Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.62 [SLACK_000276] · slack_pm:msg:00627

Date: 2020-06-08 15:31
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes

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

It is indeed a major concern that scientific debates on Twitter make it into the NYT. Maybe we should debate, onTwitter, if scientific debates on Twitter should make it into the NYT and see if that gets into the NYT?

In context

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

2020-06-08 15:26 Edward C. Holmes open

The corrected article has also just disappeared.
2020-06-08 15:31 Edward C. Holmes

It is indeed a major concern that scientific debates on Twitter make it into the NYT. Maybe we should debate, onTwitter, if scientific debates on Twitter should make it into the NYT and see if that gets into the NYT?
2020-06-08 15:34 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yes
2020-06-08 15:34 Andrew Rambaut open

I can see the Forbes article. Starts with: _June 8: This article has been substantially updated to reflect criticism of the published study, along with the general scientific consensus on Covid-19. It also clarifies Sørensen's financial interest in the development ofthe_ Biovacc-19 _coronavirus vaccine_. _This context did not appear in original post_ New claims that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was engineered have been dismissed by scientific and intelligence experts.

Full conversation →