Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.811 [SLACK_001025] · slack_pm:msg:08453

Date: 2021-05-14 07:21
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Robert F. Garry
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

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

Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.

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
Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.

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.

2021-05-14 06:56 Kristian G. Andersen open

Evidence document - yup! I was planning on working on it in response to David anyway, so I'll spend some time in asummary we can then build on.
2021-05-14 07:00 Andrew Rambaut open

Do we want to give it to David at this stage?
2021-05-14 07:02 Kristian G. Andersen open

No I don't think so - but we can pull out a few of the "best hits" and include in the email reply to him.
2021-05-14 07:03 Kristian G. Andersen open

I was planning on doing a Twitter thread based on it too so we have somewhere to point to - I have found this to beexceptionally useful.
2021-05-14 07:21 Robert F. Garry

Just throwing this out: One way to break a summary down is: 1. evidence for natural origin 2. evidence against lab origin or some variation of this.
2021-05-14 07:28 Robert F. Garry open

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-the-coronavirus-come-directly-from-animal[...]cientists-join-call-for-answers/ar-BB1gJ2IO?ocid=BingNewsSearch "But Bloom said there is simply not enough evidence yet to draw such aconclusion. He sees three possible origin stories for SARS-CoV-2. First - and here he agrees with Gostin - itoriginated in bats and jumped directly to humans or into another animal and then into humans. Bloom said he can't rule out two other possibilities: that someone in a lab in Wuhan, China, was studying the virus, collected from a bat or another animal, and accidentally released it, infecting people; or that it was an intentionalrelease by a researcher working with the virus."Regardless of which occurred," Bloom said, "it would be really scientifically beneficial, and I think also beneficial for our ability to understand and prevent future pandemics, to really understand the initial events." Really kind oftroubling IMO. Either of Bloom's two possibilities are accusations of cover-up and conspiracy.
2021-05-14 07:46 Robert F. Garry open

Seriously - what freaking scientific data [hell even other data] does JB think is going to get to inform his two other possibilities? Also - I would like to know who that researcher was that did "intentional release." Mo******ker knows more about viral pathogenesis than anyone on the planet!
2021-05-14 07:47 Uslackbot open

@USLACKBOT This message was deleted.
2021-05-14 07:52 Robert F. Garry open

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/not-acceptable-wuhan-scientist-hits[...]d19-origin-claims/news-story/5f9c6e80eeb1806c670841a45ea33fbc pretty good report

Full conversation →