Private channel session 1330
25 messages over 2h 9m, 2021-05-05 – 2021-05-05.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
This should be interesting [shared file(s): upcoming letter]
-
Would definitely be interesting to see it. Don't like the passive aggressive bit about the UK papers breaking theembargo.
-
Yeah, I don't know what that embargo comment was about... I don't expect much from the letter - probably the same uninformed speculation Relman put in PNAS. Which would be very disappointing.
-
If they focus it on "... but they were working in mines and there's this weird FCS", I swear to God, I will not be gentle.Not a good career move on my end if it comes to that, but if it's the same old speculation with no science, well, so beit.
-
I can't think there will be any new science. Would could there be. I bet it will be about the 8 mystery sequences. I'llscream if it rattles on about RaTG13.
-
Yeah, there's no scientific basis, so I'm curious - I'm all for "keeping our eyes open", but not if they justify that aninvestigation must be done because of e.g., RaTG13. We'll see. Kinda funny this'll be in journal called "Science".... :wink:
-
• There's a pretty big difference between a perspective and a letter. *Perspectives* (up to 1000 words plus 1 figure) highlight recent exciting research, but do not primarily discuss the author's own work. They may provide context for the findings within a field or explain potential interdisciplinary importance. Perspectives that comment on papersin _Science_ should add a dimension to the research and not merely be a summary of the experiments described inthe paper. Although many Perspectives that comment on research published in _Science_ are solicited, wewelcome inquiries regarding new advances and fresh insights. As these are meant to express a personal viewpoint,with rare exceptions, Perspectives should have no more than two authors. *Letters* (up to 300 words) discuss material published in _Science_ in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal (*https://cts.sciencemag.org*). Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply. Letter submissions are acknowledged upon receipt by _Science_'s automatic system, but letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters rejected for print publication may be posted as eLetters.
-
So yeah - reading my own post -it's probably a letter not a perspective. "Perspectives should have no more than two authors."
-
Wondering who the other authors are? eDim, Lipstich. Surely they wouldn't put Alina or Metzl. Other Parisites?
-
I would be delighted if they put Metzl on. Alina is a likely one - she really got into Jesse's head.
-
It'd be great if they'd put something specific in there - whatever that might be. That way it's much easier to pick apart. If it's aimless speculation, well, then all one can say is "nothing new in there".
-
You would expect that if _Science_ is going to publish an ostensibly peer-reviewed letter that there would need to besomething specific there. Yes - please Alina's RatG13 and Pangovirus are fake and SC2 is perfectly adapted BS. Ifit's Relman then GoF is gonna be in there. Very disappointed in Jessie Bloom - he admitted he hadn't looked at the science very closely - now he's going in.
-
I hope they say that RaTG13 is the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 and that the pangolin viruses are dodgy. That will clearly show that they've not been listening.
-
Even thou Gorman is and should be on your shit list - I hope you agreed to look at the letter. I wouldn't play nice with Lab Leakers - they all have something else going on.
-
I told Jim I'd take a look. I'll share when I have it.
-
Good! https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-report-says-covid-originated-in-bats-but-critics-claim-the-study-was-biased Relman is in this interview - and imo - this is probably the GW's best interview. Relman is just going to throwup the same arguments he made here and in the PNAS article.
-
It would be good to get some comments from people who aren't us - though.
-
THat's a real good idea. Maybe some of these folks: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32700664/
-
This comment from Daszak is the key one:
-
• *Dr. Peter Daszak:* • Yes, I have been speaking to them for 15 years. If they had found a virus that was high, of high interest that they were working on, they would have told me before the outbreak, because that's what we were doing before the outbreak.• We shared information on a weekly basis. Yes, some of them answer up the party chain, but they also are scientists. If there is something that the intelligence agencies know that they could supply to the WHO team, they would supply it and we will look at that.
-
Daszak is a total charlatan BUT I'd certain he would have known about what was being done at WIV and it talking tohim I'm 100% certain he has no knowledge of anything of note at the WIV. Either that or he's the best liar ever withballs is titanium.
-
First time I heard the PBS interview with Relman - did he actually _read_ the report?
-
He clearly never looked at the Annexes.
-
Nope. If people want to disagree with the conclusions, data, or methodology, fine - but to say that there's "no data" very clearly shows that somebody didn't actually look at the report. It's flat out false.
-
It is a lie. It's meant to distract. It's also easier than arguing the science.