Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-03-29 07:42 Robert F. Garry open
   *BIG QUESTION HERE*- lot's of media inquiries - can I boot some of these to !channel - if they are "worthy." By worthy I mean top tier outlets?
2. 2021-03-29 07:43 Robert F. Garry open
   @Andrew Rambaut Forster is mentioned in the report in several spots...
3. 2021-03-29 07:53 Andrew Rambaut open
   @Andrew Rambaut It also got 'communicated' by an AAS member that is in the same department as the authors.
4. 2021-03-29 08:19 Robert F. Garry open
   First impressions: 1. The report is very well done. Lot's of very detailed information some of which is new to me. Anyone that wants toclaim that the report is lacking in details will be disappointed. I think that the onus on the lab leak proponents shouldbe to focus on specifics as to what they feel was lacking in the report.2. Intelligence reports that there were sick workers in WIV [and one person's wife died are disputed by the report: "The three laboratories in Wuhan working with either CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all had high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff healthmonitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months priorto December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening." Saying there are intelligence reports to the contrary, but I [Pottinger on 60 Minutes] can't share then with the public is not credible. But important to be clear - if you think there were sick workers at WIV that's nowby definition a conspiracy and cover-up.3. The Molecular part is very well done and complete. Some missed opportunities I think with discussion of the WA-1sequence (which seems ancestral) and the A-B transition. Still the linkage of the early cases to Markets and Other Markets in Wuhan is there and I believe implicit in their conclusions, but not stated.4. They did not address the multiple claims that SC2 is an engineered bioweapon since this is not credible.5. Part of the mission was to identify future directions, which they did an outstanding job of doing.6. Stuck with their guns - lab leak not credible.7. The extensive section of the negative results in all the animals tested will probably get the most attention by Lab leak proponents. This is actually the situation that happend with the first SARS. - wild caught animals were negative- they however were able to link human case to civets etc. and the civets to specific markets. This all went down the memory hole, but in ters of capturing wild animals (and bot finding SC1) the result is the same.
5. 2021-03-29 08:35 Kristian G. Andersen
   Awesome summary Bob! I haven't had a chance to get my eyes on it yet - but hopefully soon...

Full conversation →