Countries that refuse to admit independent international investigators when an outbreak has been detected are putting the entire world at risk for another pandemic.
This is dangerously irresponsible, anti-scientific, and not a sign of technological or moral leadership.
This pandemic has shown us that the world is only as strong as its most vulnerable nations.
Unless a country decides to forever cut off travel/business/immigration with other countries, no matter how pandemic prepared it is, it will eventually have to grapple with the pandemic.
Any policy (or lack of) that enables a novel contagion to spread out into other countries is ultimately self-harming for the country of origin, no matter how much worse the impact is on other countries.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Proximal Origin failed to acknowledge experts who convened its authors, made natural #OriginOfCovid arguments on Feb 1 call, and/or provided input on the work.
"We do not at this time intend to come up with an addendum to the article... The journal is still open to assess a diversity of views on any issue... the publication of new solid research which, according to expert assessment, can help us understand the origin of the virus."
How many manuscripts arguing that a lab #OriginOfCovid is plausible has @NatureMedicine received and sent for peer review? May we at least have numbers of submissions, peer reviews, and rejections if the peer reviews themselves cannot be made public?
What are the chances of someone catching COVID from international mail?
I'd say it's near impossible unless they were aerosolizing + inhaling their letters.
"contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection" cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
If scientists are too fixated on mythical SARS-CoV-2 transmission via international mail, they might miss the actual community transmission of the virus.
This is unless there is somehow a new trend where people are mailing sputum to each other internationally.
There's also no study outside of China, afaik, that cites any evidence of cold chain transmission of Covid #PopsicleOrigins
The one non-China preprint was conveniently withdrawn in March 2021 right after being cited by the China-WHO joint study. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
It appears that the people who convened the Proximal Origin authors who staunchly dismissed a lab #OriginOfCovid may have also shaped the membership of the @WHO team that went to China and ruled a lab origin as extremely unlikely. h/t @CDommasch s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2079…
@WHO@CDommasch On Feb 5, 2020, Farrar writes to NIH/NIAID leaders, asking for "names to be put forward into the [WHO #OriginOfCovid] Group from us and pressure on this group from your and our teams next week."
One of the Feb 1 call participants ended up on the WHO team.
@WHO@CDommasch It looks like they might've put forward the names of more participants on the Feb 1 call, but no others were selected.
One of the Proximal Origin authors told @theintercept that their letter has "held up extremely well".
Really? Aside from the messy reveal of the origin of Proximal Origin, has the scientific content held up at all? theintercept.com/2022/01/12/cov…
We know Wuhan scientists were serial passaging novel viruses in a range of cell lines.
We know they were part of a collaboration with a roadmap for inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses.
We know they had direct & exclusive access to SARS2-like viruses.
We know that we have barely any insight into the viruses discovered by the Wuhan Institute of Virology after 2016.
We know that they were culturing, genetically engineering SARS-like viruses, and performing infection experiments in cells and animals at low safety BSL2 or 3.
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
I'm all ears to hear about the precise scientific process that occurred between Feb 2 and Feb 4, 2020 where top experts in virology and evolutionary biology completely changed their minds about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 emerging from a lab.
In Jeremy Farrar's book, he noted that Marion Koopmans had said furin cleavage site insertions happen in viruses all the time naturally.
Kristian Andersen, lead author of Proximal Origin, said just because it happened in nature did not rule out unnatural origins.
By the time Proximal Origin was published (i.e., the final paper), Koopmans argument had been absorbed into the manuscript without acknowledgement.
"insertions.. can occur.. the polybasic cleavage site can arise by a natural evolutionary process." nature.com/articles/s4159…