Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1088 [SLACK_001302] · slack_pm:msg:11326

Date: 2022-02-11 18:32
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Edward C. Holmes

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

If you go down that path it should be a short statement that we followed the normal scientific procedure and reject any claims that our conclusions were influenced by political considerations and that we stand by our integrity. A bit like my reply to that Sunday Times journalist. Do NOT address the specific points they make.

In context

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

2022-02-11 17:41 Kristian G. Andersen open

For my meeting on Monday, I was wondering if I should propose that all our institutions get together to make a joint statement to really push back on this? Might work quite well - and we would have minimal involvement.
2022-02-11 18:07 Edward C. Holmes open

It would but we would also need to include Butt Lesion and that means talking to him etc I'm still strongly inclined to do nothing in response to the letter but a media release if necessary
2022-02-11 18:16 Kristian G. Andersen open

Bob and I can't stay radio silent on this and calling out their bs (via our institutions) I think would be the best way todo it. Let's see what our respective outside councils say next week.
2022-02-11 18:32 Edward C. Holmes

If you go down that path it should be a short statement that we followed the normal scientific procedure and reject any claims that our conclusions were influenced by political considerations and that we stand by our integrity. A bit like my reply to that Sunday Times journalist. Do NOT address the specific points they make.
2022-02-11 18:45 Edward C. Holmes open

I would also wait until after our papers are published as they will totally move the goalposts

Full conversation →