Matt Ridley Profile picture
Jun 3 5 tweets 1 min read Read on X
The five key arguments in @Ayjchan's essay, each of which is fully supported by hard evidence:

1. The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, the city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.
2. The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.
3. The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS‑CoV‑2.
4. The hypothesis that Covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.
5. Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mattwridley

Jun 3
Five telling illlustrations from @Ayjchan's superbly clear essay in the New York Times.
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 28
The WHO's track record is not encouraging:

On 14 January 2020, at a time when hospitals in Wuhan were seeing a flood of Covid cases, many of whom had never been near animals in a market and some of whom were in turn infecting healthcare workers, the WHO repeated the Chinese government’s nonsensical insistence that you could normally only catch Covid from an animal, not a person: “it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human-to-human transmission.
The Taiwanese government had by then urged WHO to rethink this dud advice, but the WHO does not even recognise Taiwan’s existence.
A few weeks later, while the Chinese government was punishing medical whistleblowers for telling the truth, Tedros said his admiration for China’s actions went “beyond words”, while praising “China’s commitment to transparency”.
Read 10 tweets
Nov 23, 2023
"Sam Altman, the recently fired (and rehired) chief executive of Open AI, was asked what he thought of the risks of synthetic biology. ‘I would like to not have another synthetic pathogen cause a global pandemic.'"

A thread based on my Spectator article:

spectator.co.uk/article/virolo…
"He is right. There is almost no debate about regulating high-risk virology, whereas the world is in a moral panic about artificial intelligence...In contrast to that still fairly remote risk, the threat the world faces from research on viruses is far more immediate."
"A bat sarbecovirus acutely tuned to infecting human beings but not bats that contains a unique genetic feature of a kind frequently inserted by scientists, caused an outbreak in the one city in the world where scientists were conducting intensive research on bat sarbecoviruses"
Read 18 tweets
Jul 27, 2023
Here's what @K_G_Andersen, lead author of Proximal Origin, the paper that led me to mislead colleagues by telling them a lab leak could be ruled out, said while drafting the paper:

“accidental escape is in fact highly likely”; 🧵

wsj.com/articles/the-c…
Here's what his 3 of his 4 co-authors said:

Andrew Rambaut: “that we are discussing it shows how plausible it is”;
Robert Garry: “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened”;
Edward Holmes: “no way selection could occur in the market”;
Here's what he said after submitting the paper:

“None of this helps refute a lab origin and the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory (which is what we do) and not dismissed out of hand as another 'conspiracy' theory.”
Read 7 tweets
Jun 11, 2023
Thorough, detailed reporting by @Arbuthnott into the work of the Wuhan Institute of Virology - with one or two minor errors, eg picture of fruit bats, not horseshoe bats; and in places not enough credit to the work of others.

The most interesting new revelations are: (thread)
“They were working with the 9 different Covid variants,” one of the investigators said. They believe one virus at the WIV was an even closer match to Covid-19 than RaTG13. “We are confident they were working on a closer unpublished variant — possibly collected in Mojiang,”
“We were rock-solid confident that [illness of 3 researchers] was likely Covid-19 because they were working on advanced coronavirus research in the laboratory of Dr Shi. They’re trained biologists in their thirties and forties. 35yo scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.”
Read 6 tweets
Mar 4, 2023
Fourth thread from my @times essay today.

The WIV did not just hoard bat sarbecoviruses; it experimented on them.

thetimes.co.uk/article/fbi-sa…
By swapping spike genes between bat viruses they sometimes increased the infectivity of the viruses 10,000-fold in mice with human genes.
Some of these experiments were done at inappropriately low biosafety levels. But again, none of the published experiments used a virus that could have directly caused Covid. Were there unpublished ones?
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(