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thread on the same emails and realized that most of these samples from high risk animals in SE Asia must mostly be unpublished because the latest EcoHealth-WIV batch of data only described viruses sampled up to 2015.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
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.
I respect Dr Fauci's decades of service in gov. Being in charge during a pandemic is no small challenge & no one can lead for so long without making mistakes. However, it needs to be said that Dr Fauci has not surrounded himself with wise & honest people regarding #OriginOfCovid
These are the virologists & experts he trusted on #OriginOfCovid
In their private messages in early 2020, they mocked other virologists for not being able to predict their own lab leaks & misled a @nytimes journalist asking about a potential lab origin.