Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.912 [SLACK_001126] · slack_pm:msg:09460

Date: 2021-06-03 14:15
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis EcoHealth Alliance funding and grants Proximal Origin paper Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration

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

Astute people might point out that "finding pandemic viruses before they find us" is _exactly_ what the EcoHealth/WIV program tried to do, however, we then either have to admit that that program was successful beyond belief OR, as we point out in our previous Nature commentary, is hugely unlikely (we can then just reference our paper). Thoughts on whether to spell this out in a sentence or not? I like the very simple concept of "we don't find novel pandemic/epidemic viruses, they find us". And because of that, the "lab leak" hypothesis falls flat.

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
Astute people might point out that "finding pandemic viruses before they find us" is _exactly_ what the EcoHealth/WIV program tried to do, however, we then either have to admit that that program was successful beyond belief OR, as we point out in our previous Nature commentary, is hugely unlikely (we can then just reference our paper).	quoted / not their view	quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

quoted / not their view

quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks

asserts

In context

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

2021-06-03 14:11 Edward C. Holmes open

I'll get back to the paper when I can. This is good: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-06-03/lab-leak-covid-origin
2021-06-03 14:11 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'm wondering if we should double down on the conspiracy - because people like the Bloomshitters really don't wantto consider it, yet it is a KEY component of what they're saying, otherwise their hypothesis can't explain the emergence of SC2.
2021-06-03 14:13 Robert F. Garry open

@Eddie Holmes I may have talked to that guy
2021-06-03 14:13 Kristian G. Andersen open

To the other point about "capture" - I want to make people understand that _we_ don't find novel pandemic viruses, novel pandemic viruses find us. Novel epidemic viruses too. This really is huge - because it would be the first time inthe history of mankind that somebody would have managed to find a pandemic/epidemic novel virus before the virus found us. It's a very simple concept to grasp, so I'm wondering if we should spell it out?
2021-06-03 14:15 Kristian G. Andersen

Astute people might point out that "finding pandemic viruses before they find us" is _exactly_ what the EcoHealth/WIV program tried to do, however, we then either have to admit that that program was successful beyond belief OR, as we point out in our previous Nature commentary, is hugely unlikely (we can then just reference our paper). Thoughts on whether to spell this out in a sentence or not? I like the very simple concept of "we don't find novel pandemic/epidemic viruses, they find us". And because of that, the "lab leak" hypothesis falls flat.
2021-06-03 14:18 Kristian G. Andersen open

@Eddie Holmes Haha, I love this - that's me! Also, I can't deny - this is pretty good: https://twitter.com/FunctionGain/status/1400254855764135937
2021-06-03 14:18 Kristian G. Andersen open

@Eddie Holmes (these people have too much time on their hands - and too few brain cells)
2021-06-03 14:25 Robert F. Garry open

Nature aka the invisible pink unicorn is the best bioterrorist.
2021-06-03 14:25 Robert F. Garry open

Best line in contagion - WE don't have to weaponize the bird flu - the birds are doing it.

Full conversation →