Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.864 [SLACK_001078] · slack_pm:msg:08991

Date: 2021-05-24 19:24
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

None of this was about a possible lab leak. And all shit that hit the fan afterwards...none of that was about a possible lab leak either.

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
None of this was about a possible lab leak.	needs context	speaker_own	asserts
And all shit that hit the fan afterwards...none of that was about a possible lab leak either.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

None of this was about a possible lab leak.

needs context

speaker_own

asserts

And all shit that hit the fan afterwards...none of that was about a possible lab leak either.

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.

2021-05-24 19:17 Kristian G. Andersen open

It'll get worse, I'm sure - it's currently not about science, but about a power struggle between two super powers.Better to just focus on the science...
2021-05-24 19:18 Kristian G. Andersen open

While I don't agree with everything, that Vice article is good - I strongly suggest reading it to get some of the background on the politics involved. Very insightful.
2021-05-24 19:23 Edward C. Holmes open

I can testify that between Jan 5-12 the issues were (i) controlling the message because the word 'SARS' was involved and (ii) the egos battling in China for who would get the credit for identifying the virus. On the letter -between us, the only reason Zhang told the Ministry of Health on the 5th was because I bloody well told him to.Twice:
2021-05-24 19:23 Edward C. Holmes open

shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-21 at 12.03.40 pm.png
2021-05-24 19:24 Edward C. Holmes

None of this was about a possible lab leak. And all shit that hit the fan afterwards...none of that was about a possible lab leak either.
2021-05-24 19:27 Kristian G. Andersen open

I don't understand why people don't understand that - it's really rather simple if you have a little bit of insight into outbreak response. But maybe people either have (a) no experience whatsoever in outbreak response, or (b) they don't _want_ to understand. Very insightful from you btw - early January... I mean, we knew nothing at the time. "The latter is obviously very bad" will haunt you forever... :wink:. Will these emails be public at some point?
2021-05-24 19:31 Edward C. Holmes open

I've compiled a load. Perhaps I should publish them all? I'm happy to share with the security services. Here are 3more from Jan 7/8 which are very interesting. Clearly show that the Ministry of Health were blocking information. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-21 at 12.12.56 pm.png, Screen Shot 2021-05-21 at 12.11.41 pm.png, Screen Shot 2021-05-21 at 12.09.25 pm.png]
2021-05-24 19:36 Kristian G. Andersen open

Oh, let Sharri see these... :wink:. (maybe not).
2021-05-24 19:36 Edward C. Holmes open

Happy to send to Tony if he wants them.

Full conversation →