A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
@Eddie Holmes Perhaps telling that I got it too, but simply failed to bother to click on it.
-
Just an FYI - I did go ahead and submit the virological post as a tech comment to Science. As you know, Science requires that you send it to the authors for comment, so I sent to the Bloom and Relman. JB sent this: Hi Bob, Thanks for reaching out, and hope all is well. I look forward to reading your thoughts about this. We will look over your comment and get back to you as soon as possible. Apologies if it ends up taking a day or two: because have a substantial number of co-authors on the letter, we need to make sure we adequately check with others before sending anything that could be construed as a group response. --Jesse---- Jesse Bloom Associate Professor, Fred Hutch Cancer Research CenterAffiliate Associate Professor, Genome Sciences & Microbiology, University of Washington Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
-
Also - Vince R asked me to do a TWiV on origins (he did mention hearing the Bob's Bullocks podcast) - I'm assuming he may have reached out to @Kristian Andersen. Even though he gets a lot wrong, I might do it...
-
Ask him whether he thinks there is ZERO chance that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible.
-
2021-05-18 06:49
Kristian G. Andersen
@Eddie Holmes Me too.... Not responding to it.
-
Yeah, do TWIV Bob. Vince did not contact me, but it's worth you going. The evidence doc will be useful...
-
VR also thought that Bas-Congo virus was going to be the next Ebola - hopefully though an opportunity to counter some Bloomshit. Just need to not go quite as far with the rhetoric as Bill G. @Kristian Andersen may have to dosome coaching/intervention for some restraint. It actually is the problem - responding tit-for-tat to the likes of eDim -for example - obscures who the crazy person is.
-
WashPost has totally gone off the deep end. "Did some byproduct of the research leak, or did workers become inadvertently infected? Was the research carried out in less protected BSL-2 laboratories instead of the more secure BSL-4? Did Dr. Shi successfully manipulate a virus in the lab to add genetic features boosting affinity for human cells, as science journalist Nicholas Wade has suggested in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? These and other questions have been met with stout denials and roadblocks from China. In response to the Science letter, which called for opening records of research labs, Dr. Shi said, "It's definitely not acceptable," and, "Who can provide an evidence that does not exist?" That brings us no closer to identifying the pandemic's origins. If the laboratory leak theory is wrong, China could easily clarify the situation by being more open and transparent. Instead, it acts as if there is something to hide." [shared file(s): Opinion _ Two possible theories of the pandemic's origins remain viable. The world needs to know. -The Washington Post.pdf]
-
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-stakes-of-finding-covid-19s-origins