The pandemic has degraded my confidence in (science) journalism, especially on the #OriginOfCovid
Much of the misinformation on this topic (false or inaccurate info presented as fact, intentionally or otherwise) has come from prominent scientists & been amplified by top media.
After creating and/or spreading much of these misinformation, best efforts have not been made by these prominent scientists or journalists to correct their errors.
I can describe this situation as one where wave upon wave of misinformation is coming from experts and journalists we would normally hope can be trusted to fact check their work with skeptical parties first and to correct the record when they have accidentally spread untruths.
This fake-it-till-you-make-it approach in science and science journalism on the topic of #OriginOfCovid has not paid off for these parties.
But I would argue that it has resulted in the spread of misinformation and also hurt public trust in science.
If these parties were to write an article now undoing all the misinformation they had created and/or spread, I suspect it would be a damning report of how dangerous virus research that could have plausibly led to the emergence of the pandemic had been conducted at low biosafety..
.. that the proliferation of this type of research over the past decade (and lack of oversight and accountability) has significantly increased the chances of lab-based outbreaks of either natural or modified viruses being studied in dozens of labs around the world..
.. that current #OriginOfCovid evidence is consistent with both natural & lab-based hypotheses. Much of the possibly dispositive evidence is beyond our reach, e.g., missing Wuhan pathogen database, or has not been investigated, e.g., cleavage site insertion docs at Ecohealth..
.. and that Wuhan city in central China had been an unexpected place for a SARS-like virus to spillover into people.
People in Wuhan (not counting the scientists) did not have a habit of eating bats or interacting with them in a way that would've likely led to the pandemic.
The latest misinformation from top experts and journalists on #OriginOfCovid is that dispositive evidence has been found for a natural origin of the virus.
No animal host. No sign of virus circulation in the animal trading community prior to the outbreak.
@R_H_Ebright I leave room for the possibility that these scientists and journalists are just repeating the same honest/human mistakes rather than a conspiracy to deceive the public.
@R_H_Ebright I honestly think they just didn't know. It looks like their paper was based on a major error on their part, not an intention to deceive.
@R_H_Ebright Sometimes when there are too many authors on a paper, the other authors assume someone else in the team has done due diligence to properly check key facts on which their group analysis is based on.
And it's terrible when this turns out to not be true.
#OriginOfCovid reporting in early 2022 is a repeat of what happened in early 2020.
Some scientists, including some from 2020 #ProximalOrigin, put out a paper claiming certainty of a natural origin.
Reporters, incl some from 2020, rush out headlines amplifying this claim. /20
I get that people’s bandwidths are stretched right now with the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
But weren’t any lessons learnt from 2020 about responsible COVID-19 reporting?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…
After reading the preprints, I quickly identified major scientific issues or misunderstandings undermining the main claims of the highly reported Worobey et al. preprint.
I will address the 11 key claims of this preprint listed in their discussion.
Dec 2019 to mid-Jan 2020: Chinese CDC, Hubei CDC, Wuhan CDC specifically looked for potential Covid-19 cases with links to Huanan Market or living in the vicinity of the market.
Feb 2022: Western scientists say, "Wow so many of the early cases were centered around the market!"
China-WHO report annexes (p125) described the early search for cases:
"screening.. targeting people with pneumonia.. and exposure history with Huanan market.. surveillance at several hospitals (close to Huanan market), Huanan market and the neighbourhood" who.int/publications/i…
Jan 2020, the 2019-nCoV Outbreak Joint Field Epidemiology Investigation Team reported that, in late Dec 2019, Wuhan CDC did "a retrospective search for pneumonia patients potentially linked to the market.. found additional patients linked to the market" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/artic…
My main takeaway from this report by @theintercept@MaraHvistendahl is there is a Year 6 report potentially describing more work done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - that the NIH received from EcoHealth in June 2021 but has not shared with reporters. theintercept.com/2022/03/03/wuh…
@theintercept@MaraHvistendahl Article quotes @FilippaLentzos co-director of King’s College London’s Centre for Science and Security Studies: “By only communicating through litigation requests, it comes across as though [NIH]’re covering something up.”
Note that Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance told @theintercept “Even though we didn’t have access to the [NIH] funding, we still had to file reports on it. So we then filed the Year 6 and 7 reports.”
Even without receiving funding, the work went on for 2+ years.
Video is up for a recent (Feb 28, 2022) National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) public review of US government policies on dual use research of concern (DURC) and research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP/P3CO). videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823
Having listened to this, I'm worried that some of the experts on the call are more concerned that the US might lose its competitive edge internationally than that some of this research might kill millions whether by accidental or deliberate release.
There's good acknowledgement of the difficulty of balancing security vs research advances, challenges of knowing what is happening in labs even in the US, & the value of engaging non-scientist stakeholders (I think this is very important; non-scientist views should have weight).