Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.666 [SLACK_000880] · slack_pm:msg:06978

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

One think we predict though was that having Daszak on has back-fired badly. What were they thinking?

In context

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

2021-03-31 12:57 Kristian G. Andersen open

Relman really is an idiot - I actually thought he was a good, solid scientist. Apparently not - doesn't understand "data" and "false equivalences". I guess he isn't alone. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-31 at 12.56.43.png]
2021-03-31 12:59 Robert F. Garry open

Agreed - Another one who didn't read/understand the report.
2021-03-31 13:00 Edward C. Holmes open

The evidence is pretty well laid out in Annex D
2021-03-31 13:01 Robert F. Garry open

If you go to the end PBS actually does some real reporting - they quote 3 current White House staff to the effect that the Pompeo DoS "fact sheet" was cherry-picked out of a cacophony of noise.
2021-03-31 13:02 Edward C. Holmes

One think we predict though was that having Daszak on has back-fired badly. What were they thinking?
2021-03-31 13:18 Edward C. Holmes open

All we can do is ignore all this noise and just try to focus on the science.
2021-03-31 13:19 Kristian G. Andersen open

The noise is like a roaring highway though - and driven by some very high profile scientists. It's sad, really.
2021-03-31 13:21 Edward C. Holmes open

True, but there's no way that China will let another team in so ultimately it's all pointless
2021-03-31 13:35 Robert F. Garry open

Is there a plan to "publish" a summary report? Is the WHO team going to do a joint publication? Seems like perhapsPO2 might now be in order.