Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.62 [SLACK_000276] · slack_pm:msg:00629

Date: 2020-06-08 15:34
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: Intelligence community assessments Vaccines

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

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.

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
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.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 →