Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1112 [SLACK_001326] · slack_pm:msg:11603

Date: 2022-04-30 10:54
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

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

Everything said on the call we had already internally discussed and considered. Full stop. There's nothing more to it- other than sour grapes from Baric.

In context

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

2022-04-30 10:49 Robert F. Garry open

I don't agree with this summary by exLLer MC.. And JC's BINGO would not be my response. What happened is that WE threw out a bunch of scenarios - many people on the call trashed us for even considering Lab Leak. Franky the most substantive thing I took away was that we needed to be circumspect about the computartional prediction ofO-linked glycans, which we were. [shared file(s): image.png]
2022-04-30 10:54 Kristian G. Andersen

Everything said on the call we had already internally discussed and considered. Full stop. There's nothing more to it- other than sour grapes from Baric.
2022-04-30 11:06 Robert F. Garry open

100%
2022-04-30 11:09 Robert F. Garry open

Plus, the call was explicitly private/confidential as it should have been. Everyone on the call signed uo for thatstipulation.
2022-04-30 11:17 Robert F. Garry open

Another black mark from me for Jesse - that call was confidential too. Yet he felt the need to blast out with his own spin. eBan failed to mention she was publishing JB's notes and you and I were left to say basically that we weren't going to discussdetails about a confidential call with heads of NIH. NO opportunity to respond to JB's BS.
2022-04-30 11:19 Robert F. Garry open

It shoud be obvious wht Tony, Francis and Lawrence refuse to release those private emails re the confidential calls and summary of confidential consultations with experts.

Full conversation →