@janeqiuchina @scotub It is not a good point but a misrepresentation, @janeqiuchina

MIGHT in English is for definitely less than 50% - typically 30% or less.

High/good probability, especially with that 大, put it clearly above 50% to be the most plausible cause. 60% is a good benchmark.

@janeqiuchina @scotub A correction is needed as you switched the probabilities in Zhong Nan Shan's statement.
This is unacceptable - a basic no-no in journalism.

And no, his overall conclusion about it being still a mystery is due as he says to the different opinion of ‘local clinicians’.

@janeqiuchina @scotub What ZNS says is clear:

- his diagnosis was good/high probability of viral infection (you have his wording!)
- local clinicians a the time, and later Shi, instead favored a fungal infection.
- so it is OVERALL still a mystery.

@janeqiuchina @scotub And you also miss the fact that ZNS has treated more SARS-1 patients than any other doctor in China.
His diagnosis matters.

Also you miss the fact that all the conclusions at the end of the thesis were followed and proven correct.
His opinion clearly mattered!

@janeqiuchina @scotub Also I find it disingenuous that you never mention the gag orders that cover any research and statement by anybody in China regarding the possible origins.

You wrote an article as if you interviewed in Belgium or Brazil, not in a country with CDC and State Council gag orders.

@janeqiuchina @scotub The minimum as a journalist would have been to mention this.

Don't necessarily bring in up in the interview (maybe a bad idea), but at least find a way to mention that fact in your article to give some much needed context and let the reader decide.

@janeqiuchina @scotub @threadreaderapp compile