, elderly density in e).
From the reports of the earliest Covid cases in Wuhan, it's straightforward that what we were seeing were not the earliest cases. Even WHO said so to the Washington Post...
"WHO spokesman, said.. the question of where the first-known patient lived relative to the river was not relevant to competing hypotheses about the origin of the virus.. because “the current first known patient is most probably not the first case.”" washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…
I look forward to debunking the multi-market myth on the AAAS panel in ~36 hours.
"5% chance that H5N1 starts a sustained pandemic in humans in the next year. 50% chance that H5N1 starts a sustained pandemic in humans in the next twenty years..."
@slatestarcodex In addition, under the new US gov policy on research that enhances the pandemic potential of pathogens, it will be the funding recipient (not the funder) who is responsible for flagging their own federally funded projects for review. liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Peter Daszak, who partnered with the Wuhan lab that likely caused the pandemic and is being debarred by HHS, continues to chair @NASEM_Health's forum on microbial threats.
@NASEM_Health @theNASEM The event disclaimer and website make no mention of Daszak's involvement in this event or any conflicts of interest.
@NASEM_Health @theNASEM This echoes Daszak's behind-the-scenes coordination of the infamous letter in @TheLancet casting lab #OriginOfCovid as a conspiracy theory without disclosing his conflicts of interest.
In 2020, leading virologists deceived a @nytimes journalist, resulting in NYT dropping the lab leak hypothesis.
Years later, these virologists continue to deny their perfidy while attacking experts like @sigridbratlie who call out their deception. telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/0…
@nytimes @sigridbratlie At the @USFHealth Covid meeting, natural #OriginOfCovid proponents exalted one of these virologists.
Thankfully @ewinsberg read out the slack messages of these virologists which completely contrasted with their public stance.
@nytimes @sigridbratlie @USFHealth @ewinsberg Some consider the lies of leading virologists as indirect evidence for a lab #OriginOfCovid e.g. see the end of this anonymous analysis on youtube.
Why are some smart virologists making so many claims they should know are false?
I gave a 15min talk on a likely laboratory #OriginOfCovid at @USFHealth's @HdxAcademy meeting on hotly debated Covid topics earlier this month. The exchange with natural origin proponents and Q&A are worth watching. The recording is available now: digitalcommons.usf.edu/usfcovid/2024/…
@USFHealth @HdxAcademy The meeting covered other topics including lockdowns, vaccines, and public health messaging. I left the meeting with my mind changed on one topic - a sign of high quality scientific exchanges on issues that remain unresolved.
@USFHealth @HdxAcademy Several talks recalled the panic in the early days of the pandemic, especially in hospitals overwhelmed by covid cases. In crisis, public health decisions & messaging were often developed in echo chambers and not based on science.
National Academy of Sciences president @Marcia4Science says "NAS stands ready, as it always has, to advise the incoming administration."
How does @theNASciences plan to advise the new gov on #OriginOfCovid and research that can start pandemics? science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
@Marcia4Science @theNASciences In Feb 2020, @theNASEM convened 3 of the most highly conflicted experts to advise the US gov on #OriginOfCovid
They were Peter Daszak & Ralph Baric who collaborated with the Wuhan lab, and Kristian Andersen who published Proximal Origin. nationalacademies.org/news/2020/02/n…
@Marcia4Science @theNASciences @theNASEM What reassurance do we have now that @theNASEM @theNASciences are capable of convening experts without glaring conflicts of interest to advise the incoming administration on scientific issues?
Accidentally swore and got bleeped on my live interview with On Point @MeghnaWBUR while discussing why lab #OriginOfCovid must be investigated and why scientists must not lie or obfuscate the truth for political reasons. wbur.org/onpoint/2024/0…
@MeghnaWBUR Meghna did an excellent job putting the arguments of natural #OriginOfCovid proponents to me so I could refute them directly in the interview.
The scientific evidence does not support a double spillover of the virus at the Wuhan market.