Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-05-03 05:14 Robert F. Garry open
   "The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific statements, yet were amazingly effective."
2. 2021-05-03 05:15 Robert F. Garry open
   "And that's it. These are the two arguments made by the Andersen group in support of their declaration that the SARS2 virus was clearly not manipulated. And this conclusion, grounded in nothing but two inconclusive speculations, convinced the world's press that SARS2 could not have escaped from a lab. A technical critique of the Andersen letter takes it down in harsher words."
3. 2021-05-03 05:16 Robert F. Garry open
   "A second statement which had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were agroup of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter. Kristian G. Andersen, Scripps Research Unfortunately this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above."
4. 2021-05-03 05:35 Robert F. Garry open
   Yes - this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wade calling us out for poor science.
5. 2021-05-03 05:39 Robert F. Garry
   Based on the length of this Medium piece this asshole appears to be about to vomit out another thinly veiled racisttome "based" on a piss poor understanding of genetics.

Full conversation →