Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.76-77 [SLACK_000290] · slack_pm:msg:00774

Date: 2020-06-13 03:26
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

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

We have two choices: just ignore it or make a group response. I vote for the former, because I am so tired of all this, although it is deeply irritating that we raised all these concerns ourselves months ago and the tone of the email isthat we are guilty of something, or trying to cover up. Also, many of the points are stupid/wrong: (i) why anyone would have a pangolin virus in the lab is beyond me and obviously idiotic. That Viruses paper on the pangolin virus, which does not even describe the sequence, was published online in Oct. 24th 2019. It's obviously not credible tohave read this, got the pangolins and the viruses and done the leaky experiments in this timeline; (ii) the WIV is not the only lab with closely related bat viruses - obviously RmYN02 comes from a different lab; (iii) I don't see that 4amino acid insertion and no flanking changes is at all problematic, particularly as these insertions are so commone.g. in H7N7 AIV the sequence went from PEIPKGR (low path) to PEIP*KRRR*R (high path). And Bill Gallaher'stheory explains it. But most of all I am completely tired all this. Nor do I want to die on the hill - it's up to the WIV todeal with this, not us.

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
Also, many of the points are stupid/wrong: (i) why anyone would have a pangolin virus in the lab is beyond me and obviously idiotic.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts
That Viruses paper on the pangolin virus, which does not even describe the sequence, was published online in Oct. 24th 2019.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
It's obviously not credible tohave read this, got the pangolins and the viruses and done the leaky experiments in this timeline; (ii) the WIV is not the only lab with closely related bat viruses - obviously RmYN02 comes from a different lab; (iii) I don't see that 4amino acid insertion and no flanking changes is at all problematic, particularly as these insertions are so commone.g. in H7N7 AIV the sequence went from PEIPKGR (low path) to PEIPKRRRR (high path).	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Also, many of the points are stupid/wrong: (i) why anyone would have a pangolin virus in the lab is beyond me and obviously idiotic.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

That Viruses paper on the pangolin virus, which does not even describe the sequence, was published online in Oct. 24th 2019.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

It's obviously not credible tohave read this, got the pangolins and the viruses and done the leaky experiments in this timeline; (ii) the WIV is not the only lab with closely related bat viruses - obviously RmYN02 comes from a different lab; (iii) I don't see that 4amino acid insertion and no flanking changes is at all problematic, particularly as these insertions are so commone.g. in H7N7 AIV the sequence went from PEIPKGR (low path) to PEIP*KRRR*R (high path).

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.

2020-06-13 02:43 Edward C. Holmes open

I honestly can't take much more of this. It will be the death of me. A pangolin is the obvious animal you'd have in the lab.
2020-06-13 02:47 Edward C. Holmes open

By the way, I think it might be Pain-Hobson, although it sounds like it he has other people as well.
2020-06-13 03:26 Edward C. Holmes

We have two choices: just ignore it or make a group response. I vote for the former, because I am so tired of all this, although it is deeply irritating that we raised all these concerns ourselves months ago and the tone of the email isthat we are guilty of something, or trying to cover up. Also, many of the points are stupid/wrong: (i) why anyone would have a pangolin virus in the lab is beyond me and obviously idiotic. That Viruses paper on the pangolin virus, which does not even describe the sequence, was published online in Oct. 24th 2019. It's obviously not credible tohave read this, got the pangolins and the viruses and done the leaky experiments in this timeline; (ii) the WIV is not the only lab with closely related bat viruses - obviously RmYN02 comes from a different lab; (iii) I don't see that 4amino acid insertion and no flanking changes is at all problematic, particularly as these insertions are so commone.g. in H7N7 AIV the sequence went from PEIPKGR (low path) to PEIP*KRRR*R (high path). And Bill Gallaher'stheory explains it. But most of all I am completely tired all this. Nor do I want to die on the hill - it's up to the WIV todeal with this, not us.
2020-06-13 04:05 Edward C. Holmes open

Just sent an email as well (which I now think is probably unnecessary).
2020-06-13 04:05 Andrew Rambaut open

Totally agreed. I have talked to a few journalists about the origins recently but only if they seem genuinely interestedin the natural origins. My approach has been to keep pushing how plausible it is and ignore anything that is trying toset up lab origins without actual evidence.

Full conversation →