Chat message

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.

In context

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

1. 2021-05-12 10:27 Kristian G. Andersen
   Early draft that'll likely change - but lemme know suggested edits / ideas. Dear Mike, Thanks for the heads up - much appreciated. We are well aware of the upcoming letter and I was somewhat amused to see that one of your signatories include a person who vehemently attacked me when I suggested we needed to take a potential lab leak seriously back in February, 2020 - the reason why the _"Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats"_ that David and I sit on was established. Unlike what is claimed in your letter, we have of course learned a lot since the beginning of the pandemic and noevidence has been uncovered to support any connection to the lab - which remains a speculative theory that would necessarily involve a major cover up and complex web of lies perpetrated by the very scientists and public health authorities that you thank in the end of your letter. Unless there's evidence to directly support such a conspiracy, Ithink we have to be very careful that we don't unnecessarily add to ongoing anti-Asian racism and hate crimes. I amof course well aware that that is not the intent of your letter, however, it should be clear that it will very likely fan theflames of xenophobia and conspiracy theories - with allegations of a lab leak having no scientific grounding inavailable evidence or data.As somebody with significant experience working in outbreak response with international governments and public health authorities - whether that be in 'the field', on the bench, or in front of the computer - I think it is important thatwe strongly support further evidence-based studies into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. Making demands for investigations and data that are clearly outside the mandate, power, or resources of the WHO - instead of supporting work already in progress - will necessarily make it even harder to support future joint missions to perform thecritically important task of uncovering what led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. That will require trust,coordination, and corporation among international partners, including China.
2. 2021-05-12 11:11 Robert F. Garry open
   This is great Kristian - hits both Eddies point: Se "completely misrepresents the remit and outcomes of the WHO report and presents a hopelessly naive plan of the next steps" and Andrew's point about the conspiracy and cover-up.
3. 2021-05-12 11:37 Kristian G. Andersen open
   @Andrew Rambaut - any comments on this draft? You know Mike better and it's pretty harsh(ish). I don't mind pissing up David and Jesse, but I do care about Mike and have a very hard time believing he's signing this for the same reasons Jesse (conspiracy) and David (GOF) are.
4. 2021-05-12 12:34 Robert F. Garry open
   A few journos have contacted me too and I was maybe a bit more harsh. Love the bit on "Barrett." RelBloom is actually seriously crap [for all the reasons you mention] and those that signed it should as Eddie said be ashamed.
5. 2021-05-12 13:25 Kristian G. Andersen open
   A few additional edits - I'll email it in a couple of hours. I have a call with Marc S in 35 mins that Mike is supposed tobe on - we'll see... After sending this, I'll email him separately to engage him at a personal level. ```Dear Mike, Thanks for the heads up - much appreciated. We are aware of the upcoming letter and I was amused to see that one of your signatories is a person who vehemently attacked me when I suggested we needed to take a potential lab leak seriously back in February, 2020 - the reason why the "Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats" that David and I sit on was established. Since then, we have of course learned a lot and despite what is alleged in your letter, a significant amount of critical data have been uncovered, including in the recent WHO report (I provide a rather extensive summary here: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1376954932004196352?s=20). Importantly, no evidence has been presented to support any connection to the lab - which remains a speculative theory that would necessarily involve amajor cover up and complex web of lies perpetrated by the very scientists and public health authorities that you thank in the end of your letter. Unless there's direct evidence to support such a conspiracy, I think we have to bevery careful that we don't unnecessarily add to ongoing anti-Asian racism and hate crimes. I am of course well aware that that is not the intent of your letter, however, it should be clear that it will fan the flames of xenophobia and conspiracy theories - with allegations of a lab leak having no scientific grounding in available evidence or data.As somebody with significant experience working with international governments and public health authorities onmultiple levels of outbreak response - whether that be in 'the field', on the bench, or in front of the computer - I thinkit is important that we strongly support further evidence-based studies into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. Making naive demands for investigations and data that are clearly outside the scope, mandate, or capabilities of the WHO - instead of putting our full support behind joint missions already in progress - will make it harder to uncoverexactly how SARS-CoV-2 emerged. Such studies will require trust, coordination, and collaboration among international partners, including China. Despite what I am sure are your best intentions, I doubt your letter will help that process.We have all been receiving a lot of requests from journalists wanting us to comment on your letter. I have largelyrefrained from responding, however, I have included some prepared comments below that you may encounter.Best,Kristian ```

Full conversation →