I refuse to be gaslit into believing that it's ok to evade legitimate questions about conflicts of interest by speculating about the emotional state of the asker. This happens all the time to women. Surely @Ayjchan is as sick of it as I am. And also, it's a pretty weak response
I refuse to be gaslit into believing that it's ok to evade legitimate questions about conflicts of interest by speculating about the emotional state of the asker. This happens all the time to women. Surely @Ayjchan is as sick of it as I am. And also, it's a pretty weak response https://t.co/Fg0B4TBJxf
@angie_rasmussen I agree that my earlier response was in poor form. I have now created a thread where anyone can comment. x.com/ayjchan/status…
@angie_rasmussen I agree that my earlier response was in poor form. I have now created a thread where anyone can comment. x.com/ayjchan/status…
@Ayjchan Great. I saw that you really did not address most of the concerns I raised, but perhaps you are not finished yet since you instead decided to fabricate more defamatory speculations about Eddie Holmes. I look forward to further clarifications.
@angie_rasmussen Can you clarify what defamatory speculations I have made about Ed Holmes? It is clear from the data deposited on the public NCBI database that he collaborated with the Wuhan Institute Virology lab suspected of being involved in #OriginOfCovid
@angie_rasmussen You mentioned in your thread that it was obvious (to who?) that Holmes had collaborated with the Wuhan scientists when he authored Proximal Origin and all the other manuscripts dismissing lab #OriginOfCovid - did none of the co-authors suggest declaring this obvious relationship?
@Ayjchan It was obvious to anyone who looked up Eddie’s publication record. Do you know why he was at Huanan market in 2014 when he took his raccoon dog pic? I do—it’s because his collaborators in Wuhan brought him there to see an environment they considered high risk for virus emergence.
@angie_rasmussen His collaborators at the Wuhan CDC are not the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the latter collaboration was only revealed this summer. Just because a scientist works in Wuhan doesn't mean they are in the lab suspected to be involved in #OriginOfCovid
@angie_rasmussen Do you mean that the co-authors of the @ScienceMagazine market #OriginOfCovid papers knew that Holmes was collaborating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2018 on novel SARS-like viruses and collectively decided this was not a COI to declare? x.com/angie_rasmusse…
@angie_rasmussen @ScienceMagazine I can't think of a stronger COI except for personally working in the Wuhan lab suspected to be implicated in #OriginOfCovid If you funded or collaborated with Wuhan scientists on collecting and studying novel SARS-like viruses, you'd hope this work didn't lead to the pandemic.
@Ayjchan @ScienceMagazine Again, WIV is not “suspected to be implicated” based on anything but your imagination. There is no evidence—NONE—that WIV had SARS-CoV-2, a progenitor virus, or even a closely related backbone in its collection. That is all conjecture. COI is not based on invented facts.
@Ayjchan @angie_rasmussen @ScienceMagazine And as @alchemytoday pointed out, to the extent the forgotten collaboration was a COI, that's now disclosed & could not have led to SARS2. That's documented by sequences deposited in 2018; Holmes says he's sent the manuscript & emails to WHO (45:35-45:50) youtu.be/5u94foNmpKE