The origin of Covid-19 is no longer a scientific issue: it is a major issue on the functioning of scientific institutions.
(corrected version)
@NaomiOreskes @thackerpd @mattwridley
#COVID19 #lableak
The Covid-19 epidemic that has claimed millions of lives began in the city of Wuhan, a modern city in China with an institute (the WIV) where bat coronaviruses were studied and housed.
The most basic way to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 that claimed so many victims came from the WIV would have been to find out what work was being done there by obtaining funding requests and lab notebooks.`
This is a forensic investigation rather than a scientific study. Chinese authorities have refused to provide this information. The police investigation was finally carried out by non-professionals on the Internet (DRASTIC group).
It revealed that Chinese authorities lied about the origin of the epidemic by pretending it was linked to the Wuhan Wet Market and that they suppressed data on the first infected patients and on the viruses that were studied in the WIV.
For a judicial institution, removing clues from a crime scene would be an admission of guilt. But the investigation revealed much more: The laboratory had applied for funding to produce a virus similar to the one that caused the epidemic.
The scientific community, for its part, has not remained inactive. One can get an idea of ​​the origin of SARSCoV2 from its DNA sequence by comparing it to the sequences of known coronaviruses in order to understand how a bat virus could have caused a human pandemic.
Two theories were possible: adaptation by an intermediate host; adaptation in the laboratory. No intermediate host could be found. The pangolin hypothesis has been ruled out.
A number of researchers, on the contrary, have found some evidence for the laboratory origin.

Now, what have done the scientific institutions?
1) Leading scientific journals (Lancet, Nature Medicine) have called research suggesting laboratory origin a conspiracy theory. The correspondence to the Lancet was signed by the top virologist, most of them with conflicts of interest.
Most of them had their work funded by an international organization, EcoHealth Alliance, which also funded the WIV.
2) The scientific manuscripts suggesting a laboratory origin written by various researchers have almost all been systematically rejected, including at the preprint level on BioRxiv, i.e., it is simply censorship.
3) A petition supporting virus research in Wuhan funded by EcoHealth Alliance received the support of 77 Nobel laureates in May 2020.
Thus, far from having a neutral attitude and open to all possibilities, major scientific institutions have tried to impose an alternative reality on the origin of the virus, which avoided questioning certain activities.
One can be frightened as to how such a "conspiracy" could have been carried out, but our preliminary reflection on the subject indicates that it is simply the usual functioning of scientific institutions, based not on contradictory argumentation, but on the balance of power.
Scientists do not only live in the world of ideas and have to make a living, too. It is fallacious to imagine that large scientific institutions are disinterested and only perverted from the outside (Big Tobacco, Big Pharma).

They are rarely independent of political power and must present their work in a favorable light to continue to be funded.

In some cases, the assertions of scientific institutions may be confronted with a perceptible reality outside their realm of influence.

This reality reveals that the Emperor is naked. This is the case for the origin of Covid-19, as is the case for cancers linked to x-ray imaging, perhaps the main cause of cancers in developed countries.

Despite an abundant literature tending to affirm the safety of the doses of radiation used, a simple examination of the incidence of breast cancer after the establishment of screening shows that this is not the case and that X-rays are are responsible for a cancer epidemic.

Society must address the issue of the independence of scientific institutions with the same acuteness as it does for judicial institutions.

@threadreaderapp please UNROLL
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

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

Keep Current with Daniel Corcos

Daniel Corcos 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!


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 @daniel_corcos

22 Oct
Remember the HIV vaccine?…
The trial was criticised five years ago by 22 prominent U.S. scientists who doubted it would have any effect. Washington was accused of wasting more than a $100 million (63 million pounds) by funding it.
“It was a tough decision. I am glad we made it,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who defied the criticism and continued the trial.
Anthony Fauci, also a backer of the test, said of the results: "I don't want to use a word like 'breakthrough,' but I don't think there's any doubt that this is a very important result,"…
Read 6 tweets
20 Oct
Starting biennial screening mammography at age 40 could cut cancer deaths in Black women by 57%, according to a model study of 100 million women published October 18 in the @AnnalsofIM…
See the problems?
1. This is a model without any observational data.
2. This is ridiculous: there is less than 20 million black women in the USA.
3. According to all long term observational studies, we hardly see any benefit of mammography screening on cancer deaths in women over 50 ...
, for whom screening should be more effective.
4. Most countries do not recommend screening before 50.
5. The authors do not take into account the fact that mammography screening has actually caused a breast cancer epidemic (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM)

Read 5 tweets
19 Oct
The origin of Covid-19 is no longer a scientific question: it is a major question on the functioning of scientific institutions.
@BillyBostickson @TheSeeker268
The Covid-19 epidemic that has claimed millions of lives began in the city of Wuhan, a modern city in China with an institute (the WIV) where bat coronaviruses were studied and housed.
The most basic way to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 that claimed so many victims came from the WIV would have been to find out what work was being done in this institute by obtaining funding requests and lab notebooks.

Read 22 tweets
17 Oct
The chance that a woman will die from breast cancer in developed countries is 1 in 40 (remember that 1 out of 8 women will have breast cancer). Therefore, in a theater of one thousand women, 25 will die from breast cancer.
This means that if regular mammography screening was really reducing breast cancer death by 20%, more than 5 women out of 1000 have been saved by regular mammography screening (since the above numbers are in countries with national screening).
Read 5 tweets
18 Jun
In 2016 I've discovered while working at the @Inserm (the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research) that mammography screening is a major cause of breast cancer, due to X-ray induced-radiation. I was harassed by the INSERM and lost my permanent position in 2018
I received support from Archie Bleyer, Professor Emeritus at OHSU, and we could publish in the New England of Medicine some data on the consequences of nationwide mammography screening in France and in the USA (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
Read 11 tweets
13 Jun
#Wuhan #lableak
Le complotisme, c'est d'imaginer que tout relève d'un projet élaboré. Mais généralement, la réalité est encore plus tragique : c'est la stupidité au pouvoir et la crédulité face aux manoeuvres grossières pour couvrir les erreurs et l'incompétence. 1/n
Il fallait être stupide pour croire que des expériences en laboratoire visant à "améliorer" un virus avaient plus d'intérêt que de risques. Il fallait vraiment ignorer que les fuites de laboratoire était des évènements fréquents. Pourtant, les Chinois n'était pas les seuls.. 2/n
dans cette entreprise. Quand la théorie du "wet market" est arrivée, il fallait être extrêmement crédule pour continuer à la prendre au sérieux quand on a appris qu'aucune chauve-souris n'y étaient vendue. Si l'étude de l'origine la plus plausible, la fuite de laboratoire .. 3/n
Read 13 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!