Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture
Pointy Head.
Medical Science and Technology #terapiedomiciliari Profile picture Gilles Demaneuf Profile picture 2 added to My Authors
14 Apr
Let's talk about BSL4 positive pressure suits.

Here is Shi ZhengLi in her Delta (French) suit, manufactured by Sperian Protection (Honeywell).
Also called the 'white' suit. Image
Basically you have the choice between the White, Blue and Yellow suits. Image
Practically they all suck in one way or another, and are prone to breaking.

"The Delta (Sperion) suits just don't last long - even with lighter use"

The Delta suit is the suit used at the WIV.
That's where the positive air pressure comes in otherwise it would be really lethal. Image
Read 15 tweets
10 Apr
The SCMP makes for some very interesting reading this morning.
I cannot fail to recall that Beijing is forcing Jack Ma to sell the SCMP and more of his media assets.…
These are the best pieces:
Read 12 tweets
9 Apr
A courageous article by @ParkSuAm1996 in the HK South China Morning Post.

Well done Eduardo and the SCMP, the questions of transparency and willingness to oppenly learn from mistakes are essential.
It is also very nice to see Tony Della Porta, one of the foremost experts on lab safety, stepping in.

His work on the 2003 Singapore and Taiwan SARS lab leaks set the standard.

Unfortunately he was not selected for the bad Beijing SARS leak in 2004.…
We cannot keep going back to the same transparency failures.

This is really starting to feel like a Truman Show.

We need to escape that silly staged world which is totally uncompatible with a country running many (and building many more) labs.
Read 6 tweets
8 Apr
@China__Focus Sorry @China_Focus, but you have been caught lying.

The 700 tests ILI samples from the Wuhan Xiehe Hospital - not from the WIV (which anyway has 590 staff and students).

#DASTIC @franciscodeasis @Tantalite
From Annex D7 of the China-WHO study report:
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite The WIV did test some lab staff in April 2019 and March 2020.

It should have tested all 590 staff and students, plus construction workers.

Given that the prevalent IgG+ rate in Wuhan was about 4.4% at the time then there would have been positive tests.
@China__Focus @china_focus @franciscodeasis @Tantalite First let's be clear that the prevalent IgG+ rate was around 4.4% in urban Wuhan around April 2020
(95% confidence interval: 4.0%-4.8%).

Read 11 tweets
2 Apr
Anybody who really wants to understand China's attitude today would benefit from reading Chapter 5 of this excellent book:
According to this table from the WHO update of the 16h March SARS had nothing to do with China. No case officially reported - just some unrelated atypical pneumonia.

SARS clearly must have started in Hong Kong or Vietnam.
Anyway according to Chinese scientists these atypical pneumonia cases in China were Chlamydia pneumonia, which can be treated with antibiotics - no worry it's all under control.

Keep moving and check Hong Kong instead.
Read 15 tweets
31 Mar
This was written in 2004.

Swap Covid-19 for SARS, Wuhan for Guangdong and 2003 for 2019 and the whole story is very similar.
If anybody thought that things would change, then they clearly got it badly wrong.

China - or more correctly its government - did not change when it comes to transparency in such matters.

No. It would rather change US.…
The main problem is that we are using a 19th century governance framework to address 21st century threats.

This needs to be fixed before SARS3.
Read 7 tweets
30 Mar
This is the crux of the matter.

Add to that the team leader, Peter Embarek, is a foodborne diseases expert. Maybe that explains why China chose him instead of the 3 US candidates.

No surprise then that the report goes for food-induced zoonoses, despite any evidence for it.
When you have a hammer as only tool (and there was not one lab-forensic expert in the team) - then everything is a nail.

We needed people like Tony Della Porta.…

But wait, China did not want him to do the investigation of the SARS Beijing leaks in 2004.
The problem is that Tony did a great job investigating the Singapore SARS leak and then the Taiwan SARS one in 2003.

Way too good a job for Beijing. So he was not picked up.

