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. 2021-05-25 19:30 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Good. Let's hope this can get back on track - but I'm not hopeful in the short term.
2. 2021-05-25 19:30 Robert F. Garry open
   Zimmer writes with Gorman so could go anywhere.
3. 2021-05-25 19:30 Edward C. Holmes open
   No chance in the short-term
4. 2021-05-25 19:30 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Key. https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/1397409973257179138?s=20
5. 2021-05-25 19:30 Robert F. Garry
   https://unherd.com/2021/05/what-if-there-was-a-lab-leak/ This tells you all you need to know: "The latest _Wall Street Journal_ story, for example, about three Wuhan researchers allegedly falling suspiciously sick in November,builds on facts revealed by David Asher, former lead investigator for the State Department, in interviews two months ago with both the Australian journalist Sharri Markson and myself."
6. 2021-05-25 19:30 Robert F. Garry open
   BTW- really "fair and balanced" reporting from Birrill.
7. 2021-05-25 19:30 Kristian G. Andersen open
   shared file(s): Fwd: [whcanyt] Statement by President Joe Biden on the Investigation into the Origins of COVID-19
8. 2021-05-25 19:30 Robert F. Garry open
   My response to Carl same question. Thanks Carl and I too enjoyed the chat. When the WSJ ran their article last Sunday I revisited the reports of the 2-3 sick WIV workers. I need to go off the record for a bit: is a FSO and until last July worked directly with Secretary Pompeo. It was a difficult post -- she's now in ie Knows and has worked with David Asher who is responsible for the intelligence on the 2-3 lab workers and Miles Yu China expert - both are now at the Hudson Institute. It's fair to say in the case of both that their take on Lab Leak is driven by a strong Anti-China bias. Back on the record. The intelligence about the 2-3 lab works being sick and checking into hospital has been disputed. It's also been reported that these workers tested negative for SC2 antibodies. Marion Koopsman a member of the WHO teamcharacterized the cases as no big deal. The WSJ report needs to be considered in the context that there was a major influenza surge at the same time inWuhan. Having a couple of people with flu would be expected. This surge of flu cases probably obscured some ofthe early C19 case finding. More important if there were in fact 2-3 cases of C19 at the WIV that were ill enough to get checked into a hospital, then there would have had to be 100s of cases of less severe disease at the WIV. Either that or you believe that everyone that got infected got very sick. I do not think it is plausible that large numbers of cases were covered up.Bottom line: I do not find the reports on 2-3 sick workers with "possible" COVID to be credible. Nevertheless I dowelcome the investigation and I hope the Intel agencies take some of the scientific information into consideration. The Biden Administration should declassify this information ASAP, because it is being used to create uncertaintyabout C19 origins. At the same time I do not believe that the answers to the origins of SC2 lie in any type of forensicor intelligence gathering operation surrounding the lab - this is a distraction. Rather, it's imperative that weinvestigate the wildlife chain and find the reservoir of SC2. We also need an international effort to identify other CoVs that may become the next pandemic virus.

Full conversation →