Thread by @TheSeeker268

So I’ve been away for a while and probably for the first time, I think I’m behind the curve in the #OriginsofCOVID debate.

Some recent happenings led me back. Before I venture onto that, here’s a lil rundown, a repeat of sorts, of what I have been carrying with me all this time.

It’s late 2019 and hospitals in Wuhan were overflowing with patients having SARS-like symptoms. Strict measures were put in place to restrict the flow of information.

In early 2020, news started trickling out of China - and I distinctly remember watching it with horror.

Wuhan was far outside the hot zone where SARS-like coronaviruses of such kind had been previously identified.

Wuhan was also known to a specialized scientific community, as the home to an institute studying SARS-like viruses, especially the ones with pandemic potential.

The media was carrying on with the wet market theory as if it was obvious as gravity.

However, between the so-called “card-carrying virologists”, things were going in a very different direction.

What changed is still <redacted> last I checked.

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1513762387710517248?s=20

However, things were about to change when a “motley crew” of curious minds on Twitter started asking the right questions.. things like the safety of GOF research and the going-ons of Wuhan lab in particular, the provenance of RaTG13 (a whole lot of it was shrouded in mystery)...

...and how unseemly adapted SARS2 was for human transmission. The turning point came in the form of an MSc thesis written by a Chinese medical student - at least for me and I believe a large majority of people I know.

Six miners fell ill from...well, you know how the story goes.

New clues popped up from time to time: EHA’s grant receipts, records of WIV databases going offline, Chinese grant records, WIV patents, unreported expeditions to Mojiang, previously unpublished SARSr-CoVs and more WIV theses - all largely hidden from the public eye.

This opened up a can of worms. A theory ridiculed at first, started being embraced.

Nevertheless, we were still skimming the surface.

All this while DRASTIC was digging deeper by the day, finding helpful and valuable information, archiving, brainstorming and documenting them in numerous threads, articles and research papers, and providing data on the various likelihoods.

In time, as more inconsistencies were being uncovered, there was a progressive but inexorable change of perspective in favor of the lab-origin theory.

That’s also when the Chinese state media started trashing DRASTIC, and me - and yes it’s in my resume.

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1431038184272498692?s=20

In parallel two commissions of inquiry were at work - having members who had directly funded the research at Wuhan. I didn’t expect much to begin with, but holy shit, this was next level.

Thankfully through FOIA lawsuits, the public learned more about the EcoHealth opprobrium.

As science was being impeded by mischaracterizing, removing, or disregarding relevant scientific information... a select group of scientists and journalists kept the fight going to have a realistic chance of an investigation.

...And the work continues.

The next big revelation came in Sept 2021, with the DEFUSE proposal - a grant application, although rejected but it put all of their research plans together into a cogent whole.

This led a lot to reexamine their assumptions.

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1439943910390845448?s=20

Even the hardcore fanatical supporters of zoonosis were perplexed and outraged.

But seemingly, they have moved on from pangolins, to civets and then to raccoon dogs as the culprits.

But just how convincing is their theory?

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1501945948913954816?s=20

VIRAL by @Ayjchan and @mattwridley was a huge milestone. It synthesized both the origin theories impartially and got many to grasp what the key pieces of evidence are.

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1484491188380254211

?

Meanwhile, papers with grossly false and unscientific arguments which should already have been invalidated during peer review, were still being published.

https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1497932140389945350?s=20

Thinking back, I have had critical, informed conversations with a lot of virologists about the growing circumstantial evidence of a lab leak. Some would say this is sky-is-blue sort of thing: lab accidents are a well-known phenomenon, and mistakes happen, more than you’d think.

Some would categorically ignore all evidence pointing towards the lab.

And some were conservative on what can be inferred, wishing to keep all options open, exclude nothing.

I have more respect for the latter.

Lately, even more intriguing elements have come forth. Ben Hu along with two other colleagues, Ping Yu & Yan Zhu, are said to have carried out risky experiments at the WIV, and the first to be infected. If true, it would largely correspond to expectations.

https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1668879230803881988?s=20

US is expected to release previously classified documents – which could include the names of the three Wuhan scientists.

I so wish that there is more clarity on this.

Even with gaps in the data, there’s admirable clarity on the nature of the research that took place in Wuhan - and the coexisting secrecy.

Answers still lie somewhere - but until and unless it’s made public, it would prevent a lot of us from drawing the right conclusions.

What matters is the impact of the research. If you’re trying to do assess the spillover potential of a SARS-like virus, especially ones with pandemic potential, it might, well, you know, spill over and cause a pandemic. What really matters is the truth.

One more thing I learned during my course of inquiry, is that although the COVID origins theory has advanced on multiple fronts, and has implications for literally everyone, it has mostly been a virology battle. This makes sense, but I feel that there has to be a larger debate.

So, are there things that are yet to be clarified? Yes, a whole lot. Have the baseline perceptions of the risk of lab accidents changed? I would hope so. Has funding risky science become more accountable and transparent to whom it was supposed to serve? I don’t know, you tell me.

I'm probably off base and missing a great deal of nuances.

But to finish with, I feel fortunate to be part of this story. My Drastic mates from varied geography and background - you have been compelling.

It is a great pleasure to have known certain scientists, journos, and anonymous people who were very prompt and helpful to me, encouraging me all the way.

Not to mention those working behind the scenes to uncover the truth.

I regret that I couldn't keep in touch.

So anyways, just my thoughts.

And here I am again hoping that the momentum to demand transparency from these institutions will bear fruit.

Thank you! I will be back for more.