Read on Twitter
1/ It’s notable that most sources cited in the Times and Public/Racket stories about the “patient zeros” in Wuhan are identified as U.S. government officials. They are likely to be individuals familiar with what some of the intel shows (perhaps that of FBI or DoE)…
2/ and given the timing of the leaks, familiar with what the declassified documents about to be released will show. If that is true, then the question becomes, how good is the intel, especially the identification of three named researchers at the Wuhan Inst Virology?
3/ That is the question everyone should be asking, although the sources and methods behind that intel are likely to be redacted. These are guesses on my part, but also suggestions about how the intel should be regarded. Just as reporters can make mistakes, so can intel…
4/ analysts and officials. BUT—and this is important—if there is reason to think the intel is sound, then it should be taken very seriously and the conversation will, or at least should, switch away from concentration on the constant attempts by self-interested…
5/ zoonosis spillover advocates to discredit a perfectly legitimate and plausible hypothesis for how the pandemic began, and perhaps ultimately the most obvious one. #media #journalism
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
