Just stating the obvious that THE FIRST CASE WAS NOT IN DECEMBER exposes the mendicant analysis of that recent piece, which feeds of the scraps of data left by China and then props itself up on odd logical shortcuts.
Useful Point by @baobaoxiaoliao
Dr.Worobey, here are some information you might interest in. In the early stage of the outbreak, China Gov only allows patients with Market contact history to receive tests. Is that a bias that can cause misinterpretation?
Unfortunately, the early cases before 01/2020 were defined such that only market cases were counted in 2019--any case that weren't contact traced to the market were ignored, throwing away as much as 5 times more cases than reported in 12/2019 officially in China
11/12/2019 Market origin directly contradicts discovery of SARS-CoV-2 consistent positivity in wastewater of Brazil in 27/11/2019 and Italy in 10/12/2019, swabs & RNA-FISH positive skin samples as early as late Nov to 05/12/2019.
in China
Let’s take a look at the co-authors of the March 17th Nature letter:
I realised, to my surprise, that I had already encountered 3 of the 5 co-authors & they were not people whose work had impressed me on identifying the origins of diseases
3. Eddie Holmes
"It is therefore possible that he is unconsciously sympathetic to Chinese colleagues, and sensitised to avoiding the causing of embarrassment to his hosts"
New documents back theory that Covid outbreak started in Wuhan lab
The emails uncovered by White Coat Waste Project suggest that viral DNA from “bats and other high-risk species” were sent to Wuhan between 2017 and 2019.
After fully reading the article, I think @sciencecohen does write a fairly well balanced analysis, especially the last half, and lists most criticisms of EHA and WIV.
"Prior to his involvement with Drastic, Bostickson told us that he had spent nearly a decade empowering ‘activists living under repressive regimes through collaborative sharing of electronic and audio-visual materials’" (Rage University)