1. Anonymous Critique of the recent paper by Worobey
Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
"The article is, frankly speaking, utter bullshit. It’s a review of available data & the very first referenced work states the opposite of what he claims"
Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
"The article is, frankly speaking, utter bullshit. It’s a review of available data & the very first referenced work states the opposite of what he claims"
2. Quote from Worobey
“Despite assertions to the contrary (1), it is now clear that live mammals susceptible to coronaviruses, including raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), were sold at Huanan Market & three other live-animal markets in Wuhan before the pandemic (2, 3).”
“Despite assertions to the contrary (1), it is now clear that live mammals susceptible to coronaviruses, including raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), were sold at Huanan Market & three other live-animal markets in Wuhan before the pandemic (2, 3).”
3. Incorrect Citations
Plainly, reference 1 should assert that no live mammals susceptible to coronaviruses were sold at the live animal markets in Wuhan.
In fact, reference 1 states the exact opposite on Pages 8 and 108 (conclusions)
This article is not off to a good start…
Plainly, reference 1 should assert that no live mammals susceptible to coronaviruses were sold at the live animal markets in Wuhan.
In fact, reference 1 states the exact opposite on Pages 8 and 108 (conclusions)
This article is not off to a good start…
4. Main Finding
The main "finding" of this paper is that the earliest case confirmed by RT-PCR* actually had a later symptom onset
* Note that the paper lacks the nuance to distinguish between retrospectively diagnosed cases from Nov 2019 & 1st PCR confirmed cases in Dec 2019"
The main "finding" of this paper is that the earliest case confirmed by RT-PCR* actually had a later symptom onset
* Note that the paper lacks the nuance to distinguish between retrospectively diagnosed cases from Nov 2019 & 1st PCR confirmed cases in Dec 2019"
5. The paper says:
"This is corroborated by hospital records and a scientific paper that reports his COVID-19 onset date as 16 December and date of hospitalization as 22 December (13)."
Reference 13 is this:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
"This is corroborated by hospital records and a scientific paper that reports his COVID-19 onset date as 16 December and date of hospitalization as 22 December (13)."
Reference 13 is this:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
6. It describes 9 patients.
None of the patients it describes have a symptom onset date of 16 Dec, nor a hospitalization date as 22 Dec.
There is one patient with the identifier "Sample WH19002" which has an symptom onset date of 22 Dec, but the hospitalization date in 29 Dec.
None of the patients it describes have a symptom onset date of 16 Dec, nor a hospitalization date as 22 Dec.
There is one patient with the identifier "Sample WH19002" which has an symptom onset date of 22 Dec, but the hospitalization date in 29 Dec.
7. How did this get published?
There is no relevant data in the supplementary data about the 16-22 Dec patients.
Their first reference says the opposite of what they claim it says.
Their most crucial reference does not say what they claim it says.
How did this get published?
There is no relevant data in the supplementary data about the 16-22 Dec patients.
Their first reference says the opposite of what they claim it says.
Their most crucial reference does not say what they claim it says.
How did this get published?
8. Ignoring Phylogenetic Data
The article goes on to ignore all the phylogenetic data in which all the Huanan market cases were lineage B, and that lineage A and lineage B split in November or earlier.
The article goes on to ignore all the phylogenetic data in which all the Huanan market cases were lineage B, and that lineage A and lineage B split in November or earlier.
9. Worobey's Map
It goes on to use a similar map to the terrible propaganda map used by Holmes et al:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1. With inaccurate locations for WIV’s campuses
2. Omits campuses close to the outbreak
3. Most egregiously omits the WCDC BSL2 lab near the market
It goes on to use a similar map to the terrible propaganda map used by Holmes et al:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1. With inaccurate locations for WIV’s campuses
2. Omits campuses close to the outbreak
3. Most egregiously omits the WCDC BSL2 lab near the market
10. Worobey's Map (2)
The map was thoroughly deconstructed by @danwalker9999 a retired geologist, who has been making and interpreting maps since 1977
Dan Walker also dealt with the map of Holmes et al previously here:
The map was thoroughly deconstructed by @danwalker9999 a retired geologist, who has been making and interpreting maps since 1977
https://twitter.com/danwalker9999/status/1461591621749772292
Dan Walker also dealt with the map of Holmes et al previously here:
https://twitter.com/danwalker9999/status/1439367442430451720?s=21
11. Propaganda
Similar to the false and misleading statements made in the propaganda by Holmes et al, they claim
“Unfortunately, no live mammal collected at Huanan Market or any other live-animal market in Wuhan has been screened for SARS-CoV-2–related viruses (1)”
Similar to the false and misleading statements made in the propaganda by Holmes et al, they claim
“Unfortunately, no live mammal collected at Huanan Market or any other live-animal market in Wuhan has been screened for SARS-CoV-2–related viruses (1)”
12. Reference 1 actually says the opposite:
“A total of 457 animal-related samples from 188 individuals of 18 species were collected and tested between 1st January and 2nd March"
“A total of 457 animal-related samples from 188 individuals of 18 species were collected and tested between 1st January and 2nd March"
13. Splitting Hairs
It also tries to split hairs & misdirect by focusing on “live mammals” when frozen samples were available
To (falsely) mention a lack of screening of “live mammals collected at Huanan Market”, without mentioning the screening that was done, reeks of bias.
It also tries to split hairs & misdirect by focusing on “live mammals” when frozen samples were available
To (falsely) mention a lack of screening of “live mammals collected at Huanan Market”, without mentioning the screening that was done, reeks of bias.
14. Failed!
If an undergrad student submitted a paper with such poor references, (s)he would be failed. Frankly, I find it abhorrent that this paper was published in Science with such blatant errors.
If an undergrad student submitted a paper with such poor references, (s)he would be failed. Frankly, I find it abhorrent that this paper was published in Science with such blatant errors.
15. Hedging his Bets?
Sadly, it is written by one of the authors of the previous paper:
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
It seems Michael Worobey is no longer in the academic company of Relman and Bloom, but of Holmes and Rambaut.
(Listed in the Acknowledgements)
Sadly, it is written by one of the authors of the previous paper:
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
It seems Michael Worobey is no longer in the academic company of Relman and Bloom, but of Holmes and Rambaut.
(Listed in the Acknowledgements)
16. Fake Research and Propaganda
Someone needs to call attention to the infiltration of “fake news” into our scientific journals, and the utter failure of editorial discretion and peer review to stop it.
Someone needs to call attention to the infiltration of “fake news” into our scientific journals, and the utter failure of editorial discretion and peer review to stop it.
17. Conclusión
The very core of science is under attack, and if nothing is done, the public will rightly lose faith in the scientific community.
The very core of science is under attack, and if nothing is done, the public will rightly lose faith in the scientific community.
unroll Worobey Critique @threadreaderapp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
