Thread by @Ayjchan

The questions in this letter are not specific or productive if directed at the leaders of NIH/NIAID.

The priority should be to secure a commitment from NIH/NIAID to publicly release the Feb 4, 2020 draft of Proximal Origin and the fully unredacted emails.
republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

None of the 7 questions ask specifically what the perceived competing interests in the Feb 1 group are, ie, what the impact of a lab #OriginOfCovid would be on the participants' careers and reputations; why several contributors went completely unacknowledged in Proximal Origin.

None of the 7 questions ask specifically what corrective actions should be taken while this issue is being resolved, eg, editor's note on Proximal Origin, recusal of Feb 1 participants from all academic/advisory activities relating to #OriginOfCovid

None of the 7 questions ask for an immediate commitment to revamp the review & publication system for pathogen research so that it is made much more transparent and accountable.

None of the questions ask for a commitment to release all docs relating to SARS-like virus research.

None of the questions ask specifically what should be done by NIH/NIAID if the EcoHealth Alliance fails to produce documentation of the collaborative research on novel pathogens, whether in Wuhan, China or any other country.

*EcoHealth continues to be funded by NIAID today.

None of the questions ask specifically if NIH/NIAID personnel have, after the Feb 1 call, continued to discourage discussion and actions in the scientific community or in government to transparently investigate a lab #OriginOfCovid

For instance, have there been more meetings or emails where NIH/NIAID personnel were involved and either acted to or witnessed attempts to suppress discussion, data sharing, and/or publication of analyses relating to the beginnings of the pandemic?

In my opinion, the 7 questions in the letter are mostly throwaways with very predictable responses that we have already seen the Proximal Origin authors & friends use in social media and in news interviews.
republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

Answers to Questions 1-3:
We were in the process of science, and didn't sound the alarm to avoid panic/distraction till we were very confident that the #OriginOfCovid was most likely natural, ie, when Proximal Origin was published.

Answer to Question 4:
Might honestly be no edits to Proximal Origin were made by NIH/NIAID leaders. Just feedback in emails.

This is a throwaway question. Better to ask for the manuscript drafts that were being exchanged via email.

Answer to Question 5:
Probably no impact.

Answer to Question 6:
Possibly no.

Both questions 5 and 6 distract from or undermine the inquiry to obtain more information about the Feb 1 phone call and Proximal Origin.

The last question is an open invitation for deflection.

There are several people with degrees who assert that knowing SARS-CoV-2 could've come from a lab would've changed nothing in the global early response to the novel outbreak.

I can't watch any more hearings or sessions where non-productive or incoherent questions are asked.

What happened yesterday was counterproductive to getting a better understanding of how an investigation into a potential lab #OriginOfCovid was suppressed for more than a year.

At the end of the day, the biggest questions are:

How should we investigate the plausible hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have emerged from research activities by a group that had received US funding for similar projects? What actions must be taken now to prevent lab outbreaks?