Share this page!

Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
Twitter logo
22 Nov, 10 tweets, 6 min read
Going back to the existence of Nov cases that have since then been 'cancelled' by China, please remember the US intel Nov 19 warning.
researchgate.net/publication/35…
Also remember the nine Nov confirmed cases from the SCMP (based on official Chinese sources).

My Silent Numbers give you all the sources (inc. the SCMP without firewall).
I also graphed the SCMP numbers (SCMP tab at top)

bit.ly/2OyytJ4

@jbloom_lab @MichaelWorobey
One of the best papers I read about dating the index case is actually co-authored by Worobey himself.

That's Pekar et al with its mid-Oct to mid-Nov estimate - which we referred to extensively in our 'October Surprise'.
Pekar et al: science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
In the 'October Surprise' you can also read my analysis of the game played by China - walking the epidemiological trail AWAY from the earliest known cases.

researchgate.net/publication/35…
Also, do you really think that China would have suppressed the Nov cases and the early Dec ones if they pointed to the market?

Please take a second to think about it.
So one can believe in fairies and a December 'patient zero'.

Or one can look at the epidemiological and genomic evidence, plus the data leaks and various ham-fisted 'cancels', which point us to cases in Wuhan in Nov 19.
Nov 19 cases that could be detected from space and via com intercept, as the NCMI did.

And it showed a reliable enough picture for the US to alert Nato and Israel at the end of that very month.

researchgate.net/publication/35…

@thedeadhandbook @ianbirrell @thackerpd @KatherineEban
In the end we have two likely 'ground zeros'.

One in particular is centered on the WIV, the Wuhan Uni ABSL-3 (worked with the WIV) and the PLA hospital of central military command (which shows up in relation to early cases, inc. Nov ones from US intel)

I'll leave the fairies to the MSM, and the December data illusion to the 'Perspectives' section of Science mag.

@threadreaderapp compile

• • •

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

Keep Current with Gilles Demaneuf

Gilles Demaneuf 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!

PDF

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 @gdemaneuf

Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
21 Nov
Here is a thread that looks at the zoonosis evangelists main argument that:

** since zoonosis happens all the time we should just use that hypothesis as the default one - the burden of proof must be on the research-related side **
First let me state that this argument is a fallacy that makes the most of the fact that people don't intuitively have a good grasp of probabilities.

One can explain this this way: Suppose that there are two lotteries in China: a zoonosis lottery and a research-accident lottery.
Let's say that the zoonosis lottery sells 20 times more tickets over China, and also that each ticket has the same chance of winning a top prize (whatever the lottery).

So on average you get 20 zoonosis top prizes for one accident top prize across China.
Read 12 tweets
Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
21 Nov
This was also the conclusion of a good Feb 20 paper by Chinese scientists + Cambridge educated Corlett.

I have been pointing to that paper many times. This was published within two months of the outbreak becoming public - and yet the conclusions are still valid.
All the sweet talking from China, joined on this by many Western scientists, has added actually little - mostly smoke screens.

20 months largely wasted on fake stories (pangolins, fish fingers, GoF semantics, Dec 19 patient zero, Ft Detrick, etc).

This 'cancelation' of early cases, and epidemiological tea-leaves reading - based on late data with a very likely sampling bias (early cases had to be connected to the market to be retained) and the same signature as a simple population density map - is not science.

It's baloney
Read 7 tweets
Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
19 Nov
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.
One could hardly think of a more conflicted sentence than this one for instance:

First, if indeed Mr Chen was infected during his hospital trip on the 8th Dec (as he suspect may be the case), then the whole logic implodes.
@MichaelWorobey
It would mean that Jinxia, about 28km away from the market, had community transmission in hospital setting by the 8th.

(by the way our DRASTIC map had these documents and the 16th as likely onset date - and we all made it public ages ago)
@sciencecohen
Read 11 tweets
Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
18 Nov
This piece is essentially a 'people' article, with a rather defiant 'I've done nothing wrong' message.
science.org/content/articl…
As any 'people' piece, it starts with the violins, the story of a 'brave' scientist born out of the post war ashes and northern England post-industrial glum, all pouring out in a falsetto voice. Image
That should hopefully warm up the readers and predispose them to shed a tear for the description of the martyr of Saint Daszak that soon follows.

So we get the image of the crucifiction thrown in too. Image
Read 6 tweets
Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
16 Nov
Eventually one journalist asks the right questions:

disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/documents-fr…
disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/documents-fr…
One should add Mark Honigsbaum’s recent article in the Guardian to the list of politically motivated disinformation pieces that abuse the Laos findings:
Read 4 tweets
Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
16 Nov
Mark Honigsbaum's review of Viral by @Ayjchan and @mattwridley is rather disappointing.

Out of a lack of analysis, likely aided by an authoring bias, @honigsbaum has produced a damp squib, when usually his writings are much better.

theguardian.com/books/2021/nov…
The opening sets an unfortunate political tone, which is rather trite and totally unnecessary, unless Mark aims to please a political tribe instead of going through a rigorous review:

"Ridley, a Conservative hereditary peer.."
Is Matt now guilty of being born?

Very fancy ideas about hereditary responsibility here for a science writer. The last time this was fashionable it did not work out very well.

Seriously, it's better to abstain from taking cheap political swipes at someone.
Read 24 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @gdemaneuf has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @gdemaneuf!

Read all threads by @gdemaneuf

:(