I just finished @DavidQuammen new book, Breathless. David does a great job making the case for a zoonotic origin of #COVID19 but a poor job presenting the alternate hypothesis of a potential lab accident origin. My further thoughts in the thread below. 1/ simonandschuster.com/books/Breathle…
David has been transparent in stating he does not feel the lab origin hypothesis deserves full attention. In his TWIV podcast, he suggests it merits about 10% attention, vs 90% for zoonosis. 2/ microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-948/
It's fair for David to have this bias, even if I do not believe it supported by the available evidence. Although @mattwridley & @Ayjchan presented both sides in their (excellent) book Viral, some accused them of leaning toward the lab hypothesis. 3/ theguardian.com/books/2021/nov…
But I think Matt and Alina more fairly present the case for zoonosis than Quammen presents the case for a possible #COVID19 lab origin. For example… 4/
Quammen does not even mention the March 2018 DARPA proposal. As I told @VanityFair: “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect.” 5/ vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/n…
(Here’s a link to the #DRASTIC site on the DARPA proposal.) 6/ drasticresearch.org/tag/darpa/
Quammen references the 2022 GAO et al paper on pandemic origins as supporting the market origin hypothesis, but conveniently fails to mention that the Chinese scientists call the market an “amplifier” location, not the source, of the outbreak. 7/ assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-13703…
Quammen stresses, correctly, that the RATG13 virus could likely not be a backbone for #SARSCOV2, but leaves the inaccurate impression that most people who believe a lab origin is possible believe that to be the case. It is not. 8/
Quammen underplays the significance of the statements by @WHO chief @DrTedros calling for a full investigation into all origin hypotheses, full access to the raw data in China, and for an audit of the Wuhan labs. Dr. Tedros has been, in my view, a hero on the origins issue. 9/
Quammen barely explore how deeply flawed the WHO-China joint study process was, with Chinese government minders overseeing everything, including the votes by team members of which hypotheses were more or less likely. 10/
Quammen doesn't mention that WHO disbanded the joint study after recognizing how deeply flawed it was. He does not reference that the WHO created SAGO to address those flaws, or that SAGO has supported a full investigation into all relevant hypotheses. who.int/groups/scienti… 11/
More broadly, Quammen seems to give the Chinese government a pass, paying little attention to its aggressive efforts to destroy samples, hide records, and squash any investigation into pandemic origins. 12/
He treats Shi Zhengli as if she were a scientist working in Switzerland, not China. No matter how honorable she may be as a person, it would be absurd to believe she has the total freedom to speak and act as she pleases. 13/
Quammen also does not even reference US gov’t claims that the Chinese military was involved with activities at the WIV. Here’s some background on my interaction with Shi Zhengli. Either she or the USG is lying. At very least, this is worth exploring. 14/ dailycaller.com/2021/03/23/shi…
He blindly (& absurdly) references Holmes & Daszak saying those of us calling for a full investigation into pandemic origins caused China's gov't to clam up. The Chinese coverup started right away, before we started raising essential questions. 15/ wsj.com/articles/how-t…
Quammen adds some significant reporting that is interesting and additive. He says that Matt Wong’s pangolin genetic analysis was the key input changing Kristian Andersen et al’s mind in February 2020 (even though Wong's data does not explain the FCS). 16/
Remarkably, he also reports that the Chinese government requested that Peter Daszak serve on the @Peterfoodsafety joint study team. It’s a huge deal that the Chinese candidate was selected while the investigative experts proposed by the US gov’t were hardly even considered. 17/
I have great respect for David Quammen. I love his books and believe he is a person of highest integrity. He is honest about his personal beliefs and his relationships. Anyone who writes a book, particularly a good book like this, deserves our praise. 18/
Good books like this inspire us to think differently and to engage in (hopefully) respectful debate with others. 19/
I have great respect for the many virologists and others who have been working hard on the origins issue, including Andersen, Rambaut, Holmes, and others. All of these people could probably have far cushier lives doing something else. 20/
I also have great respect for top scientists who remain more open to all origin hypotheses, including Bloom, Courtier, Decroly, Ebright, Lipkin, Relman, Wain-Hobson and many others. /21
Many leading scientists have told me privately they believe a lab origin is likely but choose not to speak up because the data is not determinative and the climate is too toxic. I wish they would speak up. 22/
I encourage all scientist and others engaged in this debate to do so with respect and decorum. Personal attacks and silly name-calling are beneath us all. 23/
The #COVID19 origins question is by no means settled. For the sake of future generations, we must keep pushing until we can determine how this terrible and largely avoidable crisis began and until we can best address our greatest vulnerabilities. 24/
More background and useful links here. 25/ jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sar…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
