Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.1058-1059 [SLACK_001272] · slack_pm:msg:11053

Page text: p.1058, p.1059 · original PDF

Date: 2022-01-14 07:46
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: Proximal Origin paper Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration Natural origin / zoonotic spillover Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis Intelligence community assessments

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

OK another request (Sunday Times). I am inclined to answer again unless anyone thinks I shouldn't. Here is the request and my proposed reply: > Dear Andrew, > > I'm a reporter with The Sunday Times of London Newspaper. I'm just getting in touch to ask a couple of questions about the teleconference you were a part of in Feb 2020 which has been the subject of speculation this week following the de-redaction of some emails. I suspect you know which one I am referring to - on Feb 1, 2020,organised by Jeremy Farrar.>> Following this teleconference, you sent an email to your counterparts in which you say: _"If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samplesto address it would be the teams working in Wuhan."_>> - I was wondering how it was that you came to author the draft of a paper on that subject which was shared byJeremy Farrar two days later on Feb 4 and published online in draft form on Feb 16/17. What was it that changed your mind?>> Did someone from a team working in Wuhan get in touch? Or perhaps you were convinced by yourco-authors?>> - More generally, are you able to address growing concerns that during that teleconference there was anagreement made to steer the press and public away from considering the virus as originating in a lab, for political reasons? I ask this because it seems that line was adopted very early on, particularly by your co-author Kristian Andersen (Feb 4), and perhaps before there was sufficient evidence for thinking this couldn't have been the case.>> - Were you aware, while you were on that call, that Anthony Fauci had historically funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?>> - Contrary to much rhetoric, I see that the idea that the virus escaped from a lab _is_ considered in your proximal origins paper ("_We must therefore consider the possibility of a *deliberate or inadvertent* release ofSARS-CoV-2"_). Why was this deemed less politically inflammatory than the idea that the virus could have been manipulated in a lab?>> Any response you could offer today or tomorrow, would be much appreciated as my deadline is middaytomorrow.>> Best,> Madeleine> --> Madeleine Spence> Sunday Times News Review> Dear Madeleine,>> I was asked my opinion as one of a group of experts in various relevant fields. We provided some initialassessments of the plausibility of the various hypotheses and then undertook a more detailed analysis and review ofdata (including new data from the Pangolins). All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). All of the emails show the establishment ofthe hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper with the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions from that initial review.>> There was never any concern amongst the group about these hypotheses being politically contentious as wewere asked to look at the scientific evidence - in the report we simply went through the hypotheses and considered the evidence for each.>> The emails show some of the other participants did express concern that unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories (again with no supporting evidence) were damaging to open scientific investigations but that was not a consideration in our analysis.>> My point about about the teams in Wuhan was simply that they would have had samples taken in the market which was the most likely immediate source of the pandemic and information about live animal sales there (we now know these susceptible animals were in the market but didn't at the time). As I say in that email - the missing part ofthe picture was the intermediate host between the ultimate origins in wild bats and the human population in Wuhan.My opinion on the likely origins were exactly the same then as those published in the Nature Medicine paper and have remained the same. All the reasons supporting these opinions are in the published papers.>> Best,> AndrewOK - thoughts or suggestions?

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
I ask this because it seems that line was adopted very early on, particularly by your co-author Kristian Andersen (Feb 4), and perhaps before there was sufficient evidence for thinking this couldn't have been the case.>> - Were you aware, while you were on that call, that Anthony Fauci had historically funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?>> - Contrary to much rhetoric, I see that the idea that the virus escaped from a lab _is_ considered in your proximal origins paper ("_We must therefore consider the possibility of a deliberate or inadvertent release ofSARS-CoV-2"_).	quoted / not their view	quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks	questions
All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year).	quoted / not their view	quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content	asserts
All of the emails show the establishment ofthe hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper with the assessment of these based on the available evidence.	quoted / not their view	quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content	asserts
As I say in that email - the missing part ofthe picture was the intermediate host between the ultimate origins in wild bats and the human population in Wuhan.My opinion on the likely origins were exactly the same then as those published in the Nature Medicine paper and have remained the same.	quoted / not their view	quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

