A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
"I also mention that on a February 1 teleconference you felt a natural scenario to be implausible" This is also false - you did not mention that you felt that a natural scenario was implausible on the call. The quote she's referring to was from a very early email, taken out of context, and did not reflect your opinions on the "origin" question - it's another example of science in progress.
-
On that last point, I'd probably stick to a version of Andrew's language - "We provided some initial assessments ofthe plausibility of the various hypotheses and then undertook a more detailed analysis and review of data (including new data from the Pangolins). All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., inNature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). All of the emails show the establishment of the hypotheseswe later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper and then the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions from that initial review."
-
good suggestions
-
I'm thinking she is mostly going to quote Andrew and Eddie, but we'll see....
-
2022-01-20 11:27
Robert F. Garry
So distracting - geez...
-
Yes - however, we have a grant to write @Robert Garry with a deadline a week from now... :wink:So let's make surewe focus on that - otherwise the conspiracy theorist will actually have been successful in interfering with science!
-
I'm getting there - too much preliminary data - making the hard cuts
-
She's e-mailed me a few times. I regret replying now, but this is what I said: ---------- Hi Madeleine, Let me make this absolutely clear: the narrative that we all thought it was a lab leak and were then told by Tony Fauci to write something very different for political reasons is total and utter nonsense. Pure fantasy.Basically, a number of us had initial concerns that the virus was engineered (hence my 60/40 quote) so we arrangeda teleconference with a group of experts to discuss this and listened to their opinions. As this discussion was taking place the first data from the pangolin coronavirus became available which clearly showed that the some of the unusual features found in SARS-CoV-2 were also found in nature. We also did more analysis of the genome data that pointed to a natural origin. That's it. We had an hypothesis and tested it with the data as it appeared. That's called science. Our conclusions were entirely based on the science - nothing else. We certainly discussed the wider implications of what we were doing but our conclusions were 100% drawn from the science. Tony Fauci and Francis Collins just wanted to know what the science said. As simple as that. They gave us nodirection on what to think. As far I can recall there was no discussion about NIH funding. I consider their behaviour tobe impeccable.This issue has also already been covered in detail in Jeremy Farrar's excellent book - 'Spike'. Take a look. Finally, there remains no convincing scientific evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory escape. With best wishes,Eddie Holmes--------------------Hi Madeleine,As I said, we certainly discussed the wider implications of what we were doing. So, we did think that getting something out quickly to counter conspiracy theories, but in a balanced way, was important. But - and this is the key point - we only took that stance because the science pointed toward a natural origin. Our conclusions were entirely drawn from the science. We would not have written what we did if the science had suggested otherwise. Also, the Proximal Origins paper is just a scientific paper in a scientific journal. It's not an order, not a directive, noran official position. If people disagree and think the data suggested otherwise they could just write their own paper. And some did. This happens in science every day of every week. The lab leak theory is based on one central coincidence: the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in a city (Wuhan) that contains a large lab (the Wuhan Institute of Virology) that works on bat coronaviruses. The most convincing scientific evidence would be the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. If someone can show me that, I would certainly conclude it was a lab leak. Best wishes,Eddie
-
:beer: