Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.616 [SLACK_000830] · slack_pm:msg:06438

Date: 2021-03-22 12:45
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

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

Had some back and forth with Marc on this early least year :point_up_2:. Civil - but a lot of the stuff he discussed about the WIV research was naive (e.g., not realizing that pseudotyped viruses don't constitute a risk, not knowing many of these viruses are replication incompetent, etc.). Too much naiveté going on (from many, many scientists), which is really pissing me off. It's starting to look like Iraq WMD, but this time driven, not by generals (they already concluded it didn't come from the lab), but political pundits and scientists. Troubling - at least the latter category should know better. I mean -Jesse Bloom just tweeted an article about covert bioweapons programs!!! And look at the people who chime in inagreement - it's shocking.

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
Civil - but a lot of the stuff he discussed about the WIV research was naive (e.g., not realizing that pseudotyped viruses don't constitute a risk, not knowing many of these viruses are replication incompetent, etc.).	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Civil - but a lot of the stuff he discussed about the WIV research was naive (e.g., not realizing that pseudotyped viruses don't constitute a risk, not knowing many of these viruses are replication incompetent, etc.).

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.

2021-03-22 12:40 Robert F. Garry open

Not surprising that China is pushing back. Tedros probably made them put lab origins "must be investigated" or language to that effect.
2021-03-22 12:40 Kristian G. Andersen open

shared file(s): Re: 2019-nCoV
2021-03-22 12:40 Kristian G. Andersen open

shared file(s): Re: wondering if you have any further thoughts about the lab origin idea
2021-03-22 12:41 Kristian G. Andersen open

shared file(s): Re: Fact-checking 22 Feb. New York Post article claiming the coronavirus leaked from a lab
2021-03-22 12:45 Kristian G. Andersen

Had some back and forth with Marc on this early least year :point_up_2:. Civil - but a lot of the stuff he discussed about the WIV research was naive (e.g., not realizing that pseudotyped viruses don't constitute a risk, not knowing many of these viruses are replication incompetent, etc.). Too much naiveté going on (from many, many scientists), which is really pissing me off. It's starting to look like Iraq WMD, but this time driven, not by generals (they already concluded it didn't come from the lab), but political pundits and scientists. Troubling - at least the latter category should know better. I mean -Jesse Bloom just tweeted an article about covert bioweapons programs!!! And look at the people who chime in inagreement - it's shocking.
2021-03-22 12:59 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, the Chinese military gets an academic institution in Wuhan which has a load of international experts advise onthe construction of a BSL4 lab construct a bioweapon on a random bat coronavirus and let them publish on related viruses. That's definitely what happened.
2021-03-22 13:03 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yes, definitely, and also, there's an A in both Wuh*a*n and L*a*b - I mean, what ARE the odds?? Lab leak = only logical conclusion based on available evidence.
2021-03-22 13:06 Edward C. Holmes open

And in sArs! Spooky.
2021-03-22 13:08 Kristian G. Andersen open

SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Full conversation →