You’re quoting me but absolutely ignoring my question. Amazing. How about focus this energy to get EcoHealth to release the data it should have years ago? Or mention that Calisher, Paliser and Roizman—as eminent as it gets—have said much harsher things than Chan? Or even Baric?
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter
The pile-on a single postdoc when there are so many actual, important and substantial questions… It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
7 replies 6 retweets 84 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
What’s pathetic is the tongue-in-cheek implication that EcoHealth is somehow responsible for the pandemic as the DRASTIC et al goal posts keep moving from Mojiang cave to what now, furtive samples from Laos? With an FCS stitched in at BSL2? Just asking questions? Give me a break.
16 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @macroliter
Very straightforward. Why haven’t they released all their data, and why have so many of their statements contradicted their previous ones—or known facts as unearthed? You tell me why. “We prepare for pandemics but we’re going to sit on our data in the middle of an actual one”?
3 replies 20 retweets 121 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don’t speak for EcoHealth. So I’m the wrong person to ask. But I find it bizarre that we are focusing so intently on ever more obscure revelations about EcoHealth or what Rand Paul claims about Fauci, etc., while the evidence increasingly underscores natural emergence.
12 replies 2 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @macroliter
In the 80s, the Turkish government insisted there was “no evidence” that there was torture in jails. You can’t talk about “the evidence” when evidence is so profoundly censored. We’re talking about EcoHealth because they won’t even give us what little evidence might be available.
6 replies 13 retweets 83 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter
It would be helpful if the field tried to focus on actual evidence, what little might be available. Or how “frozen food chain” ended up being rated as “more likely” than *anything* lab related by experts. Or why the Lancet and other case reports don’t match WHO report whatsoever.
2 replies 8 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter
So anyone insisting on what we *do* know should try to define the scope. You will immediately hit EcoHealth as an inexplicable obstruction. This is taxpayer-funded research. It’s a pandemic. Why don’t we have access to it? At least I get what the Chinese government is doing.
2 replies 17 retweets 108 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
The substance of what you’re holding on to here is Tucker Carlson’s playbook. Be indignant as you wish. But I won’t confuse absence of evidence with actual evidence.
17 replies 3 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @macroliter
This whole debate started when you jumped into my mentions when I objected to Chan’s perfectly factual, reasonable questions to EcoHealth being censored by Twitter. The real scandal is why is she the only one asking these questions? Where is the rest of you?
11 replies 21 retweets 144 likes
If you want to claim some evidence, you at least have to participate in unearthing what evidence may exist. And the censorious, authoritian governments around the world are perfectly capable of playing this game. “Look no evidence” since we censor it.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
OK. Putting aside COVID’s origin, I’m
with you. Censorship sucks but it often flows from raw political power and is a double-edged sword. Ugly authoritarian regimes are all too eager to harness the fury of their masses by blaming other countries for the “China virus.”4 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @macroliter @zeynep
The Chinese absolutely love the "lab leak" notion. It's a useful distraction for them. "Whoopsie, we allowed the same conditions underlying the rise of SARS1 to happen a second time"
1 reply 1 retweet 5 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.