Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1062 [SLACK_001276] · slack_pm:msg:11090

Date: 2022-01-14 14:04
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Intelligence community assessments

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

These are drafts of a scientific paper. They are not an official statement nor an order telling what people should believe. Let's put this in perspective.

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
They are not an official statement nor an order telling what people should believe.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

They are not an official statement nor an order telling what people should believe.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

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

2022-01-14 13:56 Kristian G. Andersen open

Here are the relevant documents showing the history of the paper. The 2/4 and 2/6 drafts will likely become public no matter what since the US Government will already have these. The others are all internal to us and would not become public until congress gets involved (probably towards the endof this year). Let's discuss this in a couple of weeks - nothing happens right now, but we _absolutely_ do not want Jordan/Comeror USRTK to be the first to release the drafts. [shared file(s): 2020.02.04 Draft.pdf, 2020.02.06 Draft.pdf, 2020.02.17Nature submission.pdf, 2020.02.29 Nature rebuttal manuscript.pdf, 2020.02.29 Nature rebuttal.pdf, 2020.03.05Nature Medicine submission.pdf, 2020.03.17 Nature Medicine final.pdf]
2022-01-14 14:01 Andrew Rambaut open

> As background - > > As far as I know, Fauci and Collins had no ties to the lab in Wuhan. They are directors of NIH and NIAID respectively. Funding from these bodies are not decided by the directors by the funding panels which comprise academics who are seconded for the purpose (the same way that it is done by the UKRI research councils in the UK).
2022-01-14 14:01 Andrew Rambaut open

My reply
2022-01-14 14:01 Kristian G. Andersen open

And just to be clear - when/if Bob and I are subpoenaed they may ask to see all correspondence (emails) relevant tothe paper and we would have no choice but to comply. Yes, we (especially I, since I'm not a citizen) could plead the5th, but that would be extremely unwise and my institution would very likely not support that - plus, that'd likely turn into a lawsuit, in which case everything would have to be handed over anyway. Let's hope it won't get to that! (I'm 95% certain we'll be subpoenaed, but I don't think they'll ask for all our correspondence - unless it ends up in a lawsuit, but that makes absolutely no sense since we're talking about writingg'damn scientific papers! But this is America today...)
2022-01-14 14:04 Edward C. Holmes

These are drafts of a scientific paper. They are not an official statement nor an order telling what people should believe. Let's put this in perspective.
2022-01-14 14:05 Kristian G. Andersen open

Agreed - I'm not the one that needs convincing, but the entire GOP (who'll soon have the House) sees this very differently.
2022-01-14 14:05 Edward C. Holmes open

A paper the conclusions of which I still agree.
2022-01-14 14:06 Edward C. Holmes open

We'll never ever control what the GOP thinks
2022-01-14 14:08 Kristian G. Andersen open

No, we can't control what the GOP thinks - however, once they take the house, Daszak, Bob, myself, and others willbe subpoenaed because they clearly want all this information.

Full conversation →