Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.1067-1068 [SLACK_001281] · slack_pm:msg:11131

Page text: p.1067, p.1068 · original PDF

Date: 2022-01-20 12:21
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes
Topics: Lab-leak / accidental release hypothesis Natural origin / zoonotic spillover Wuhan Institute of Virology collaboration Intelligence community assessments Proximal Origin paper

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

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

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 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.	quoted / not their view	sarcasm ironic or mocking marker	denies
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.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
But - and this is the key point - we only took that stance because the science pointed toward a natural origin.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
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.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
If someone can show me that, I would certainly conclude it was a lab leak.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

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.

quoted / not their view

sarcasm ironic or mocking marker

denies

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.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

But - and this is the key point - we only took that stance because the science pointed toward a natural origin.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

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.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

If someone can show me that, I would certainly conclude it was a lab leak.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

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

2022-01-20 11:06 Robert F. Garry open

I'm thinking she is mostly going to quote Andrew and Eddie, but we'll see....
2022-01-20 11:27 Robert F. Garry open

So distracting - geez...
2022-01-20 11:42 Kristian G. Andersen open

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!
2022-01-20 11:43 Robert F. Garry open

I'm getting there - too much preliminary data - making the hard cuts
2022-01-20 12:21 Edward C. Holmes

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
2022-01-20 12:38 Robert F. Garry open

:beer:
2022-01-20 12:48 Edward C. Holmes open

At the end of all the day, they will write whatever they want and simply ignore what we tell them.
2022-01-20 12:49 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yup - although still important to put it on the record that all of this is complete nonsense.
2022-01-20 13:01 Edward C. Holmes open

It is surreal to know the exact truth and yet everyone else think something different.

Full conversation →