1/ "And I don't care how many questions you just ask"
Excellent, I have many questions.
2/ "hand waving you do about deleted data"
Do you mean the deleted early patients not related to market, LineageA genomes, published/removed genomes or research papers? These are all pretty important IMO.
3/ "unfunded grant applications"
I assume you mean the DARPA proposal. Yes, except the Chinese likely funded it on their own.
4/ "Zoonotic spillover at Huanan is the only emergence scenario"
Research fails to show how the backbone got to Hubei. All species (not human) tested negative, and the backbone is 1500+km away. The most likely scenario is a human brought it there, regardless of zoonosis or LL.
5/ You have to have both the backbone and intermediate species in close proximity for a spillover. The backbone was not found in Hubei in either bat or racoon dog.
6/ The blue centroid area is likely Union hospital, plus Tongji, a few smaller clinics in the area. Unsurprising, since ~40% of cases occurred INSIDE the hospital and clinics. It's Possible that hospital spread to the market rather than other way around.
7/ Carefully worded, but most people would see some of these competing interests as financial and/or political.
8/ I see no evidence of zoonosis at the Huanan market. That doesn't mean zoonosis didn't happen somewhere else in SEA.
Also, 27/27 live samples that tested positive at the Huanan market were Homo Sapiens - indicating H2H transmission. It was the only species that tested positive.
9/ The transport of SARS2 backbone from SEA to Wuhan still hasn't been explained, but there is some sensible reasoning.
10/ Oh no! I got blocked by a virologist! I guess she won't know the real story and cut herself off from any future data I may present. I'm ok with that.
11/ #Drastic contributes, even to zoonati work. We should be thanked more often, not blocked. We have plenty more data and revelations to come. This isn't the end, it's only the end of the beginning.
1/ 🧵on the earliest (official) reported case of SARS2. It will take some explanation and the results are not what you'd expect. Follow the trail of crumbs. 🧐
2/ 41M Wuchang accountant likely had onset fever Dec 16, not Dec 8. That correction is fairly widely known.
3/ In "Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan"
the sources are attached in the supplemental. The WSJ made the same error declaring the shrimp vendor onset as Dec 10, instead of Dec 11. No big deal, what's the difference?
1/ 🧵The untold story of how the market origins story came to be.
Unfortunately, through no fault of my own, I feel partly responsible. Allow me to explain. 🧐
2/ It began with "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review".
At the time, we were trying to sort out the discrepancies of 41M Chen. Eventually we learned that there are two 41M Chen patients. One of them an accountant, and the other Wuhan-Hu-1.
3/ In the process, myself and @Drinkwater5Reed found an interview of 41M accountant, onset Dec 8, 2019 (not associated with the seafood market). His medical records are shown partially redacted in the video, as he gives an interview to thepaper. This is the moment it was found.
1/ Good summary of the racoon dog narrative and how the story is presented so far. The scientific hypothesis of racoon dog origin at the seafood market has basic logical flaws though.
3/ A call for more sampling is certainly welcome. However, fur farms operate in Northern China as in the stock picture used from Hengdaohezi, Heilongjiang, China. The cold weather is better for quality fur farming. There's no SARS2 backbone in that area.
2. First, I'd like to thank the #DRASTIC team for the many hours put into the research. I've spent over a year reading for 15+ hours a week just to keep up with all your new work!!!
3. I was following along on the decoding of the partially redacted Su name a few weeks ago. I was pleased that the Su conclusion posted was the same as my own result. There wasn't much question on the Wang name, it was pretty clear.