--- type: Conversation title: Private channel session 1687 description: "slack conversation, 17 messages, 2022-01-13." tags: - conversation - slack medium: slack message_count: 17 started_at: "2022-01-13T07:51:18" ended_at: "2022-01-13T09:48:37" duration_seconds: 7039 sources: - { id: slack_pm, resource: /sources/slack-pm.md, title: Slack / Private Message Drop, author: "process:senate-hsgac-release" } generated: { by: randpaul-corpus-pipeline/1.0, at: "2026-08-01T12:42:27Z" } status: stable --- A slack conversation of 17 messages spanning 1h 57m. # Metadata - **Started:** 2022-01-13T07:51:18 - **Ended:** 2022-01-13T09:48:37 - **Duration:** 1h 57m - **Participants:** 2 - **Source:** [slack_pm](/sources/slack-pm.md) - **Pages:** 1053-1055 # Participants * [Andrew Rambaut](/people/andrew-rambaut.md) * [Edward C. Holmes](/people/edward-c-holmes.md) * [Kristian G. Andersen](/people/kristian-g-andersen.md) * [Robert F. Garry](/people/robert-f-garry.md) # Transcript **[2022-01-13T07:51:18] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yeah, the email chains - and especially the Google Doc history - show the whole process very well. It's exactly whatwe have always been saying. But only reasonable people would understand that - i.e., <50% of the US public. **[2022-01-13T07:53:22] Kristian G. Andersen:** I expect ALL of this will become public at some point. The GOP will take the house later this year by which time myself and Bob will find ourselves subpoenad to appear in front of congress. Because of this, it's _ultra_ importantwe don't give them any further fodder - just pointing out when they're wrong, but without giving any further details than those already known. **[2022-01-13T07:56:08] Robert F. Garry:** True - which makes it all the more important to really nail the Science papers... **[2022-01-13T07:59:42] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yup - focus on the science. (plus, we got a grant to write... :wink: ) **[2022-01-13T08:01:56] Robert F. Garry:** Yeah - it's so distracting - I have to talk to a local reporter about Mardi Gras/Omicron now - plenty of opportunity toget in more trouble there. **[2022-01-13T08:02:59] Robert F. Garry:** BTW - the Intercept actually said they would do a correction/clarification... **[2022-01-13T08:17:15] Robert F. Garry:** Just got this - oh boy... [shared file(s): image.png] **[2022-01-13T08:22:57] Kristian G. Andersen:** I would strongly suggest not replying to that - if you do, use the version Andrew drafted. Also, Wade is back at the NYT? What a disgrace. **[2022-01-13T09:06:35] Robert F. Garry:** Seems he's back. **[2022-01-13T09:10:09] Robert F. Garry:** Good idea but I probablt need to response to the what were the steps question . Here is a draft: Dear Nick, Cogent perhaps, but as I told the Intercept my initial impression and that of others about the FCS was wrong. All of the emails regarding the teleconference show the establishment of the hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper and then the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shiftedas the result of analysis and the examination of new data. All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). Would you be willing to discuss the steps that… **[2022-01-13T09:13:08] Kristian G. Andersen:** I strongly suggest _not_ giving him any details - just email him a version of Andrew's email from yesterday. He's going to twist your words and then use them later to yet again get back at you. **[2022-01-13T09:14:24] Robert F. Garry:** Dear Nick, Cogent perhaps, but as I told the Intercept my initial impression and that of others about the FCS was wrong. All of the emails regarding the teleconference show the establishment of the hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper and then the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shiftedas the result of analysis and the examination of new data. All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions from that initial review. **[2022-01-13T09:14:34] Robert F. Garry:** Better? **[2022-01-13T09:17:28] Kristian G. Andersen:** All of the emails regarding the teleconference show the establishment of the hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper and then the assessment of these based on the available *scientific* evidence. Opinions simply shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., in Nature Medicine and ~then updated~ in Cell late last year). Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions ~from that initial review~ **[2022-01-13T09:17:38] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yes, better, although a few suggested edits **[2022-01-13T09:28:59] Robert F. Garry:** sent that to wade btw **[2022-01-13T09:48:37] Kristian G. Andersen:** The slightly edited version? All good. He'll probably ask for further information, but just don't reply back - he's got what he needs