Private channel session 1773
7 messages over 33m, 2022-04-30 – 2022-04-30.
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.
-
I don't agree with this summary by exLLer MC.. And JC's BINGO would not be my response. What happened is that WE threw out a bunch of scenarios - many people on the call trashed us for even considering Lab Leak. Franky the most substantive thing I took away was that we needed to be circumspect about the computartional prediction ofO-linked glycans, which we were. [shared file(s): image.png]
-
Everything said on the call we had already internally discussed and considered. Full stop. There's nothing more to it- other than sour grapes from Baric.
-
100%
-
Plus, the call was explicitly private/confidential as it should have been. Everyone on the call signed uo for thatstipulation.
-
Another black mark from me for Jesse - that call was confidential too. Yet he felt the need to blast out with his own spin. eBan failed to mention she was publishing JB's notes and you and I were left to say basically that we weren't going to discussdetails about a confidential call with heads of NIH. NO opportunity to respond to JB's BS.
-
It shoud be obvious wht Tony, Francis and Lawrence refuse to release those private emails re the confidential calls and summary of confidential consultations with experts.
-
If govt officials can't privately consult with experts and not assure those experts that everything they say will not belater revealed and raked over how can said experts expected to be free to provide unfettered consultation? Next time it might be something really important :face_with_rolling_eyes: