Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.77 [SLACK_000291] · slack_pm:msg:00779

Date: 2020-06-13 07:36
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut

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

I think a good strategy is not to directly engage with the nutters (or even acknowledge they exist) but address their attack points indirectly by reiterating the plausibility of the reality. Bring in new evidence and studies and admit theunknowns and sell them as exciting things to find out. Good science journalists like this stuff, find it fascinating and don't give space to the nutters. The bad journalists just want to report on the conflict.Perhaps it will soon be time for an update review - there is lots of new stuff to think about.

In context

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

2020-06-13 06:34 Robert F. Garry open

"We have two choices: just ignore it or make a group response...it's up to the WIV to deal with this, not us." I agreewe should ignore this BBC effort and whomever they've co-opted for their show. Totally agree that a group response would be counter-productive - we put our thoughts out, raised the issue ourselves and came to conclusions. I'm starting to see so many similarities to the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" decades-long shit show. Raising it ourselves BTW when many other "advisors" on the initial email chain got pissed off and said not too is starting to look correct. There is a third way - a commission - WHO or other - to look into the proximal origins - would give WIV a chance toclear themselves. Otherwise, scientists (Pain-Hobson LOL) who want to challenge our conclusions should write their own papers in science journals not say contrarian nonsense just so they can get on the teevee or the tabloids.
2020-06-13 07:28 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's absolutely ridiculous - the questions raised about our study are dumb (idiotic even) and show a complete lack ofunderstanding.I might chose to respond vigorously - we gain nothing responding to individual questions, but I wonder if we might gain something by extremely strongly pushing back at him and his shitty journalism. I will think on it for a couple ofhours.
2020-06-13 07:36 Andrew Rambaut

I think a good strategy is not to directly engage with the nutters (or even acknowledge they exist) but address their attack points indirectly by reiterating the plausibility of the reality. Bring in new evidence and studies and admit theunknowns and sell them as exciting things to find out. Good science journalists like this stuff, find it fascinating and don't give space to the nutters. The bad journalists just want to report on the conflict.Perhaps it will soon be time for an update review - there is lots of new stuff to think about.
2020-06-13 07:44 Kristian G. Andersen open

Agreed!

Full conversation →