Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.780-781 [SLACK_000994] · slack_pm:msg:08136

Date: 2021-05-11 17:07
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Congressional oversight Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

Just got this from Dominic - spot-on "I like the comment on balance related to the number of pages - perhaps if there were 40 rather than 4/313 pages then all would be OK. The authors miss many points - the WHO was not an 'investigation', but a study of origins; that even if a lab leak it is still an animal source; an external forensic examination of a lab would never be acceptable in China/Russia/US/UK etc; the lab hypothesis is not excluded inthe report, just ranked lower than the others. I don't know him, but surprised Ralph Baric signed it given his research. I'm a bit sick of the 'independent oversight' and 'broad expertise' jibes also."

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
The authors miss many points - the WHO was not an 'investigation', but a study of origins; that even if a lab leak it is still an animal source; an external forensic examination of a lab would never be acceptable in China/Russia/US/UK etc; the lab hypothesis is not excluded inthe report, just ranked lower than the others.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

The authors miss many points - the WHO was not an 'investigation', but a study of origins; that even if a lab leak it is still an animal source; an external forensic examination of a lab would never be acceptable in China/Russia/US/UK etc; the lab hypothesis is not excluded inthe report, just ranked lower than the others.

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.

2021-05-11 17:07 Edward C. Holmes

Just got this from Dominic - spot-on "I like the comment on balance related to the number of pages - perhaps if there were 40 rather than 4/313 pages then all would be OK. The authors miss many points - the WHO was not an 'investigation', but a study of origins; that even if a lab leak it is still an animal source; an external forensic examination of a lab would never be acceptable in China/Russia/US/UK etc; the lab hypothesis is not excluded inthe report, just ranked lower than the others. I don't know him, but surprised Ralph Baric signed it given his research. I'm a bit sick of the 'independent oversight' and 'broad expertise' jibes also."
2021-05-11 17:08 Kristian G. Andersen open

100% spot on.
2021-05-11 17:10 Edward C. Holmes open

Pretty extraordinary that Science are letting this through.
2021-05-11 17:11 Kristian G. Andersen open

Honestly, it's embarrassing - "as scientists with relevant experience". Lol.

Full conversation →