Read the 2nd Yan et al. report. It was frustrating… each statement requires fact-checking to the point where, instead of pointing out the errors, it may be better for someone to write an independent article discussing the circumstantial evidence pointing to lab origins.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

Again the report is littered with errors, but I do wonder why there hasn't been international impetus to investigate the source of these SARS2-like viruses. Why not go to the Yunnan mine to look for more RaTG13s? Why not investigate the miners – what actually happened in 2012?

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

I'm glad Yan is shining the spotlight on these research integrity issues. But I worry that framing the verifiable misdirection surrounding RaTG13/pangolins within a specious article may actually hurt the legitimacy of research integrity inquiries regarding SARS2-like viruses.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

If you read the actual theses, the medical thesis concludes, based on expert consultations, that the severe pneumonia in the 6 miners was caused by a SARS-like CoV from Rhinolophus bats.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

Re: "severe discrepancies" between the 2 theses, I think the number of patients sampled and the type of antibody tests are actually not in disagreement with each other. The 2 theses were written years apart. More tests were run in the follow-up on the miners.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

Back to report, Yan et al. claim because a cover-up was "orchestrated by the CCP".. "the unleashing of the virus must be a planned execution rather than an accident". I disagree. Just because something is accidental, doesn't mean it has no consequences & will be admitted openly.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

I'm not saying SARS2 has lab origins, only that lab origins should be investigated alongside natural origins – a POV that 1 pro-natural origins expert also espouses, and indeed will be investigated by the Lancet's team led by a long-time WIV collaborator. https://t.co/SsQOAeH6e1

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

I urge a shift away from bioweapons speculation back onto solid ground: the research integrity concerns surrounding some of the closest viruses to SARS2.

These are discussed in Yan's report, but completely overshadowed by claims about SARS2 being an "unrestricted bioweapon".

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

I go to town on research misconduct in this thread – what it is and how bad actors are enabled when misconduct is not addressed appropriately and in a timely manner. https://t.co/t48Ckjn2oJ

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

On the other extreme, scientists are trying to pick out parts that they can verify and hopefully still use, e.g. raw data, from papers suffering from integrity issues – as opposed to urging that these papers be retracted or release full details on sample processing etc.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

… that they are aware that the paper/data in question suffers from research integrity issues, but they have chosen to use the data anyway in the trust/belief that it was not impacted by the misconduct.

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

From what I've seen, people have their own opinions of what counts as definitive evidence. For example, some think that because a lab-escape pandemic has never been shown to happen before, therefore SARS2 lab origins are implausible. https://t.co/FDPpg5caQd

— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) October 11, 2020

considering it took me *three minutes* in BLAST to demonstrate one of her claims as being ridiculous & it only got worse from there… yeah. this paper is not salvageable imho, not even in theory.https://t.co/WTDahVg5cm

— Jasnah Kholin – 8964 – ACAB (@wanderer_jasnah) October 11, 2020

Yan is too biased toward bioweapon theory just as earlier Nature papers rushed to natural origin. Current evidences not conclusive for both. Two open threads, 1) possible lab leak; 2) ccp obstruction. Investigative journalists, its once a lifetime opportunity

— CovidOriginFraud_Tenure_Secured (@HL3133) October 11, 2020

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Alina. The only way we can navigate through these politically charged waters is with rational, curious scientists like you sharing objective takes.

— CHT (@PrometheusAM) October 11, 2020