A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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:
-
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
Yup - although still important to put it on the record that all of this is complete nonsense.
-
It is surreal to know the exact truth and yet everyone else think something different.
-
Yeah, I keep telling people this - it's really surreal to be inside a major conspiracy theory and having all the facts soyou can see exactly how crazy all of this is. It's pretty interesting - if it wasn't so fucked!
-
I'm pretty sure that Madeleine is not going to quote the ABC News piece or reveal the whole national academies thing. That little bit of backstory needs not to be relegated to the trashbin of history.
-
I updated my email to her a little... ```I can only speak for our own investigations, however the idea that any of our investigations were influenced bypolitics or political ramifications of particular hypotheses is false. As an expert having worked on viral origin/emergence questions for more than a decade, such conspiracy theories are, frankly, absurd and insulting. The idea that there was a "prefered narrative" and that people like Drs. Fauci and Farrar had influence over our scientific conclusions (i.e., the idea that there is a conspiracy) is also false - which is clear from e.g., FOIA'd emails and news articles at the time. For example, it is public knowledge that the "origin question" was directly discussed at the levelof the White House immediately following the February 1 teleconference - e.g.:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-asks-scientists-investigate-origins-coronavirus/story?id=68807304ABCABChttps://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/02/national-academies-provide-rapid-response-to-white-house-on-coronavirus-data-needsAs others have already stated, our conclusions - published in two peer reviewed scientific papers - have been driven strictly by science. That was true in 2020 when the pandemic started and that is true today. Any suggestions to the contrary are false and insulting. Our earlier conclusions have only been further strengthened by additional scientific evidence and analyses - and e.g., the absence of evidence from the recently completed investigations by the USintelligence community. Our research to more fully understand the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is ongoing. For hypotheses that have been "unduly influenced" by "political ramifications" you need look no further than the current narrative around the "lab leak" theory or the many conspiracy theories currently being amplified bynon-experts, including the ones suggesting that scientific investigations were "unduly influenced by the political ramifications of the hypothesis".I look forward to reading your article - which I trust will be based on science and not untrue conspiracy theories. Best, Kristian```