Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.230 [SLACK_000444] · slack_pm:msg:02384

Date: 2020-10-25 15:30
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover China relations and data access Furin cleavage site and molecular features

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

Thanks! Multiple lines indeed. The Li preprint was posted in June. The authors got in touch with me because they wanted help to get the paper published and it do it correctly as they got a real bashing the 1st time around (they were the 99% similar crew). In correspondence with them it's clear that they are totally straight but rather naive. They don't normally bat this high up. In this paper they clear show the pangolins are sick and they Sanger sequenced the spike protein. All good. I also made them make the provenance of the sequences completely clear(i.e. part of the same outbreak). I don't see anything nefarious in here at all (how the fuck can you fake the CT scanof a pangolin lung - Tippex?). The paper got decent reviews at Nature Microbiology but the Chinese authorities are not letting them publish it because of the loss of face the first time around. Good work Inspector Clouseau. I've not been in touch with them for a while now so I'll see what's the latest.

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
In this paper they clear show the pangolins are sick and they Sanger sequenced the spike protein.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
I don't see anything nefarious in here at all (how the fuck can you fake the CT scanof a pangolin lung - Tippex?).	needs context	speaker_own	questions
The paper got decent reviews at Nature Microbiology but the Chinese authorities are not letting them publish it because of the loss of face the first time around.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

In this paper they clear show the pangolins are sick and they Sanger sequenced the spike protein.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

I don't see anything nefarious in here at all (how the fuck can you fake the CT scanof a pangolin lung - Tippex?).

needs context

speaker_own

questions

The paper got decent reviews at Nature Microbiology but the Chinese authorities are not letting them publish it because of the loss of face the first time around.

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.

2020-10-25 14:48 Edward C. Holmes open

Seems she is directly accusing me. I think I will email Lander. Is there an email address that he might answer.
2020-10-25 14:49 Edward C. Holmes open

Very close to slander.
2020-10-25 14:56 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's crossed multiple lines by now. Eric is both at and . Might want to cc Pardis since you know her... (she's )
2020-10-25 15:22 Edward C. Holmes open

@Eddie Holmes Indeed, EVERY PNAS paper I have reviewed has been shite. Doing another one now.
2020-10-25 15:30 Edward C. Holmes

Thanks! Multiple lines indeed. The Li preprint was posted in June. The authors got in touch with me because they wanted help to get the paper published and it do it correctly as they got a real bashing the 1st time around (they were the 99% similar crew). In correspondence with them it's clear that they are totally straight but rather naive. They don't normally bat this high up. In this paper they clear show the pangolins are sick and they Sanger sequenced the spike protein. All good. I also made them make the provenance of the sequences completely clear(i.e. part of the same outbreak). I don't see anything nefarious in here at all (how the fuck can you fake the CT scanof a pangolin lung - Tippex?). The paper got decent reviews at Nature Microbiology but the Chinese authorities are not letting them publish it because of the loss of face the first time around. Good work Inspector Clouseau. I've not been in touch with them for a while now so I'll see what's the latest.
2020-10-25 16:01 Edward C. Holmes open

The complicating thing about Alina though is that she has clearly gone mad and you are watching this process in real time
2020-10-25 16:13 Andrew Rambaut open

Might be worth asking Pardis for any internal insight before formally going to Lander? Danny Park follows her sopresumably sees what is going on.
2020-10-25 16:48 Kristian G. Andersen open

Let me see if I can get a hold of Pardis and Danny - we have a meeting on Wednesday. We have gone full conspiracy by now and the Broad name (of which both Bob and I are always members) are being dragged through this as well. She's alleging both misconduct and conspiracy - against some very well-known scientists. And, of course, all completely bullshit by an amateur who has never done this type of work. I know how my institution would handle it - I don't think the Broad wants to be part of this either...
2020-10-25 16:52 Kristian G. Andersen open

.... not to mention - accusing reviewers of her technical comment of being being complicit in the death of millions... seems fair enough.

Full conversation →