Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.324-325 [SLACK_000538] · slack_pm:msg:03413

Date: 2020-12-18 17:14
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

Yup - honestly, I think this is the way forward. As soon as we start giving it attention, well, it'll get more attention and it's not like they'll ever be happy unless we go visit some old mines... Essentially the argument is "we have considered it, and we don't find lab origins plausible" - but without even saying that.

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
Essentially the argument is "we have considered it, and we don't find lab origins plausible" - but without even saying that.	quoted / not their view	quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Essentially the argument is "we have considered it, and we don't find lab origins plausible" - but without even saying that.

quoted / not their view

quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks

asserts

In context

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

2020-12-18 16:51 Edward C. Holmes open

Love it. Ignore lab origin completely. Don't cite a single of their works. Ignored as entirely irrelevant.
2020-12-18 17:14 Kristian G. Andersen

Yup - honestly, I think this is the way forward. As soon as we start giving it attention, well, it'll get more attention and it's not like they'll ever be happy unless we go visit some old mines... Essentially the argument is "we have considered it, and we don't find lab origins plausible" - but without even saying that.

Full conversation →