Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.55 [SLACK_000269] · slack_pm:msg:00547

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

So what does Trevor think about the new proof of lab origins paper? He going to come out supporting it? Sure wayto hit the 1m followers.

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
So what does Trevor think about the new proof of lab origins paper?	needs context	speaker_own	questions

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

So what does Trevor think about the new proof of lab origins paper?

needs context

speaker_own

questions

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

2020-06-04 17:23 Kristian G. Andersen open

Hmmm. They certainly should. Does this affect the conclusions from your recent preprint?
2020-06-04 17:25 Andrew Rambaut open

We excluded them because we thought they were flawed. Some of the arguments are based on the fact there are no intermediates with only one of the two SNPs. But they are still there and of course the reviewers have pointed itout.
2020-06-04 17:25 Andrew Rambaut open

Anyway - not my problem (Mike's problem).
2020-06-04 17:26 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's amazing what a couple of SNPs can do :wink:
2020-06-04 17:26 Andrew Rambaut

So what does Trevor think about the new proof of lab origins paper? He going to come out supporting it? Sure wayto hit the 1m followers.
2020-06-04 17:26 Kristian G. Andersen open

One has to wonder how much noise there is in the dataset by now - between sequencing (including amplicon and RT) errors and contaminants. Probably ~10% of genomes are wrong.
2020-06-04 17:27 Kristian G. Andersen open

Haha, Trevor was pretty shocked by how terrible the paper was - but yeah, he should come out and rebuff us to getto a cool million.