Chat message

In context

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

1. 2022-01-23 10:12 Robert F. Garry open
   Not so sure - she and Baric along with Relman were on a Republican /David Asher teleconference where the Science letter was conceived. Baric definitely playing both sides so he might be feeding her clues.
2. 2022-01-23 10:18 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Yeah, that's true - might be something to it.
3. 2022-01-23 10:20 Andrew Rambaut open
   On the other hand DT was very much from the it was definitely not lab point of view - i.e., the non-cov amateurs came to the conference call thinking it might be lab but were told what the truth was by actual experts
4. 2022-01-23 10:22 Kristian G. Andersen open
   He's clearly coming from the angle of wanting to discredit us because we stepped on his territory (and I called him out on a few meetings) - so I honestly wouldn't be surprised.
5. 2022-01-23 10:32 Robert F. Garry
   Baric also keeping the low profile -which makes me suspect he's sending Chan out to do his dirty work. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Baric and eDim have formed some sort of cabal and are both feeding Paul and Jordan etc. eDim cause he's an ass - Baric to cover his.
6. 2022-01-23 10:34 Robert F. Garry open
   @Kristian Andersen @Eddie Holmes tanker has turned on the science front - it's the book-sellers, grifers and politicos that are are still fanning the Leaker flames. Hopefully those flames turn to dying embers post the two papers hitting....
7. 2022-01-23 11:14 Edward C. Holmes open
   The Sunday Tines thing is a total non-story: chunks of it are out of Jezza's book.
8. 2022-01-23 11:18 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Yeah, it's rather bizarre - nothing in there. Such wankers.
9. 2022-01-23 11:21 Andrew Rambaut open
   I think people are actually struggling to make a story out of it

Full conversation →