Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.782 [SLACK_000996] · slack_pm:msg:08151

Date: 2021-05-11 22:13
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

I'll sleep on it and wait for Andrew/Bob to chime in with what they think. I'm thinking a short email to say thanks and that we'd welcome further discussion (maybe an actual Zoom call? I'd be interested in that). I'll then include myprepared comments: _The core message of the letter is that the origins of COVID-19 should be investigated, which I think we all agreeon. The authors are correct that both hypotheses are possible, but current evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, as the WHO and others have concluded._ _Unfortunately, the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios. To this day, no credible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation. Instead, available scientific data, including those derived from epidemiological, ecological, clinical, and genomic investigations, are consistent with a natural emergence of a novel virus from a zoonotic reservoir, as has been observed so many times in the past.__I staunchly support further evidence-based studies into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and the most effective way to do this would be to continue to build on the work done by the WHO, while ensuring they have the necessary mandate and support. If our main goal is to truly understand what led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, such studies need to be collaborative and cannot consist of one-sided demands that are unlikely to be met._

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 are correct that both hypotheses are possible, but current evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, as the WHO and others have concluded._ _Unfortunately, the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
To this day, no credible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

The authors are correct that both hypotheses are possible, but current evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, as the WHO and others have concluded._ _Unfortunately, the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

To this day, no credible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation.

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 22:05 Edward C. Holmes open

Ah, got it.
2021-05-11 22:07 Edward C. Holmes open

They emailed us!
2021-05-11 22:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

Aaaaaahahahahaha [shared file(s): Upcoming letter in Science]
2021-05-11 22:10 Edward C. Holmes open

I'm not replying. I just won't be able to control my anger.
2021-05-11 22:13 Kristian G. Andersen

I'll sleep on it and wait for Andrew/Bob to chime in with what they think. I'm thinking a short email to say thanks and that we'd welcome further discussion (maybe an actual Zoom call? I'd be interested in that). I'll then include myprepared comments: _The core message of the letter is that the origins of COVID-19 should be investigated, which I think we all agreeon. The authors are correct that both hypotheses are possible, but current evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2, as the WHO and others have concluded._ _Unfortunately, the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios. To this day, no credible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation. Instead, available scientific data, including those derived from epidemiological, ecological, clinical, and genomic investigations, are consistent with a natural emergence of a novel virus from a zoonotic reservoir, as has been observed so many times in the past.__I staunchly support further evidence-based studies into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and the most effective way to do this would be to continue to build on the work done by the WHO, while ensuring they have the necessary mandate and support. If our main goal is to truly understand what led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, such studies need to be collaborative and cannot consist of one-sided demands that are unlikely to be met._
2021-05-11 22:16 Edward C. Holmes open

No way I'm talking to them. They should ashamed.
2021-05-11 22:16 Kristian G. Andersen open

Appreciate Mike reaching out though - I'm pretty darn sure he must have been the one telling the others that that was going to be necessary. Very interestingly, I talked to Jon earlier today (more on that later) and he mentioned that in the very early days of HIV, Mike was convinced that it came from the polio vaccine - i.e., lab derived...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_polio_vaccine_AIDS_hypothesis
2021-05-11 22:21 Edward C. Holmes open

They're willing authors on a paper will Alina who has directly accused me of being part of a conspiracy. Frankly, they can go fuck themselves.
2021-05-11 22:23 Kristian G. Andersen open

I agree. However, they review my grants and papers :wink:

Full conversation →