Chat message

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.

In context

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

1. 2021-05-19 15:23 Kristian G. Andersen open
   @Eddie Holmes I don't really think camels can be considered an "intermediate" host for MERS - seems more to me that MERS is causing an epizootic in camels, so it's pretty much a camel virus by now.
2. 2021-05-19 15:23 Robert F. Garry open
   @Eddie Holmes Spillovers are rare. Domesticated animals a key at least for Covs- probably by serving to amplify the virus in close quarters. Pigs get other CoVs - PEDV and SADS-CoV - that are likely direct spillovers from bats. Something about the big cities makes the spillover stick. Could be same thing this time humans living in closequarters able to initiate transmission chains. This happened in West Africa Ebola. The reason why no very large Ebola outbreaks in Middle Africa is population density (we might have a paper on that).
3. 2021-05-19 15:26 Robert F. Garry open
   @Eddie Holmes Good point - but that makes the distinction btwn MERS and the rest of the human CoVs all that stronger.
4. 2021-05-19 15:31 Robert F. Garry open
   @Eddie Holmes So, question: is SC1 an epizootic in civets? Hard to argue there's definite proof of that but maybe i'm missing something.
5. 2021-05-19 15:37 Robert F. Garry
   External Sender. Be aware of links, attachments and requests. Thanks, Bob. Nice to be in touch and I hope all's well. Cheers, Mike __________________ ____ From: Garry, Robert F > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:19 PM To: Bloom PhD, Jesse D; David A Relman; Worobey, Michael - (worobey) Subject: [EXT]Re: Technical Comment External Email That's correct I think. My understanding is that Science will decide whether or not to send for review, then ask you for a comment. Of course, based on the review they may or may not "publish." In the case of a Technical Comment publish means on-line only. Apparently, they may put the 60-word abstract in the paper journal (which perhaps a few people still look at). Cheers, Bob G. SLACK_001057 From: "Bloom PhD, Jesse O, a &<': Date: Wednesday, May 19,2 at 4: I>, David A Reiman i &01:, "Worobey, Michael - gt: (worobey)" Subject: Re: Technical Commen External Sender. Be aware of links, attachments and requests. Hi Bob, I just wanted to follow up, and am also cc-ing Mike Worobey as he is interested in this topic. Thanks again for looping us in about your comment piece. It sounds like we don't have to draft a full formal response now. But if Science considers your comment then we'd be happy to draft a response. If they don't (I'm not sure how often they published letters about letters?), if you submit your comment as an e-letter online then we would be happyto submit a response as an e-letter too. Anyway, really appreciate you keeping us informed about this, and we agree it's important to try to figure out ways todiscuss these topics in measured academic formats exactly as you are trying to initiate here! --Jesse
6. 2021-05-19 15:37 Andrew Rambaut open
   @Robert Garry I think Bill may have taken my removal of his post the wrong way - ~~ After contemplating this for the last two days, I have decided to make zero substantive response to your action. However, I do intend to make a very few additional posts, confined entirely to scientific data that will continue tosupport the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and then retire permanently from the field of virology.It has been my passion since the age of 12, while in quarantine in the New York metro area in the face of the 1957Asian flu, listening to stories from my father about his recovery from poliomyelitis as a teenager. I believe that I have made a number of useful contributions in the last 15 months, working from home solely from my desktop computer and laptop, including the bulk of my post late this past Sunday.I do apologize for my intemperance toward the end of my post that likely presented the most difficulty. I had passedit by three reviewers, with license to redline, but none of them, including Bob Garry, changed a word. I actually tonedit down a notch from the final draft, before posting. I understand that neither Eddie Holmes or Kristian Andersenobjected either, and you yourself did not disagree. I regret the difficult position it put you in. I have a deep respect for you and your work over the past quarter century, am honored to have been a co-author with you, and wish you the best.Regards,Bill Gallaher~I do think he should publish it - just not on virological. Any thoughts?
7. 2021-05-19 15:37 Robert F. Garry open
   That's just Bill - I'd call this only very mild by Bill's standards (you've now seen the other end of the scale). *For surehe is 100% sincere about the last few sentences." I told him that you just were simply interested in keeping virological to the science, which lab leak clearly is not, and not to the personal stuff.I would not give it another thought. Yes - he can submit an toned down version to eLetters if he wishes, which it's much more appropriate.
8. 2021-05-19 15:37 Andrew Rambaut open
   I have replied to encourage him to publish it and assure him he did nothing wrong.
9. 2021-05-19 15:37 Robert F. Garry open
   I think the subthread on Sharri and Alina is getting "hijacked" a bit with that big city/domestic animal/zoonot discussion. But, the letter from Bill G might have convergence. I'm pretty sure at least some of the Bloomshit signersare not aware of the Alina BS. Although Alina plays victim very well, she the one that is passing out the most accusations of misconduct to Nature and PLOS. She's at least on par with Billy and the other DRASTIC thugs.

Full conversation →