Good piece by Columbia Prof. Neil L. Harrison.

medium.com/@leftback45/pe…
"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
 

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

24 Nov
Goo summary by ⁦@danengber⁩, with one little issue.

The Lab-Leak Theory Meets Its Perfect Match - The Atlantic theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
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.
Read 7 tweets
23 Nov
Anybody who has been following DRASTIC on this will know that we always highlighted the fact that the database had a private section.

For some reason @stuartjdneil discovers this close to a year later and gets a big twist in his knickers.
Our first work on the database was the analysis we published in Feb 21 (with more than 37,000 reads now).

It's there as the 3rd finding:
researchgate.net/publication/34…
We also explained carefully what that meant:
Read 8 tweets
23 Nov
I really like that quote from EcoHealth Alliance:

“Any samples or results from Laos are based on WIV’s work, funded through other mechanisms,” says a [EchoHealth Alliance] spokesman.‘

newsweek.com/how-dr-fauci-o…
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" Image
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". Image
Read 7 tweets
22 Nov
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…
Read 10 tweets
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
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

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!

:(