Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.115 [SLACK_000329] · slack_pm:msg:01177

Date: 2020-07-28 17:40
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

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

I'm 98% certain this is Baric... He'll deeply regret it if he goes public with this information - and I can't really see how that would possibly do him any good?

In context

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

2020-07-28 17:25 Kristian G. Andersen open

Who?
2020-07-28 17:30 Edward C. Holmes open

The anonymous cowardly fuck that emailed Jon. Have you read/seen 'All the Presidents Men'? Stuff of legend.
2020-07-28 17:33 Edward C. Holmes open

My point is that if Jon ignores him, will he send it to some other journo?
2020-07-28 17:38 Kristian G. Andersen open

Ah, of course :zany_face:. Yeah, God knows what he does next - I invite him to do whatever and we'll crush that sadmotherfucker.
2020-07-28 17:40 Kristian G. Andersen

I'm 98% certain this is Baric... He'll deeply regret it if he goes public with this information - and I can't really see how that would possibly do him any good?
2020-07-28 17:50 Edward C. Holmes open

I agree - must be Baric. We have all the documentation to back up what happened and he'd look like a total knob for trying to suppress discussion of lab origins. Anonymous emailing a journo is so, so pathetic. Even Jeremy told methat the email was "total bollocks".
2020-07-28 17:53 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's really sad. It would be kinda funny if he tried to get this out - we'd turn the attention right back on him trying tosuppress proper science and inquiry. It would make him look really bad...
2020-07-28 18:00 Edward C. Holmes open

Really bad
2020-07-28 18:34 Kristian G. Andersen open

Sneaky thought.... Should we go on the attack? We could raise this issue with Clare since this is a clear and direct breach of confidentiality of the review process.

Full conversation →