Google Translate: "Past history: Denial of special medical history Physical examination: 51 buccal leaning, 11 erupting, 6 erupting deep pits and fissures Auxiliary inspection results: Diagnosis: 1. Retention of primary teeth 8/
-
-
There are lots of remaining questions. Why did a journal article and multiple doctors and hospitals report Chen's COVID onset date as Dec 16 if it was actually Dec 8? If the dental record is from a child, and the rest from Mr Chen, why are they in the same patient handbook? 18/
Show this thread -
Are the medical records from Dec 9 and 11 Mr Chen's? As noted in my paper: *** December: a medical record from 9 December, shown in reference S4, states that the patient “has had a fever for one day” and prescribes two antibiotics, cefmetazole, and piperacillin sodium. *** 19/
Show this thread -
If so, were these antibiotics for a respiratory infection? And why does Liang say "he also started experiencing cold-like symptoms such as headaches and dizziness on December 8", but not mention a fever or antibiotic treatment? 20/
Show this thread -
Why does Chen say that his fever "began" on Dec 16, if this Dec 8/9 fever was his and due to COVID? And what about the time between onset and ICU admission, which is *very long* 22 days if Chen became ill with COVID on Dec 8 (From Ren et al, cited in my support materials): /21pic.twitter.com/EwtHxHihwO
Show this thread -
Note that the 4 other patients in the study had onset-to-ICU of 7 or 8 days. Similarly, 22 days from onset to positive sample is quite long, for Chen. Not impossible, but long. /22
Show this thread -
But the key thing - media coverage focusing on Mr Chen notwithstanding - is that WE SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE EARLIEST KNOWN CASES WITH THE VERY FIRST CASES. Before discussing the Dec 8 or 16 onset of Mr Chen, and the Dec 10 onset of Ms Wei, a Huanan vendor... /23
Show this thread -
...I wrote this: "Additionally, the earliest known cases should not necessarily be expected to be the first infected or linked to Huanan Market: They probably postdated the outbreak’s index case by a considerable period (10)..." 24/
Show this thread -
Even if Mr Chen got sick on Dec 8, two days before Ms Wei, there's almost no chance that either is the primary case of the pandemic. Ref 10, above, is a paper I co-authored with
@jepekar and Joel Wertheim: 25/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf8003 …Show this thread -
We showed that the first human case in Wuhan likely occurred around mid-Nov. Crucially - and this has been missed or ignored by Liang Wannian and many strong believers in a lab origin of the pandemic - our median simulation showed just *nine* infections by Dec 1. Nine! 26/
Show this thread -
So this idea in vogue with lab origin aficionados that the Chinese authorities are hiding droves of cases before December is just nonsense. And whether Ms Wei was the 1st or 2nd known patient... 27/
Show this thread -
...what is remarkable is the evidence of cases so early among vendors in a soccer field-sized live wildlife market building. There were perhaps a few hundred such individuals, versus 11 million inhabitants in Wuhan. 28/
Show this thread -
The possibility that one of the 11 million or so people who did not work at the market may (or may not) have edged out a market worker by 2 days in symptom onset is not surprising if the outbreak started at the market. As I noted in the paper. 29/
Show this thread -
What *would* be astounding is finding so many early cases linked to this market if the virus had moved from the community to the market rather than vice versa. 30/
Show this thread -
And you can't explain away this pattern by arguing that so many Huanan-linked cases were discovered because that's just where people were looking. That is not true. And that was the main point of the paper. 31/
Show this thread -
The other key point, which too has upset Liang Wannian because it is true, is that early cases *unlinked* to the market tended to live around and near to the market. That points very strongly toward a market origin and community spread beginning around the market. 32/
Show this thread -
For Liang to dismiss that point simply shows that he doesn't understand it. And, in case it is not obvious, I made that argument with Liang's *own* data from the WHO-China report, which I understand must be especially aggravating. 33/
Show this thread -
What is bemusing is the idea that Chinese authorities hid a bunch of earlier cases so that they could...publish a report that contains strong evidence implicating a live-wildlife market origin of SARS-CoV-2! 34/
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.