Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-05-15 16:14 Edward C. Holmes open
   I've got to give this named lecture (relatively big locally) in a few weeks. I don't not sure whether I should: (a) ignore lab escape, (b) mention it's deficiencies politely, or (c) say fuck it and rip to shreds. I'm tempted by (c). I've been advised to keep off Twitter because of this pending FOI court case.
2. 2021-05-15 17:06 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Definitely (c). Here - start with this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17btNILyJFQccKCg7xAwETRN5LWo9g6A_haWubrywwIU/edit?usp=sharing
3. 2021-05-15 17:07 Kristian G. Andersen
   Still working on this document, but I think we have a logical structure now and most of the evidence put in. Let's turn this into a talk (you), Twitter thread (me), and then a paper.
4. 2021-05-15 17:08 Kristian G. Andersen open
   I'll doodle over this this coming week, adding references, more points, etc. - but if we could all add to it, then I thinkwe have a very good start. One thing we need to see if we can more specifically address - Wuhan. People just can't get over the fact it started there and then they don't look at any of the additional evidence.
5. 2021-05-15 17:15 Edward C. Holmes open
   Right. I'll go over the google doc later today. There's no epidemiological link to the WIV (and people have beensearching night and day for > a year). Simple as that. But there is a direct epidemiological link to an animal market in which CoVs have consistently emerged in the past. There is zero evidence that WIV have any virus that's the direct progenitor of SC2.
6. 2021-05-15 17:18 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Yup
7. 2021-05-15 17:25 Edward C. Holmes open
   I'll go for a public take down. It will probably go on Youtube so all the parasites will freak out but, frankly, fuck them.

Full conversation →