COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1063 [SLACK_001277] · slack_pm:msg:11101

Page text: p.1063 · original PDF

Date
2022-01-14 14:43
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Kristian G. Andersen

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

They have that email in full too - but obviously they only released the part where he talked about "conspiracy theories" because the rest of the email very much goes against their narrative. I _do_ hope Ron will release "Ron'snotes" at some point.

In context

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

  1. 2022-01-14 14:15 Andrew Rambaut open
    Reply: > Andrew - thanks. I should have been more specific: what I mean is that both Fauci and Collins were aware that NIH funds had been subawarded to the WIV in the past for certain types of research.> But you make a good point. It was not them specifically.So I will leave it there.
  2. 2022-01-14 14:19 Kristian G. Andersen open
    How the fuck are you supposed to know that...? She might want to ask them instead... I have no way of knowing, but I highly doubt they knew - plus, it was never brought up. Not on the call, not in emails with us.
  3. 2022-01-14 14:21 Kristian G. Andersen open
    It's sad to see the self destruction brought on by conspiracy theories - literally 99% of news on COVID-19 is either conspiracy theory or articles trying to counter conspiracy theories.
  4. 2022-01-14 14:38 Edward C. Holmes open
    And we won't change that. The key email is the one from Ron I think. No way he'll agree to release that.
  5. 2022-01-14 14:43 Kristian G. Andersen
    They have that email in full too - but obviously they only released the part where he talked about "conspiracy theories" because the rest of the email very much goes against their narrative. I _do_ hope Ron will release "Ron'snotes" at some point.
  6. 2022-01-14 14:51 Edward C. Holmes open
    I think we get all the emails ready but hold-off doing anything until it becomes critical. To me, this is the nuclearoption and it has serious downstream consequences (because it gives precedent for ALL other emails to bereleased) so I really don't want to do it. And by critical I don't mean DRASTIC or USRTK. They are small fry and easy to counter, and whatever we release they would pick-and-choose what they want. I honestly couldn't give afuck about DRASTIC. I don't think drafts of the paper are the issue. It's what we were told in the teleconference.
  7. 2022-01-14 15:07 Kristian G. Andersen open
    I don't think we should ever release the emails, unless we're forced to via legal proceedings (in this case, eitherlawsuits or subpoenas).The drafts are different - they show the linear logic of how we came to our conclusions after the call and why there's absolutely nothing to hide here. I get the sense that they're mostly after those at the moment, but we'll see.I agree that we should do _nothing_ right now, but let's set up a Zoom in a couple of weeks.
  8. 2022-01-14 15:12 Edward C. Holmes open
    I wouldn't release the drafts until it is absolutely necessary. I'm absolutely certain this will lead to a series ofunintended consequences.
  9. 2022-01-14 15:15 Andrew Rambaut open
    Agreed. Don't release anything.

Full conversation →