"Seasoned skeptics wondered how someone with no formal training in virology, and no actual laboratory (EcoHealth has offices, but no labs at its New York City HQ) was swinging such a large bag of research funding."
"There is also a strange and slightly sinister climate of intimidation that hangs around Daszak.
..
Daszak has repeatedly engaged in a PR campaign marked by disinformation, intimidation and distraction.
"These are not usually thought of as the tools of a scientist, but they are certainly central to the craft of a rather different trade..."one that is coincidentally represented on the Advisory Board of EHA"
Indeed.
Scientists are fond of dark humour, and while one colleague mused that EcoHealth has predicted and prevented “zero pandemics” in its history, another added “or perhaps minus one?”
Daszak (a.k.a 'minus one') is a martyr, a “Prophet in Purgatory”.
“we did nothing wrong” he asserted to Science, adding, “we went above and beyond what normal scientists would do”. Daszak complains to Cohen that there is an “anti-science attack” and that EHA is the target.
[..] a pattern of deceit, denial and obfuscation served to obscure the revelation that the Imperial Leader may not after all have been wearing a magnificent suit, [..] and that the technological advance they promised was in reality much less substantive than had been advertised.
With a proper send off at the end:
"The author [..] does not know the proximal origin of the virus, but in his opinion frozen lobsters from Maine were unlikely to be involved. "
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The odds are not driven by a distance argument but by a location exclusivity argument.
In a well connected world, it is not difficult for a virus to find its way to a perfect place for a superspreader event, be it a Wuhan market or Wuhan itself.
The odds are driven by the location of the initial breakout out of all places, with regards to the putative causative agent.
For wildlife trade zoonosis a market makes perfect sense, but there are 100+ cities in China with wet markets, transport hubs and 1mln+ people.
Because - guess what - that's exactly what Alexei and Daszak were telling the NIH would happen:
"Samples will be collected by either our current China field team personnel working directly with our collaborators in these countries or by respective in-country personnel"
And they will be no extra expense under the grant, since it will be done by collaborating partners and existing co-investigators:
"All efforts expended in the countries will be from collaborating partners and not funded under our award".
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)
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…
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.
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.
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.