Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1064 [SLACK_001278] · slack_pm:msg:11109

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

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. Releasing drafts of a paper will not control the narrative and very likely backfire.

In context

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

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....
2022-01-14 15:24 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's nothing to do with logic - the issue is that there's a DEMAND FOR TRANSPARENCY from the GOP, which includes things like the "Fauci Act" and other complete bullshit. It's all a conspiracy theory, but that matters little once they take over the House - that's when the subpoenas will start flying. As you may recall, I have already beensummoned - however, the GOP is currently in the minority so they can't force me and the lawyers acting on mybehalf responded to that request via a written response. But again, once they become the majority, they have full subpoena power and that changes everything - it's very important to control as much of the narrative as possible before that happens.
2022-01-14 15:28 Edward C. Holmes

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. Releasing drafts of a paper will not control the narrative and very likely backfire.
2022-01-14 16:10 Andrew Rambaut open

I agree with Eddie - keep with line that it is all laid out in the published paper itself. We were just asked to look at the data and say what we thought. We published what we thought.