Read on Twitter
You can choose whether or not to believe that the Chinese CDC is sharing their full data from the Huanan market.
Regardless, the data they provided, due to bias, sparsity & lateness of sampling, does not indicate a non-human animal source of the virus at Huanan.
#OriginOfCovid
Regardless, the data they provided, due to bias, sparsity & lateness of sampling, does not indicate a non-human animal source of the virus at Huanan.
#OriginOfCovid
https://twitter.com/DavidBahry/status/1642818837870686208
Comparing the Chinese CDC paper and Worobey/Proximal Origin et al. papers in Science that used the same data, the former makes few assertions while the latter went on @nytimes breaking news with claims of "dispositive" and "incontrovertible" evidence for a market #OriginOfCovid
@nytimes My question is, will there now be a comparable media frenzy reporting on the Chinese CDC's analysis that the available evidence doesn't tell us how the virus got into the market?
@nytimes If you think that the data they provided is too poor to draw strong conclusions from, then why would it be acceptable for other scientists to tour major media outlets saying that the data point to an infected raccoon dog?
The raccoon dog reporting is bloated.
The raccoon dog reporting is bloated.
We knew in 2020 that the virus, people & animals were in the same location in December 2019.
The question is whether the virus was brought to the market by animals or people. That is where key evidence easily found for SARS and MERS is missing for Covid.
thebulletin.org/2022/03/the-or…
The question is whether the virus was brought to the market by animals or people. That is where key evidence easily found for SARS and MERS is missing for Covid.
thebulletin.org/2022/03/the-or…
If there had not been an early cluster of cases at the market, I doubt there would be any argument now about whether the virus arrived in Wuhan via the wildlife trade or research activities.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
