What right did that peer-reviewer have to tip Flo?
And to start media circus ahead of the publication of Gao’s paper, with a very slanted narrative?
Since when do peer-reviewers engage in this kind of practice?
All of it while claiming that they are seeking cooperation with Chinese scientists and doing just the opposite?
It’s rather sick to then suggest to Gao that they should cooperate on his paper.
What kind of patronising attitude is that?
Gao can decide who he works with, thanks a… twitter.com/i/web/status/1637039318903693312
You can wait for him to publish his paper and his data, instead of making it more difficult for him to do so.
That’s what the publishing and peer review system is for. Unless obviously you want to preempt it.
No surprise that the WHO was not impressed by that latest circus.
And anyway Gao would have to be mad to work with the very team of Worobey et co that derailed attention to his previous preprint release, by quickly rushing their now largely discredited ‘dispositive’ evidence piece ahead of him, with accompanying media blitz. twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1498830525712121861
Scientists would be smart to take their distance from the very dubious circus orchestrated by Flo and Worobey.
This latest episode raises plenty of questions, of poor science but also of bad ethics, and will likely implode rather soon.
And, by the way, please check the facts when Flo and Worobey claim that sales of raccoon dogs at the market were being hidden by the Chinese.
Both were reminded of the truth a year ago, after they started making these false claims. twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1534641573799276544
See for Flo being clearly pointed to the mention of raccoon dogs sales in the Terms of Reference of the WHO mission one year ago: