A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
They are only interested in the narrative that Tony told us to think for political reasons. I said that was total nonsense etc.
-
Yup - and I'd leave it at that. Once we mention that drafts were circulated on certain dates, people would want to see those.
-
It's public knowledge that a draft was circulated on Feb 4, but I'm not sure about Feb 7. What needs to be very clearis that WE wrote the paper and there were NO edits from e.g., Christian and Ron (and certainly none from Tony orFrancis - I think maybe Jeremy had a few minor edits). The paper was peer reviewed and that obviously led toseveral additional changes to the final version. The original version from Virological is here: https://t.co/nOddbnq2K5
-
Oh, wow - just read through our old Nature rebuttal... Worth a read. [shared file(s): Nature rebuttal.pdf]
-
2022-01-14 13:27
Edward C. Holmes
Yes, very good. Reviewer #2. Who could it be.
-
Hmmmm. I have a hunch.
-
We really need to figure out what to do about all of this because I think we're getting to a critical point where these documents _will_ go public so it should come from us and not e.g., DRASTIC or congress. The GOP will take the house and Bob and I will be dragged in front of congress - getting this stuff out before in a way in which we 'control'the narrative will be important. I still think we should talk to Jon about it
-
Sorry, but I can't agree to the release of these emails for the reasons I've given before. I think we do nothing. I don't see how DRASTIC could get hold of these. Nature will not allow release of peer review reports.
-
We won't be able to control the narrative. Let's be realistic.