Essentially, the local wildlife trade was dwindling in South China (back in 2016), forcing Wuhan scientists to travel to or seek novel pathogen samples from 7 neighboring countries.
In 2016, they proposed collecting about 2,300 of these high risk pathogen host animal samples in China and SE Asia.
May we see the full data and databases resulting from these studies for which testing was partially funded by the NIH or NIAID?
Another possibly important point, all the human pathogen surveillance work had been shifted to Wuhan University for the last half of the 2014-2019 EcoHealth-WIV grant. Meaning that thousands of samples from high risk human populations would've been sent also to Wuhan.
Pages 224-225. Since it's approaching 5 years now (from 2016), according to protocol, the original data and electronic files describing high-risk human samples will begin to be permanently deleted.
Went to read @gdemaneuf’s earlier thread on the same emails and realized that most of these samples from high risk animals in SE Asia must mostly be unpublished because the latest EcoHealth-WIV batch of data only described viruses sampled up to 2015.
I find it very unlikely that the EcoHealth Alliance was acting as an undercover intelligence collecting agency. Unless somehow the sheer amount of incompetence and gaslighting we’ve witnessed is their cover.
No pathogen database. Key information, documents, and emails withheld.
These FOIA’ed communications reveal an extremely relaxed approach to ensuring accessibility to samples and data.
Let’s send all of the thousands of pathogen samples from 8 countries to Wuhan! They won’t get tested anywhere else so no one will know what was even sent to China.
For this reason, I also don’t have the view that EcoHealth was an organization bent on DURC or bioweapons. The communications suggest their trust in the WIV was complete. The level of insight and oversight could hardly be lower.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When the SARS-CoV-2 sequence was released in Jan 2020, EcoHealth could've said
1⃣They planned to put furin cleavage sites in SARS-like viruses
2⃣In 2013, the Wuhan lab discovered a new lineage of SARS-like viruses that the covid virus belongs to
3⃣Work was done at low biosafety
Instead we had to go through 5 years of the lab leak hypothesis being painted as a racist, anti-science conspiracy theory and a ton of misinformation from EcoHealth about the work being done in Wuhan.
No punches pulled piece on #OriginOfCovid by @ianbirrell
"The pandemic revealed the arrogant and contemptuous behaviour of leading scientific figures, aided by prominent academic journals, patsy journalists and weak politicians." unherd.com/2025/01/chinas…
@ianbirrell I suggest one correction @ianbirrell please replace 'despite' with 'because of':
WHO "hired Sir Jeremy Farrar, despite the former Wellcome Trust boss’s exposure as a central player in... branding any suggestions Covid could have come from a laboratory as conspiracy theory."
@ianbirrell On Feb 19, 2020, the authors of Proximal Origin realized that Jeremy Farrar - who had convened them and led their efforts - had signed the Lancet letter by Daszak condemning all lab #OriginOfCovid as conspiracy theories.
5 years ago, the authors of Proximal Origin wondered where the pandemic virus had been transmitting *intensely* so that it gained a furin cleavage site and passed it on.
One said, "No way the selection could occur in the market. Too low a density of mammals." #OriginOfCovid
Until today, there has been no reported sign of intense transmission of the virus in animals prior to the detected outbreak in Wuhan.
Investigators, including one Proximal Origin author, searched fur farms in China - no sign of any SARS-like virus. nature.com/articles/s4158…
On the other hand, a 2018 research proposal surfaced, showing Wuhan and US scientists with a plan to insert novel furin cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses. theintercept.com/2021/09/23/cor…
"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?