"it is evident that the viruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant are very far distant from SARS-CoV-2." There is no way to verify this claim given we don't know all the sequences involved in the research.https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1418280837255073793?s=20 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Most importantly, why was the Year 5 progress report submitted on 08/03/2021, two year after it was actually supposed to be submitted? How do we know they didn't make any alterations?pic.twitter.com/wlYaa0YGbq
Show this thread -
The same happened with the Year 4 progress report: "EcoHealth Alliance submitted the report to its funder, the NIH, in September 2020...The annual report described the group’s work from June 2017 to May 2018" Yup, totally normal.https://theintercept.com/2021/10/01/nih-bat-coronavirus-grant-ecohealth-alliance/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Think they will comply w full transparency? I have my doubts…
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The viruses are distant "as they are." But, could they have been sliced and diced, and parts became backbone of SC2?
-
There's a possibility that the virus wasn't characterized (https://twitter.com/TheSeeker268/status/1409814636778508291?s=20 …), or that it was a consensus genome/lab recombinant from the viruses they characterized.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is YUGE.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Three years, and one pandemic, after the date on which actions should have started. Who at NIH shielded EcoHealth from compliance actions for its serial violations of Terms and Conditions of NIH grants?
-
God this whole thing just gets more and more bonkers every day.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@NIH at such pains to emphasise that this specific grant didn't result in SARS2. Telling us to look at one tree and forget the forest. They helped WIV refine a type of work that, using a different backbone, could have generated SARS2. Now making up for appalling lack of oversight -
They are being outright deceptive. It rules out SARS-CoV-2 being a infectious clone because they used the WIV1 backbone, but it doesn’t rule out SARS-CoV-2 being isolated in cell lines or tested on humanised mice/lab animals during the course of an experiment.
@R_H_Ebright
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.
