Chat message

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.

In context

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

1. 2022-01-27 13:41 Andrew Rambaut open
   SLACK_001292 Hi all. Just been looking at some snippets of DQ's book. Looks good - my only quibble (other than calling the sequence file format a 'fasterfile') is with the timeline of the pangolin genome with the RBD in it. DQ says: > "What the email shows," Andersen said later, on Twitter, in response to criticisms, "is a clear example of the scientific process.[i] They were considering possibilities, lab leak included, engineered virus included, natural spillover included, and they hungered for more data that might support or negate one or another. "It's just science.Boring, I know," Andersen wrote, "but it's quite a helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty."[ii] Three weeks passed, without resolution, carrying the effort into late February. Then came the pangolins.We had the first pangolin sequence very early Feb (it was posted on virological on 31st Jan) and then Tommy's one very shortly after. So the pango RBD was in our very early drafts. And of course we posted the thing to Virologicalon the 17th Feb. Worth correcting him?
2. 2022-01-27 13:41 Robert F. Garry
   nope not responding Nerozzi, Timothy Le &<: Thu 1/27/2022 9:38 PM To: * Garry, Robert F External Sender. Be aware of links, attachments and requests. Dr. Garry, My name is Timothy Nerozzi, and I am a writer for Fox News Digital. I am writing to ask you about a conference ofvirologists convened by Dr. Anthony Fauci in the early days of the pandemic, and subsequent information releasedby the White House.To my understanding, early into the pandemic, numerous experts stated that a man-made virus, somehow leaked from a virology lab, was the simplest and most rational explanation for the begins of the pandemic. Notes from the meeting in question show that a lab leak hypothesis was criticized as a danger to "international harmony."Flashing forward, we are only now reaching a point where suggestions of man-made viruses are no longer beingtreated as conspiratorial.Do you believe that the Biden administration, NIH, CDC, or any other national or international organizationintentionally obscured or suppressed facts relating to the coronavirus pandemic from the public? Any comment or insight you can give me would be very much appreciated.Regards.Timothy H.J. Nerozzi, FRSAWriter, Fox News DigitalThis message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee(s). If you are not an addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to an addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Fox Corporation, or itssubsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
3. 2022-01-27 13:46 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Bob, might be worth a simple response. "No, I do not believe that origin theories were obscured or suppressed. I can categorically say that for the work I have been involved with - including the conference call you refer to - such suggestions are false".
4. 2022-01-27 13:48 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Just received the same email...
5. 2022-01-27 13:49 Kristian G. Andersen open
   @Andrew Rambaut - yes, worth pointing out the Pangolin "evolution". Here's what I said to DQ in an email: Definitely looking forward to reading the whole book!! Once I'm out of grant hell (two more weeks), I'd be delighted toread through it if that's helpful. It's actually interesting reading through the old version of the version of Proximal (via the wayback machine - the current version on Virological is the most recent) to compare it to the final version in Nature Medicine. It's pretty clear that we still considered the "passage" (hypothesis 3) quite plausible at the time - and we had failed to realize the real importance of the pangolin RBD. Fascinating seeing the process of science through this document - even if it's myown :wink:.
6. 2022-01-27 13:49 Kristian G. Andersen open
   "we had failed to realize the real importance of the pangolin RBD" That bit is pretty key.

Full conversation →