I ask this because it seems that line was adopted very early on, particularly by your co-author Kristian Andersen (Feb 4), and perhaps before there was sufficient evidence for thinking this couldn't have been the case.>> - Were you aware, while you were on that call, that Anthony Fauci had historically funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?>> - Contrary to much rhetoric, I see that the idea that the virus escaped from a lab _is_ considered in your proximal origins paper ("_We must therefore consider the possibility of a *deliberate or inadvertent* release ofSARS-CoV-2"_).

quoted / not their view

quoted_external sentence carries quotation marks

questions

All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year).

quoted / not their view

quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content

asserts

All of the emails show the establishment ofthe hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper with the assessment of these based on the available evidence.

quoted / not their view

quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content

asserts

As I say in that email - the missing part ofthe picture was the intermediate host between the ultimate origins in wild bats and the human population in Wuhan.My opinion on the likely origins were exactly the same then as those published in the Nature Medicine paper and have remained the same.

quoted / not their view

quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content

asserts

In context

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

2022-01-14 07:46 Andrew Rambaut

OK another request (Sunday Times). I am inclined to answer again unless anyone thinks I shouldn't. Here is the request and my proposed reply: > Dear Andrew, > > I'm a reporter with The Sunday Times of London Newspaper. I'm just getting in touch to ask a couple of questions about the teleconference you were a part of in Feb 2020 which has been the subject of speculation this week following the de-redaction of some emails. I suspect you know which one I am referring to - on Feb 1, 2020,organised by Jeremy Farrar.>> Following this teleconference, you sent an email to your counterparts in which you say: _"If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samplesto address it would be the teams working in Wuhan."_>> - I was wondering how it was that you came to author the draft of a paper on that subject which was shared byJeremy Farrar two days later on Feb 4 and published online in draft form on Feb 16/17. What was it that changed your mind?>> Did someone from a team working in Wuhan get in touch? Or perhaps you were convinced by yourco-authors?>> - More generally, are you able to address growing concerns that during that teleconference there was anagreement made to steer the press and public away from considering the virus as originating in a lab, for political reasons? I ask this because it seems that line was adopted very early on, particularly by your co-author Kristian Andersen (Feb 4), and perhaps before there was sufficient evidence for thinking this couldn't have been the case.>> - Were you aware, while you were on that call, that Anthony Fauci had historically funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?>> - Contrary to much rhetoric, I see that the idea that the virus escaped from a lab _is_ considered in your proximal origins paper ("_We must therefore consider the possibility of a *deliberate or inadvertent* release ofSARS-CoV-2"_). Why was this deemed less politically inflammatory than the idea that the virus could have been manipulated in a lab?>> Any response you could offer today or tomorrow, would be much appreciated as my deadline is middaytomorrow.>> Best,> Madeleine> --> Madeleine Spence> Sunday Times News Review> Dear Madeleine,>> I was asked my opinion as one of a group of experts in various relevant fields. We provided some initialassessments of the plausibility of the various hypotheses and then undertook a more detailed analysis and review ofdata (including new data from the Pangolins). All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). All of the emails show the establishment ofthe hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper with the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions from that initial review.>> There was never any concern amongst the group about these hypotheses being politically contentious as wewere asked to look at the scientific evidence - in the report we simply went through the hypotheses and considered the evidence for each.>> The emails show some of the other participants did express concern that unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories (again with no supporting evidence) were damaging to open scientific investigations but that was not a consideration in our analysis.>> My point about about the teams in Wuhan was simply that they would have had samples taken in the market which was the most likely immediate source of the pandemic and information about live animal sales there (we now know these susceptible animals were in the market but didn't at the time). As I say in that email - the missing part ofthe picture was the intermediate host between the ultimate origins in wild bats and the human population in Wuhan.My opinion on the likely origins were exactly the same then as those published in the Nature Medicine paper and have remained the same. All the reasons supporting these opinions are in the published papers.>> Best,> AndrewOK - thoughts or suggestions?
2022-01-14 07:52 Robert F. Garry open

Looks good to me Andrew....
2022-01-14 08:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

Looks good to me, although I wouldn't say "updated in Cell" - maybe "expanded upon".

Full conversation →