Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1065 [SLACK_001279] · slack_pm:msg:11115

Date: 2022-01-17 18:58
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis

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

I think that Sunday Times journo will take the same line that PO1 was an attempt to stop the lab leak conspiracy etc I've told her multiple times that our conclusions were :100: driven by the science and that the if the science had suggested something different we would have written something different

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 think that Sunday Times journo will take the same line that PO1 was an attempt to stop the lab leak conspiracy etc I've told her multiple times that our conclusions were :100: driven by the science and that the if the science had suggested something different we would have written something different	quoted / not their view	paraphrase_third_party reporting frame: 'I've told'	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

quoted / not their view

paraphrase_third_party reporting frame: 'I've told'

asserts

In context

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

2022-01-17 18:58 Edward C. Holmes

I think that Sunday Times journo will take the same line that PO1 was an attempt to stop the lab leak conspiracy etc I've told her multiple times that our conclusions were :100: driven by the science and that the if the science had suggested something different we would have written something different

Full conversation →