Some are asking for better regulation of pathogen research regardless of Covid origins. I'm with you, but it seems like it's not moving the leaders who have the authority and power to push for those regulations. Their strategy is MORE pathogen research.https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1369824489505177600 …
-
Show this thread
-
Alina Chan Retweeted Alina Chan
MORE pandemic preparedness by conducting MORE virus hunting and pathogen research across MORE countries. *Biosafety level is determined by the country where the research is conducted.https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1409883516247158789 …
Alina Chan added,
Alina ChanVerified account @AyjchanThis is an urgent and important issue that impacts pandemic preparedness and pathogen research worldwide

The same type of research was again funded through EcoHealth Alliance but now done outside of China; project start 2020-06-17
https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/U01-AI151797-01 …Show this thread2 replies 8 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
So... in other words, more of the same research (any new regulation?) that didn't help to prevent or find a cure or vaccine to this pandemic, but might have even potentially caused it. Will the funders actually have an excel spreadsheet tracking the pathogen samples this time?
3 replies 14 retweets 87 likesShow this thread -
This situation... Virologists say that virologists are unlikely to have caused the pandemic. Virologists say that more virology (and more funding for virologists) is needed to prevent a future pandemic.
18 replies 30 retweets 156 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Ayjchan
Oof there are so many logical fallacies in one short thread that it's hurting my head. It's not impossible that it leaked, it is just more probable that it is natural, as most viruses are. So the burden of proof is on those who claim this virus is "special".
7 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @cagrimbakirci @Ayjchan
How are you making that calculation? Just baffles me that people confidently make such claims based on little verifiable evidence—even most basic early outbreak data has been withheld, censored and/or is inconsistent and contradictory. We don’t know much is an honest answer.
5 replies 9 retweets 59 likes -
I agree we don't know much is the honest answer. This thread is not saying that. Ergo, it's a bad take. And in uncertainty, it is better to go with the more plausible explanation than a wilder one. The calculation comes from statistical probability of evolved viruses vs. leaked.
9 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
doesn't a probability assessment like this require some kind of normalization?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At a minimum I’d encourage people to take the epidemiological data published by Chinese scientists in January/February of 2020, try to match it to what’s been told to WHO a year later, notice how much is withheld and contradictory before confidently claiming what’s “more likely”.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Isn't this the case for *anything* with China? They do not release the outcomes of rocket flights until after success. I'm not saying a lab leak cannot happen, of course it can. I am saying "discrepancy" is little evidence (if any) under these circumstances.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
If you spend more than five minutes looking into it, it’s clearly much more than business as usual. There are specific issues, questions and much more. China covers a lot of things up is true but not meaningful to make statistics.
-
-
I am. I read your NYT piece on it too. I am glad people are looking into it but it has a very strong conspiracy undertone to it too. But I don't think *you* mean it. I think the circumstances force the tone to it. We can ask for more investigation without random accusations.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 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.