Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.879 [SLACK_001093] · slack_pm:msg:09110

Date: 2021-05-26 17:38
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

Yup. What's key here - if there was _evidence_ to support the lab leak, taking that latter path would (unfortunately) have been necessary. However, there isn't any evidence, so it ends up exactly like he writes it. Sad!

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
What's key here - if there was _evidence_ to support the lab leak, taking that latter path would (unfortunately) have been necessary.	needs context	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

What's key here - if there was _evidence_ to support the lab leak, taking that latter path would (unfortunately) have been necessary.

needs context

speaker_own

asserts

In context

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

2021-05-26 16:50 Andrew Rambaut open

@Kristian Andersen
2021-05-26 16:59 Edward C. Holmes open

@Kristian Andersen
2021-05-26 17:31 Robert F. Garry open

@Kristian Andersen
2021-05-26 17:36 Robert F. Garry open

Yes - please pick a side: "There's a choice being made here between two ideas -- one that falls neatly within the world of biology, and the other that knots together conspiracy theory, political intrigue, and xenophobia."
2021-05-26 17:38 Kristian G. Andersen

Yup. What's key here - if there was _evidence_ to support the lab leak, taking that latter path would (unfortunately) have been necessary. However, there isn't any evidence, so it ends up exactly like he writes it. Sad!

Full conversation →