Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.890 [SLACK_001104] · slack_pm:msg:09224

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

But hey - mission accomplished - they are getting a lot of time in the media. All the stuff that Amy wrote about is nota consideration.

In context

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

2021-05-28 13:15 Kristian G. Andersen open

A little shaky, but some helpful comments from Relman and Baric on their true beliefs. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-sudden-rise-of-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory
2021-05-28 13:15 Kristian G. Andersen open

Here's Relman with his main argument... I'll let you be the judge. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-28 at 1.14.15PM.png]
2021-05-28 13:57 Robert F. Garry open

Strikes me as a little odd that Relman would believe that this was a little odd.
2021-05-28 14:00 Kristian G. Andersen open

Exactly - but if you have either (a) not looked at the data, or (b) don't understand the data, this would be a very logical standpoint. But here's the problem - it's uninformed.
2021-05-28 14:03 Robert F. Garry

But hey - mission accomplished - they are getting a lot of time in the media. All the stuff that Amy wrote about is nota consideration.
2021-05-28 14:22 Edward C. Holmes open

How are BioEssays able to publish this nonsense?
2021-05-28 14:29 Edward C. Holmes open

I'm genuinely ashamed to be a scientist at the moment. We look like total dick heads. What ever happen to reason?
2021-05-28 14:36 Kristian G. Andersen open

Reason, data, evidence, statistics - come on man, opinion is what matters!
2021-05-28 14:36 Edward C. Holmes open

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-28/aussie-who-investigator-defends-wuhan-study/100175292