[7/*] From a reading comprehension standpoint, this is very straightforward (to me). But Twitter is now _littered_ with threads of people who are all over the map on what they are asserting. It's insane. I guess Twitter is where people who failed reading comprehension end up?
I am not clear (and we may not know?) exactly what then transpired, but the NIH's compliance department either demanded the report be filed, or EcoHealth voluntarily filed it after The Intercept reported it missing, or something.
-
-
_That_ report, which _was_ filed after the article you cited, is the one where they admit that they ended up doing gain of function research, although they claim it was accidental. Which, it definitely wasn't by any sane read, but, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt :)
-
So the reason why someone might not mention the NIH grant prior to the missing report being filed is because the public was not yet in possession of any documents where EcoHealth admitted to performing GOF. Does that make sense?
- 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.
[1]