RE: Did you see this petition?

Reading Room Production, p.195 · reading_room:email:00174

Date: 2023-07-20 10:23
Type: email · email
sender: David Spiro
to: Christine Sizemore
Topics: Awards, honoraria and recognition Congressional oversight EcoHealth Alliance funding and grants Proximal Origin paper

Inline-Images: image001.png Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency situation. What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen. The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe. After the call for proximal origin. Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in. The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci.	needs context	uncertain explicit hedge	asserts
What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen.	needs context	speaker_own	questions
The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in.	quoted / not their view	paraphrase_third_party reporting frame: 'Andersen said'	asserts
The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci.

needs context

uncertain explicit hedge

asserts

What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen.

needs context

speaker_own

questions

The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in.

quoted / not their view

paraphrase_third_party reporting frame: 'Andersen said'

asserts

The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2023-07-20 09:20 Christine Sizemore open

Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad.
2023-07-20 09:20 Christine Sizemore open

Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad.
2023-07-20 10:23 David Spiro open

Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency situation. What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen. The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe. After the call for proximal origin. Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in. The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.
2023-07-20 10:23 David Spiro open

Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency situation. What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen. The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe. After the call for proximal origin. Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in. The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.
2023-07-20 10:23 David Spiro

Inline-Images: image001.png Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency situation. What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen. The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe. After the call for proximal origin. Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in. The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.
2023-07-20 10:23 David Spiro open

Inline-Images: image001.png Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency situation. What confuses me is why Fauci publicly pretended that he didn't know the investigators and I wonder if this is because he placed his thumb on the post-peer review process leading to an award of CREID centers for Garry and Andersen. The peer review took place in November, but the grants weren't awarded until April I believe. After the call for proximal origin. Andersen said that the peer review couldn't possibly have been tampered with, but you and I both know that awarding large cooperative agreements goes beyond peer review and the NIAID OD could have weighed in. The other strange thing was awarding a CREID center to Dascak after Trump specifically blocked an earlier grant to EcoHealth alliance.
2023-07-20 10:29 Christine Sizemore open

Inline-Images: image001.png Wow - I did not know all of this! For me its all about scientific elitism and the few at the top pulling strings. I agree, there is no evidence that Fauci orchestrated this but then again, I am not sure about this either. I am not sure about anything any more ... all I can say is that the upper crust at NIH and in the global research arena does pull strings and control messages.
2023-07-20 10:29 Christine Sizemore open

Inline-Images: image001.png Wow - I did not know all of this! For me its all about scientific elitism and the few at the top pulling strings. I agree, there is no evidence that Fauci orchestrated this but then again, I am not sure about this either. I am not sure about anything any more ... all I can say is that the upper crust at NIH and in the global research arena does pull strings and control messages.

Full conversation →