And predictably the WHO 'investigation' of the Beijing leak was a whitewash.
👉🏻No report ever published!
Read 8 tweets
30 Mar
I thought it would be useful to include the missing labels in this Chinese paper.

Always happy to help.
The paper is there:…

The incomplete graph is part of the supplements:…
That's nicely in line with my favourite China CDC update:…
Read 5 tweets
29 Mar
@MFA_China Why don't you start by scientifically explaining the obvious manipulations of the 2019 cases by China?

Here is a good start from your very own CDC (27th Jan 20): Image
@MFA_China I have a full catalogue of your 'disappearing' confirmed cases.…

I am not sure what you definition of science but mine does not allow for crude lies and manipulations. Image
@MFA_China With a good example of the CDC gag order of the 25th Feb 2020 at play:

Read 11 tweets
29 Mar
It strikes me as incredible that when in China to negotiate the Terms of References (ToRS) in July 2020, the WHO accepted totally restrictive ToRs despite deploring that China had hardly done any epidemiological investigation at all since Jan 20.…
Peter Embarek even complained about it in an internal WHO memo that leaked.

Still China got a free pass and ToRs that forced the joint team to rely exclusively on Chinese studies (not even started - China having done near to nothing).
I cannot understand how one could accept that.

Is that because the ToR negotiation team leader, Peter Embarek, had spent 2 years in Beijing advising the Chinese government, and this could not imagine anything going wrong?
Read 7 tweets
29 Mar
60 minutes has just exposed on prime TV the total lack of evidence for the natural pathway and the flimsiness of the wishy-washy joint-study.…
The most amazing is that more than one year has now elapsed, and all there is to show is nothing: no positive animal at the market, no animal reservoir found, no traces of previous infection in South China - nothing.

It's the immaculate infection.

But for those with the faith it's good enough to rule out the lab-leak theory - because our Chinese friends are very clear about it.

You would believe them, wouldn't you? They tend to tell the[ir] truth.

Read 6 tweets
21 Mar
Am I the only one having problems making sense of the confirmed cases graphs in the WHO report of the 24th Feb 2020?

Page 7 is very troubling.

First there is an error of 2 days in the reporting dates of the 3 graphs (7/14/22 of Feb instead of 5/12/20).…
Then the first case (8th Dec) in the 1st graph (reporting as of the 5/7? Feb) is missing in the 2nd Graph [12/14? Feb].

And all the Dec 19 cases are missing in the 3rd graph [20/22? Feb], and there is some shaving of the number of early Jan cases!

Now as these are all laboratory confirmed cases it's really odd. Once it has been reported a case should still be reported in the next graph (next reporting date).

Unless they play around with the onset dates and move the cases around, or simply 'disappear' them.
Read 9 tweets
21 Mar
@FabienColombo @jfjulien @TheSeeker268 @Rossana38510044 @SebViret @jhalloy @franciscodeasis @DecrolyE @sfoucart @JamieMetzl @Ayjchan @MonaRahalkar @Biol4Ever @PeterDaszak @TheSeeker @BillyBostickson @babarlelephant "Higher-level protection measures will be taken when we know that bats in a certain location carry viruses that may be transmitted to humans, and in most cases only ordinary protection will be taken"

Hence the two pictures.
@FabienColombo @jfjulien @TheSeeker268 @Rossana38510044 @SebViret @jhalloy @franciscodeasis @DecrolyE @sfoucart @JamieMetzl @Ayjchan @MonaRahalkar @Biol4Ever @PeterDaszak @TheSeeker @BillyBostickson @babarlelephant How do they know that the viruses cannot be transmitted to humans in some places without regular sampling and despite possible population changes due to human encroachment?

Not sure. I guess they are the experts.
Read 11 tweets
18 Mar
@Daoyu15 @Daoyu15, that is not even the beginning.
As Embarek said himself very well, with 174 Dec 19 known cases, you have typically at least 1,000 Dec 19 cases, which means necessarily Nov 19 cases and likely Oct 19 cases.…
@Daoyu15 And then you have the Silent Numbers, the cabinet of curiosities of blatant manipulations and 'disappeared' Nov and Dec cases.

