--- type: Conversation title: did you see this petition? description: "email conversation, 18 messages, 2023-07-20." tags: - conversation - email medium: email message_count: 18 started_at: "2023-07-20T08:29:00" ended_at: "2023-07-20T10:29:32" duration_seconds: 7232 sources: - { id: reading_room, resource: /sources/reading-room.md, title: Reading Room Production, author: "process:senate-hsgac-release" } generated: { by: randpaul-corpus-pipeline/1.0, at: "2026-08-01T12:42:27Z" } status: stable --- A email conversation of 18 messages spanning 2h 0m. # Metadata - **Started:** 2023-07-20T08:29:00 - **Ended:** 2023-07-20T10:29:32 - **Duration:** 2h 0m - **Participants:** 2 - **Source:** [reading_room](/sources/reading-room.md) - **Pages:** 193-334 # Participants * [Christine Sizemore](/people/christine-sizemore.md) * [David Spiro](/people/david-spiro.md) # Transcript **[2023-07-20T08:29:00] Christine Sizemore:** Petition to withdraw the Proximal Origins paper... What do you think? I am a bit torn here.... On one hand, if this were a paper that summarizes the state of knowledge about SARS-CoV2 as of Feb 2020 and speculates what the origins may be, and then it turns out, as is part of science, that there is more to it, I would not have a problem with the paper. But now that is has been shown that it was not a full accounting of how the authors felt about potential origins, but clearly drove a specific narrative, I am not sure what to think any more. I know that scientific publications will never be able to present all possible scenarios and of course show the conclusions of the authors (and not also… **[2023-07-20T08:29:00] Christine Sizemore:** Petition to withdraw the Proximal Origins paper... What do you think? I am a bit torn here.... On one hand, if this were a paper that summarizes the state of knowledge about SARS-CoV2 as of Feb 2020 and speculates what the origins may be, and then it turns out, as is part of science, that there is more to it, I would not have a problem with the paper. But now that is has been shown that it was not a full Fogarty Intemational Center Advancing Science for Global Health NIH] accounting of how the authors felt about potential origins, but clearly drove a specific narrative, I am not sure what to think any more. I know that scientific publications will never be able to present all possible… **[2023-07-20T08:29:00] Christine Sizemore:** Petition to withdraw the Proximal Origins paper... What do you think? I am a bit torn here.... On one hand, if this were a paper that summarizes the state of knowledge about SARS-CoV2 as of Feb 2020 and speculates what the origins may be, and then it turns out, as is part of science, that there is more to it, I would not have a problem with the paper. But now that is has been shown that it was not a full accounting of how the authors felt about potential origins, but clearly drove a specific narrative, I am not sure what to think any more. I know that scientific publications will never be able to present all possible scenarios and of course show the conclusions of the authors (and not also… **[2023-07-20T08:29:00] Christine Sizemore:** Petition to withdraw the Proximal Origins paper... What do you think? I am a bit torn here.... On one hand, if this were a paper that summarizes the state of knowledge about SARS-CoV2 as of Feb 2020 and speculates what the origins may be, and then it turns out, as is part of science, that there is more to it, I would not have a problem with the paper. But now that is has been shown that it was not a full Fogarty Intemational Center Advancing Science for Global Health NIH] accounting of how the authors felt about potential origins, but clearly drove a specific narrative, I am not sure what to think any more. I know that scientific publications will never be able to present all possible… **[2023-07-20T09:01:00] David Spiro:** Hi, I don't agree with the petition. I think it is an important first analysis of the data available at the time and is part of a series of investigations by the authors and collaborators attempting to find the origin through genomic and epi analysis. NIH] Fogarty Intemational Center Advancing Scrence for Global Health It is also an The problem came with how the Dems and NIH leadership used it as a weapon to silence scientific debate. It is also an important historical record at this point. **[2023-07-20T09:01:00] David Spiro:** Hi, I don't agree with the petition. I think it is an important first analysis of the data available at the time and is part of a series of investigations by the authors and collaborators attempting to find the origin through genomic and epi analysis. The problem came with how the Dems and NIH leadership used it as a weapon to silence scientific debate. It is also an important historical record at this point. **[2023-07-20T09:01:00] David Spiro:** Hi, I don't agree with the petition. I think it is an important first analysis of the data available at the time and is part of a series of investigations by the authors and collaborators attempting to find the origin through genomic and epi analysis. NIH] Fogarty Intemational Center Advancing Scrence for Global Health It is also an The problem came with how the Dems and NIH leadership used it as a weapon to silence scientific debate. It is also an important historical record at this point. **[2023-07-20T09:01:00] David Spiro:** Hi, I don't agree with the petition. I think it is an important first analysis of the data available at the time and is part of a series of investigations by the authors and collaborators attempting to find the origin through genomic and epi analysis. The problem came with how the Dems and NIH leadership used it as a weapon to silence scientific debate. It is also an important historical record at this point. **[2023-07-20T09:20:00] Christine Sizemore:** Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad. **[2023-07-20T09:20:00] Christine Sizemore:** Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad. **[2023-07-20T09:20:00] Christine Sizemore:** Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad. **[2023-07-20T09:20:00] Christine Sizemore:** Have you read that report from the committee that I sent recently? I would have agreed with you until I saw the actual emails and Slack channel conversations... I am still siding with you that it should not be retracted, also because that sets precedence. But what went on behind the scenes is pretty bad. **[2023-07-20T10:23:00] David Spiro:** Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency… **[2023-07-20T10:23:00] David Spiro:** Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but there was an emergency… **[2023-07-20T10:23:03] David Spiro:** Inline-Images: image001.png Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but… **[2023-07-20T10:23:03] David Spiro:** Inline-Images: image001.png Yes, I did and I also watched portions of the hearing with Andersen and Garry. The House report is a skewed and doesn't take into account some of the details revealed in the hearing. After watching the hearing, I think Fauci and Collins were involved, I am not convinced that this was orchestrated by Fauci. Jeremy Farrar was the initiator of the article and Fauci sat in on a call. Andersen said that Fauci played a minimal role in the talks and that they changed their point of view based on analysis of the data. Given my review of the genomic data, this seems reasonable. I think the paper is most likely an honest assessment of data. Quickly done, no doubt but… **[2023-07-20T10:29:32] Christine Sizemore:** Inline-Images: image001.png Wow - I did not know all of this! For me its all about scientific elitism and the few at the top pulling strings. I agree, there is no evidence that Fauci orchestrated this but then again, I am not sure about this either. I am not sure about anything any more ... all I can say is that the upper crust at NIH and in the global research arena does pull strings and control messages. **[2023-07-20T10:29:32] Christine Sizemore:** Inline-Images: image001.png Wow - I did not know all of this! For me its all about scientific elitism and the few at the top pulling strings. I agree, there is no evidence that Fauci orchestrated this but then again, I am not sure about this either. I am not sure about anything any more ... all I can say is that the upper crust at NIH and in the global research arena does pull strings and control messages.