Now I’m thoroughly embarrassed. Please point out the factually incorrect things I tagged you. I’m just obsessed with this situation. And I imagine it’s very taxing for you to actually correspond with everyone.
-
-
Replying to @zhihuachen @zeynep
At the risk of getting blocked
, I’ll still link here the three things I tagged you with, which I don’t think are factually incorrect. Two are critiques of specifics, one takes inspiration from your discussion of civets. By the way, I read your piece and thought it very helpful1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zhihuachen @zeynep
Zhihua Chen Retweeted Zhihua Chen
Zhihua Chen added,
Zhihua Chen @zhihuachenReplying to @zhihuachen @zeynepStill the phrasing is a bit odd here - the Shi team themselves published on their bat sampling trips to this mine years ago. It doesn’t take this PhD thesis by someone who is not from WIV, and who only mentioned WIV bat sampling in passing, to “reveal” WIV bat sampling.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zhihuachen @zeynep
Zhihua Chen Retweeted Zhihua Chen
critique 2, forwarding someone else’s discussion.https://twitter.com/zhihuachen/status/1409162687762911236 …
Zhihua Chen added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zhihuachen @zeynep
Zhihua Chen Retweeted Zhihua Chen
Last one, expansion on exonerating civets. And I will stop.https://twitter.com/zhihuachen/status/1408515985326456837?s=21 …
Zhihua Chen added,
Zhihua Chen @zhihuachenReplying to @zeynepIf we take out the civets, and consider direct bat-human transmission, doesn’t it mean that 19 years after SARS1, we still haven’t found out how the virus reached Guangzhou from the Yunnan caves over 1000 kilometers away - exactly the same situation we are in right now with1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zhihuachen
OK much easier to follow, thank you. Answers in a bit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @zhihuachen
Last one is easiest. Bat-to-human plausibility makes the search for the intermediary animal less necessary as proof of lack of lab involvement. But makes bats at labs a higher risk factor. Also people living near bats. So it’s not leaning in a single direction, weight-wise.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @zhihuachen
Two: in July, Dr. Shi says testing “recent” and vouches for all other labs in Wuhan as well. There’s not enough clarity there re:timing but I take recent to mean recent.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @zhihuachen
First one: the problem has always been lack of a simple and obvious acknowledgment to 4991 and the outbreak in the initial Nature paper. Whatever else was/wasn’t acknowledged elsewhere hasn’t been the issue raised.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
Agreed that the 2020 nature paper didn’t make any connection to 4991, the bat sample id (Ge XY 2016 Virological Sinica) which the Shi team consistently made use of to construct names in prior publications for this particular coronavirus they sampled from the mojiang mine.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Agreed. So I think this addresses the three points you raised? (Other two up thread).
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
