A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
It's such a reputable rag.
-
The Grand Wizard will likely get the honors - he's in New York too so I'm sure he'll enjoy the attention. "Sneaky Pete" will be the title.
-
I wonder what WHO will say? Ultimately, though, it's all pointless as I can't for a nanosecond see any detailed investigation of that they want ever occurring. Is there anyone more hypocritical than Ralph Baric?
-
What they're saying here: "The information, data, and samples for the study's first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese halfof the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis."... the Chinese fiddled with the data.
-
2021-05-10 14:55
Robert F. Garry
Indeed - it's subtle. Intended to sound nefarious, but how else would the data have been collected? Nevertheless they are definitely accusing Shi et al of malfeasance not to mention killing to date over 3M people.
-
@Kristian Andersen So just Don the prick's favorite cover? Sneaky Pete rips below the belt jab? Size Matters? [shared file(s): image.png]
-
@Kristian Andersen Haha.
-
@Kristian Andersen Oh, and his cap says "NORWAY".... Hmmmmmm. Suspicious.
-
!channel - trying to write something to Jim. Thoughts on this? ```This is on background - the letter doesn't add anything and the title is literally "Investigate the origins ofCOVID-19", which I think we can all agree on and is already being done. I can give you an on-the-record comment below, but there's nothing in the letter other than a false equivalence, no data, no testable hypotheses, and noadded knowledge. As for the "investigation" they're proposing (remember, what the WHO did wasn't an"investigation" - it was a mission. The WHO doesn't have the mandate, nor do they have the resources for an"investigation"). The authors don't specify how such an investigation would be conducted and stating that "Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts." is hopelessly naive. I obviously agree that that would be great, but it's pure utopia and shows a clear lack of understanding the reality of the situation (none of the authors have direct experience working on emergence/outbreaks). As for the WHO mandate, if you haven't read this article, I can highly recommendit: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/01/opinions/who-covid-19-origins-report-opinion-kavanagh/index.html.On-the-record - I agree with the authors that both hypotheses are possible, although as the WHO and others have concluded, not equally likely. To this day, no evidence has been presented to support a lab leak, which remainsgrounded in speculation. Instead, available data, including those derived from epidemiological, ecological, clinical, and genomic investigations, are consistent with a natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2 from a zoonotic reservoir, ashas been observed so many times in the past.```