Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.886 [SLACK_001100] · slack_pm:msg:09188

Date: 2021-05-27 18:15
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.

Honestly, the NYTimes article makes my blood boil. It's not "we need to consider a lab leak" - I get that and I agree with that. However, it's the false equivalence and the idea that we have no data either way - it's just not true, but I'm pretty damn sure somebody like Marc or Akiko haven't actually looked at any of it. It's just lazy - and dangerous. And where in the article are they discussing the extremely high likelihood that this came in via infected animals? Idon't see any of that - only lab, lab, lab. It's clear that people who say "I'm keeping an open mind" very clearly believe it came from a lab - they're just too afraid to admit it. At least fucking eDim is consistent on that point - I wish the Bloomshitters would be too. This whole "I'm just asking questions" leads to a bottomless well of hypotheticals,which is incredibly unhelpful.

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
It's not "we need to consider a lab leak" - I get that and I agree with that.	quoted / not their view	quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks	instructs

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

It's not "we need to consider a lab leak" - I get that and I agree with that.

quoted / not their view

quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks

instructs

In context

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

2021-05-27 18:06 Robert F. Garry open

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/
2021-05-27 18:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, she's on that paper, but I don't believe that work is actually hers
2021-05-27 18:08 Robert F. Garry open

exacty! In this paper Shi and Baric make a point mutation in the HKU4 spike. Baric did it nit Shi I'm pretty sure and we're talking pseudoviruses which as the name implies are not viruses.
2021-05-27 18:09 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yup
2021-05-27 18:15 Kristian G. Andersen

Honestly, the NYTimes article makes my blood boil. It's not "we need to consider a lab leak" - I get that and I agree with that. However, it's the false equivalence and the idea that we have no data either way - it's just not true, but I'm pretty damn sure somebody like Marc or Akiko haven't actually looked at any of it. It's just lazy - and dangerous. And where in the article are they discussing the extremely high likelihood that this came in via infected animals? Idon't see any of that - only lab, lab, lab. It's clear that people who say "I'm keeping an open mind" very clearly believe it came from a lab - they're just too afraid to admit it. At least fucking eDim is consistent on that point - I wish the Bloomshitters would be too. This whole "I'm just asking questions" leads to a bottomless well of hypotheticals,which is incredibly unhelpful.
2021-05-27 18:16 Edward C. Holmes open

So, a single point mutation. No evidence of "inserting a furin cleavage site"?
2021-05-27 18:16 Kristian G. Andersen open

Correct - and it's not her work.
2021-05-27 18:18 Edward C. Holmes open

:+1:
2021-05-27 18:56 Robert F. Garry open

on the shit scale Zimmer's NYT is about 6 or 7 - most of the rest are 10s

Full conversation →