Completely false. Even Ralph Baric—THE expert—does not. https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1397809179197284357 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @RadCentrism
Actually that is not true, here is a paper co-authored by Ralph Baric agreeing with the WHO finding that a lab leak is "extremely unlikely"https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 …
4 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Baric: “the two theories were not given balanced consideration.” That is the opposite of “agreeing.” Finish that PhD so you can catch up with the rest of the class.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RadCentrism
He literally co-authored a paper disagreeing with you, if you dislike this fact then you should perhaps reassess your position rather than be rude. Cheerio
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
You really can’t read, can you?
Baric, et al: “WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient…we agree with the WHO director-general.”2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RadCentrism @GidMK
@GidMK pls read the contents of the open letter properly.. If Baric did say unlikely in the past, it then seems he changed his stand since he is one of the signees of the open letter..1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The Nature Comms letter explicitly says that while the idea should be INVESTIGATED that it is UNLIKELY. These are not at all contentious or irreconcilable statements
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @RadCentrism
You mean
@amymaxmen, who is so unhappy lab leak is being investigated?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.