@Daoyu15 Check the thread above in detail.
One interesting one is the interview with the Health Times where Pr. Yu Chuanhua (in charge of the national database) called back to retract 2 Nov cases just after the gag order of the 25th Feb.
Read 8 tweets
17 Mar
Lies, and more lies from these trusted excellent Chinese scientists who are fully independent:

"To be specific, the onset date of the earliest case was set at December 8, 2019. "…
Is the WHO now sponsoring the important new science of sycophantery?

There were Nov 19 cases, and most likely some Oct 19. The rest is lies. A torrent of lies.

But it's so important for China to deny the obvious so that it can confuse people and pretend that the virus came from abroad.

How much longer is the WHO going to be willing to lend its name to this mockery of science?

Read 6 tweets
17 Mar
That Franceinfo reportage was very good. Too good not to be translated.

Let's start by the visit of the village close to the Mojiang mine:
Here is the translation for that extract:
Then let's move to the very candid assessment by Fabian Leendertz's (joint-mission member):
Read 10 tweets
14 Mar
Another proof of misreported Dec 19 cases.

See this graph below. Many 'Unspecified ' and 'Other' pneumonia deaths in the first 6 weeks of 2020 in the Wuhan monitoring districts (DSPs).

The onset dates of many (if not the majority) of these would typically be in Dec 2019.
You can tie that back to the 'smoking gun' graph below published by the Chinese CDC on the 27th Jan 20.

Basically until Jan 1st, most cases were classified as Other or Unknown pneumonia.

One year later China is still telling us a long story and the WHO is looking the other way.
Read 7 tweets
11 Mar
@PeterDaszak @MarionKoopmans A bit annoying to see David Heymann getting this badly wrong.

'The last case of SARS in 2003 occurred with a laboratory accident in Singapore'

WRONG: The last case of SARS was the very bad lab outbreak in 2004 at the top P3 in China (Beijing).
I am a bit surprised of that mistake.

By the way the #2 on the Chinese side of the Feb 20 WHO trip to China, also #2 of the CDC in China and someone you must have met, was 'sanctioned' for his failures during that leak.

Would have been easy to ask him about it.
Anyway that P3 leak was very bad:

The WHO had limited access, no report was published, and China tried to cover-up the two Feb 04 primary cases.

If it was not for the Chinese investigative press (long gone) we would never have known about these Feb cases…
Read 9 tweets
11 Mar
@Byron_Wan Let's not forget the Thai lion. Better sample that one quicky before it cools down.
@Byron_Wan Be careful, they are two Thai species.
Not to be confused.
@Byron_Wan The elephant (chang) has not been sampled yet. Should really check it too at the Karakoe.

A good 10 years of work to figure the origin, i tell you.
Read 4 tweets
11 Mar
Many inconsistencies in that statement by P. Daszak: about one per sentence.

1/ About the main database taken offline in September 2019:
"What we were told by Shi Zhengli [-], there were 3,000 hacking attempts." and that's why they took it down.
VERDICT: Someone is NOT telling the truth.

Shi Zhengli also said that this happened during the outbreak/pandemic.
But the database was taken offline in September 2019.

Reach your own conclusions...
2/ "They took down this excel spreadsheet database"

VERDICT: Wrong. It's a MySQL database. Are you sure about your source @PeterDaszak?
Read 7 tweets
10 Mar
@Peterfoodsafety @MarionKoopmans

One would expect the final report of the WHO-convened joint-mission to plug some debilitating gaps in what has been reported so far.

Taking just one example:
" [--] they managed to test 67 of these 92; the others were either unavailable, could not be traced, or had died. All 67 turned out negative."

This require clarifications as to:

1. What those who died actually died from.
Was it properly detailed? Were checks made?
2. Why some could not be traced.

Seems very odd, as in China every single citizen is tracked every day via their mobile (essential for purchases and to scan QR code to be able to move around).
Read 7 tweets