Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.100 [SLACK_000314] · slack_pm:msg:01015

Date: 2020-07-15 15:35
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

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

Ignore her. Her tweets will not age well. Completely stupid comments about the Guangdong pangolin CoV...that it may have come from humans. So, if true, that means that there must have been a human virus circulating in Guangdong or outside of China months before it was detected in Wuhan. There is of course no evidence for and it contradicts her previous point about there being no human virus before Dec. Idiotic statement. Also, there is not one Guangdong pangolin CoV. Just wrong. She also completely forgets thatt the Guangxi pangolin CoV is also closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

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
Completely stupid comments about the Guangdong pangolin CoV...that it may have come from humans.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
Also, there is not one Guangdong pangolin CoV.	needs context	speaker_own	asserts
She also completely forgets thatt the Guangxi pangolin CoV is also closely related to SARS-CoV-2.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Completely stupid comments about the Guangdong pangolin CoV...that it may have come from humans.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

Also, there is not one Guangdong pangolin CoV.

needs context

speaker_own

asserts

She also completely forgets thatt the Guangxi pangolin CoV is also closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

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.

2020-07-15 15:35 Edward C. Holmes

Ignore her. Her tweets will not age well. Completely stupid comments about the Guangdong pangolin CoV...that it may have come from humans. So, if true, that means that there must have been a human virus circulating in Guangdong or outside of China months before it was detected in Wuhan. There is of course no evidence for and it contradicts her previous point about there being no human virus before Dec. Idiotic statement. Also, there is not one Guangdong pangolin CoV. Just wrong. She also completely forgets thatt the Guangxi pangolin CoV is also closely related to SARS-CoV-2.
2020-07-15 15:42 Andrew Rambaut open

Also the pangolin RBD is only similar in amino acids - has loads of synonymous differences.
2020-07-15 15:43 Edward C. Holmes open

Totally. She's just not thought that through.
2020-07-15 16:17 Kristian G. Andersen open

I kinda liked her paper and I thought she was doing some good stuff - but now she really _has_ lost the plot. Too bad- I appreciate some of her earlier stuff.
2020-07-15 16:23 Edward C. Holmes open

Her paper makes a number of mistakes. Tommy constructed two Guangdong pangolin CoVs: one that utilised the earlier sequence and one that didn't. This is all clearly stated. Plus, no one ever claimed these samples were taken from separate animal populations (although I agree it is important to point this out). Again, this just another person that it is trying to explain away facts in an increasingly outlandish manner to fit their own theory. She'll live to regret her tweets.

Full conversation →