Private channel session 1744
40 messages over 1h 53m, 2022-02-16 – 2022-02-16.
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.
-
Sorry - I may be a couple of hours as we have tradies here.
-
Just FYI - draft of letter that'll go back to the GOP'ers tomorrow. [shared file(s): 2.17.22 Scripps Letter_Dr. Kristian Andersen_kga.DOCX]
-
... and obviously - please keep this confidential.
-
I'll read when I get a chance. My Uni were just putting out a press statement:
-
"Professor Holmes was part of an international team that carefully and independently considered the origins of COVID-19 and found no scientific evidence that it was due to laboratory escape. This resulted in the publication of a peer-reviewed scientific paper,_The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2_, which was submitted on 17 February 2020. Dr Collins and Dr Fauci played no role in writing this paper.A number of eminent scientists, including Professor Holmes, initially had concerns that the virus may have alaboratory origin, so they organised a teleconference with a group of experts. Scientific discussion during the teleconference concluded that many of these concerns were unfounded. As the discussions took place, the first data from a coronavirus in pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found inSARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature. The conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 likely has a natural origin was based entirely on available scientific evidence. Professor Holmes strongly defends the integrity and independence of his research, which is driven by the pursuit ofscientific truth and no other purpose.*If asked, how will Professor Holmes be responding to the letter?*He will not be responding to the letter."
-
Is this online?
-
This bit reads quite funny to me: "A number of eminent scientists, including Professor Holmes, initially had concerns that the virus may have a laboratory origin, so they organised a teleconference with a group of experts. Scientific discussion during the teleconference concluded that many of these concerns were unfounded. As the discussions took place, the first data from a coronavirus in pangolins became available"It makes it sound as if all of this happened on the conference call - which, of course, isn't true.
-
Just a draft. Can be changed.
-
"A number of eminent scientists, including Professor Holmes, initially had concerns that the virus may have a laboratory origin, so they organised a teleconference with a group of experts. Scientific discussion during the teleconference concluded that many of these concerns were unfounded. Professor Holmes and his peers did further analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 genome data, which pointed to a natural origin, and during this time the first data from acoronavirus in pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found inSARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature. The conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 likely has a natural origin was based entirely on available scientific evidence."
-
I think that might need some work - several things that people can poke holes in. Might be worth lifting some language from my previous answers on this (especially #3): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html
-
What's point #3? I can't read this. Also, it's only going to be used if people ask.
-
shared file(s): Lab-Leak Theory_ Kristian Andersen On His Fauci Email and Covid Origins - The New York Times.pdf
-
*In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that "we do not believe that any typeof laboratory-based scenario is plausible." Can you explain how the research changed your view?* The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren't. Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us toreject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other "lab"-based scenarios were still on the table. Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, welooked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses. Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of acompeting hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.
-
I honestly don't see how that differs from what we've said.
-
It doesn't if you're a reasonable person. However, just two examples: "SARS-CoV-2 genome data" > how can you decide it's natural based on genome data alone? "pangolins became available, which clearly showed that some of the unusual features found in SARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature" > so your conclusions are based only on the pangolin data?
-
I have to say I disagree.
-
Your lawyers letter says "This was indicative of the view of Dr. Andersen and his co-authors that it was impossible toprove or disprove specific hypotheses as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2" while the PO paper actually says "we do not believe that any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible".
-
To me that's a straight contradiction
-
Straight from our paper - "The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 inhumans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses innature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible"
-
Right, but we do actually then state that no laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
-
If I were on the other side I would then ask why you wrote this second sentence?
-
Well, that's the genius of that sentence - it says "we do not _*believe*_ that any type of laboratory based scenario is_*plausible*_". "Not plausible" does not mean "impossible".
-
not-plausible to me means has a non-zero probability but still small
-
Yup
-
As Kristian says - the categorical bit is 'any'
-
My problem your letter is that it ends with the its impossible to prove/disprove statement whereas the paper has more.
-
"Believe" does a lot of heavy lifting here too - clearly this is our opinion (based on all the data, expertise, etc).
-
Maybe we should jump on that call?
-
I have a call with Gates in 5mins unfortunately
-
Bill?
-
Or Mel?
-
I can't as I have a plumber here
-
Give him my regards...
-
Just the Gates team - I don't expect Bill will show up... And they're probably going to waste my time. Let's hop on a call tomorrow though - there are a few things we need to discuss
-
Bill and the plumber too Eddie..
-
Prove: P = 1, disprove P = 0, plausible (say) P > 0.9, not plausible P = 1 - plausible
-
Or perhaps Plausible P > 0.1 but not plausible P < 0.1
-
:man-shrugging:
-
It will have to be after 3pm central for me...one of my few lectures I give....
-
I am available anytime tomorrow. Just give me a bit of warning so I don't drink too much wine first.