Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1064 [SLACK_001278] · slack_pm:msg:11103

Date: 2022-01-14 15:07
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Congressional oversight

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

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.

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 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.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	instructs

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

instructs

In context

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

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.
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.
2022-01-14 14:43 Kristian G. Andersen open

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.
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.
2022-01-14 15:07 Kristian G. Andersen

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.
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.
2022-01-14 15:15 Andrew Rambaut open

Agreed. Don't release anything.
2022-01-14 15:16 Edward C. Holmes open

Plus it's a scientific paper FFS. If people don't like they can just write a response.
2022-01-14 15:23 Robert F. Garry open

or if you are Alina just tweet you f'ing brains out....

Full conversation →