Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-05-13 04:10 Robert F. Garry open
   Oh yeah - Relman is piece of work. Did not get power on until after 7pm last night - Internet back on after 1am. The trees - one oak about 2/3 meter in diameter - down and tin roof blown off in this video were 1 block from my house:https://www.wdsu.com/article/storm-damage-reported-in-new-orleans-wednesday-morning/36405138#
2. 2021-05-13 04:27 Robert F. Garry
   "Oh, David got specific - let's crush their arguments..." Yeah the crushing will happen and the signers will regretpiling on with Alina et al.
3. 2021-05-13 04:36 Robert F. Garry open
   Will have to respond to Relman at some level - you know - just to be courteous. The journos are all over this - sothta's another place to engage. I was working - off line as it were - on some "talking points." As @Kristian Andersen said "harsh.' or maybe not harsh enough to meet the level of nonsense. Borrowed liberally from channel: The letterin Science completely misrepresents the outcomes of the WHO report. The letter is half right: No data or other evidence (clear or otherwise) has emerged in support of the Lab Leak theory. What it gets wrong is that the WHO report significantly adds to the large volume of epidemiological and genomic data that support emergence of SARS-CoV-2 from a zoonotic reservoir, either wildlife or farmed animals. I've written a little about that here: https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691It presents a naive plan for next steps. No nation, including the United States, would ever permit the type of"forensic" investigation of their laboratories as proposed in the letter. The letter damages prospects for cooperation with China that may actually permit further productive investigation ofSARS-CoV-2 origins by WHO or other groups of international scientists. The Lab Leak hypotheses are based on the supposition of a major cover up and complex conspiracy perpetrated bysome of the world's leading virologists. It is disappointing to find some leading scientists supporting these unfounded accusations. The letter risks adding to antiAsian xenophobia and inadvertently supports even more outrageous conspiracy theories about COVID-19 [example: Dr. Fauci and the NIH funded Gain-of-Function research that produced SARS-CoV-2]. The letter DISTRACTs from important work needed to identify the source of SARS-CoV-2 and by extension help toprevent the next pandemic caused by an emergent coronavirus.
4. 2021-05-13 04:58 Robert F. Garry open
   Relman argues that all the evidence is circumstantial and indirect. He forgot that: Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example." Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, _The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes_ (1892) "The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor"
5. 2021-05-13 05:00 Robert F. Garry open
   I would argue that @Eddie Holmes "raccoon dog in the wildlife market" is equivalent to Thoreau's "trout in the milk."

Full conversation →