Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.811 [SLACK_001025] · slack_pm:msg:08459

Date: 2021-05-14 07:59
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

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

I would be interested what Jesse would say if you just posted the list of scientists working at WIV and ask which ofthese people he thought might have deliberately leaked the virus. Or are they all equally plausible

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
I would be interested what Jesse would say if you just posted the list of scientists working at WIV and ask which ofthese people he thought might have deliberately leaked the virus.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

I would be interested what Jesse would say if you just posted the list of scientists working at WIV and ask which ofthese people he thought might have deliberately leaked the virus.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

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

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
2021-05-14 07:53 Robert F. Garry open

@USLACKBOT ABSOLUTELY - it's not science! Bloom is accusing WIV of bioterrorism.
2021-05-14 07:59 Andrew Rambaut

I would be interested what Jesse would say if you just posted the list of scientists working at WIV and ask which ofthese people he thought might have deliberately leaked the virus. Or are they all equally plausible
2021-05-14 08:01 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'm pretty sure he'd say "equally plausible", because he does seem to have a very hard time weighing evidence andutilizing probabilities at the moment. It's _exactly_ the same line of thinking that led to half the country believing the election was stolen - because nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty.
2021-05-14 08:03 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's the exact same debate - Bloomshitters saying "I'm just asking questions here" and "we just want to know the truth - don't you want to know the truth"? And then words by folks like us will be twisted to make it seem like _we_don't actually want to know the truth, but rather want to push an agenda.
2021-05-14 08:03 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's dangerous, that's for sure.
2021-05-14 08:22 Robert F. Garry open

And Shi is right - what data could she produce that would satisfy this crowd?

Full conversation →