Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.116 [SLACK_000330] · slack_pm:msg:01193

Date: 2020-07-29 07:19
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Robert F. Garry
Topics: Proximal Origin paper

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

Is it too snarky to point out that the main conclusion of Baric's first SARS-CoV-2 paper rushed out in March is 180degrees wrong? They wrote: "Compared to previously isolated SARS-CoV strains, 2019-nCoV likely uses human ACE2 *less* efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year 2002) but more efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year2003)." IIRC wE nearly fell for this but fortunately, before we finalized "proximal Origins" new data came out showing the opposite. https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20.long

Links shared

journal https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20.long

In context

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

2020-07-29 07:19 Robert F. Garry

Is it too snarky to point out that the main conclusion of Baric's first SARS-CoV-2 paper rushed out in March is 180degrees wrong? They wrote: "Compared to previously isolated SARS-CoV strains, 2019-nCoV likely uses human ACE2 *less* efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year 2002) but more efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year2003)." IIRC wE nearly fell for this but fortunately, before we finalized "proximal Origins" new data came out showing the opposite. https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20.long
2020-07-29 07:34 Kristian G. Andersen open

Wouldn't be the first time he was wrong :wink:. I think contacting Clare is the right move - this is pretty serious and we need to counterpunch. I emailed Tony already and he's seen our draft emails - we haven't heard back as I'm sure he's much much too busy (that guy probably gets 10k+ emails a day?).
2020-07-29 07:58 Andrew Rambaut open

I agree about contacting Clare given she is named in the 'missive' and it is possible he will try doing something with Nature next.
2020-07-29 08:06 Robert F. Garry open

Agree and also the Editor of NatMed - It's very clearly a breach of peer review - not to mention the rewrite of historyto create a slanderous narrative. Thanks Eddie for pointing out the UnDark article :exploding_head: - I'm not feeling too sorry for the "Old Guard" coronavirologists in terms of their funding situation. Daszak and the Predict krewe got>$200M and found only one over-hyped human non-pathogenic virus BASV. If Deep Throat pushes Nature maybe Amy Maxmen of Nature can write the real story....
2020-07-29 08:06 Andrew Rambaut open

A couple more points we should remember here: we posted it to virological on the 17th before we sent it to Nature. Also this is a 'letter' not a research paper.

Full conversation →