--- type: Conversation title: Private channel session 1698 description: "slack conversation, 34 messages, 2022-01-20." tags: - conversation - slack medium: slack message_count: 34 started_at: "2022-01-20T10:13:18" ended_at: "2022-01-20T14:18:07" duration_seconds: 14689 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 34 messages spanning 4h 4m. # Metadata - **Started:** 2022-01-20T10:13:18 - **Ended:** 2022-01-20T14:18:07 - **Duration:** 4h 4m - **Participants:** 4 - **Source:** [slack_pm](/sources/slack-pm.md) - **Pages:** 1065-1070 # 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 **[2022-01-20T10:13:18] Kristian G. Andersen:** Alright, I got an email from the Sunday Times reporter as well: [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2022-01-20 at 10.12.43AM.png] **[2022-01-20T10:14:52] Kristian G. Andersen:** Here's my drafted reply - suggestions? ```I can only speak for our own investigations, however the idea that any of our investigations were influenced bypolitics or political ramifications of particular hypotheses is false and, frankly, absurd. The idea that there was a"prefered narrative" and that people like Drs. Fauci and Farrar had influence over our scientific conclusions (i.e., the idea that there is a conspiracy) is also false - which is clear from e.g., FOIA'd emails and news articles at the time. For example, it is public knowledge that the "origin question" was directly discussed at the level of the White House early in the pandemic -… **[2022-01-20T10:24:01] Robert F. Garry:** It's good - no suggestions. I got the almost same email. My response will be shorter and perhaps not as collegial. **[2022-01-20T10:24:26] Kristian G. Andersen:** Just updated my last paragraph - because, fuck this - time to call a spade a spade. **[2022-01-20T10:25:49] Robert F. Garry:** Dear Professor Garry, I hope you are well. I am a reporter with The Sunday Times newspaper and I am writing an article for this weekend's paper about the scientific community's investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In this article I suggest that the scientific consensus reached around the possibility of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, driven in large part by the seminal Proximal Origin paper, may have been unduly influenced by the political ramifications of the hypothesis. Sorry to say this, but your suggestion is misinformed and completely inaccurate.I mention that the authors have maintained that the process behind the paper was strictly scientific.It was - I concur.I also… **[2022-01-20T10:27:54] Robert F. Garry:** This Sunday Times will be bad - I think Wade's will be much worse. **[2022-01-20T10:30:29] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yup, I think it'll be complete junk - with more junk to come. "completely inaccurate" - I'd say "false" - as it's not really "inaccurate" it's just totally false. **[2022-01-20T10:31:49] Kristian G. Andersen:** "I also mention that on a February 1 teleconference you felt a natural scenario to be implausible" This is also false - you did not mention that you felt that a natural scenario was implausible on the call. The quote she's referring to was from a very early email, taken out of context, and did not reflect your opinions on the "origin" question - it's another example of science in progress. **[2022-01-20T10:33:22] Kristian G. Andersen:** On that last point, I'd probably stick to a version of Andrew's language - "We provided some initial assessments ofthe plausibility of the various hypotheses and then undertook a more detailed analysis and review of data (including new data from the Pangolins). All of our conclusions were written in our published and peer-reviewed papers (i.e., inNature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). All of the emails show the establishment of the hypotheseswe later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper and then the assessment of these based on the available evidence. Opinions simply shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. Since then more data has been… **[2022-01-20T10:41:52] Robert F. Garry:** good suggestions **[2022-01-20T11:06:24] Robert F. Garry:** I'm thinking she is mostly going to quote Andrew and Eddie, but we'll see.... **[2022-01-20T11:27:23] Robert F. Garry:** So distracting - geez... **[2022-01-20T11:42:49] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yes - however, we have a grant to write @Robert Garry with a deadline a week from now... :wink:So let's make surewe focus on that - otherwise the conspiracy theorist will actually have been successful in interfering with science! **[2022-01-20T11:43:49] Robert F. Garry:** I'm getting there - too much preliminary data - making the hard cuts **[2022-01-20T12:21:17] Edward C. Holmes:** She's e-mailed me a few times. I regret replying now, but this is what I said: ---------- Hi Madeleine, Let me make this absolutely clear: the narrative that we all thought it was a lab leak and were then told by Tony Fauci to write something very different for political reasons is total and utter nonsense. Pure fantasy.Basically, a number of us had initial concerns that the virus was engineered (hence my 60/40 quote) so we arrangeda teleconference with a group of experts to discuss this and listened to their opinions. As this discussion was taking place the first data from the pangolin coronavirus became available which clearly showed that the some of the unusual features found in… **[2022-01-20T12:38:18] Robert F. Garry:** :beer: **[2022-01-20T12:48:57] Edward C. Holmes:** At the end of all the day, they will write whatever they want and simply ignore what we tell them. **[2022-01-20T12:49:54] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yup - although still important to put it on the record that all of this is complete nonsense. **[2022-01-20T13:01:16] Edward C. Holmes:** It is surreal to know the exact truth and yet everyone else think something different. **[2022-01-20T13:17:36] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yeah, I keep telling people this - it's really surreal to be inside a major conspiracy theory and having all the facts soyou can see exactly how crazy all of this is. It's pretty interesting - if it wasn't so fucked! **[2022-01-20T13:24:08] Robert F. Garry:** I'm pretty sure that Madeleine is not going to quote the ABC News piece or reveal the whole national academies thing. That little bit of backstory needs not to be relegated to the trashbin of history. **[2022-01-20T13:32:20] Kristian G. Andersen:** I updated my email to her a little... ```I can only speak for our own investigations, however the idea that any of our investigations were influenced bypolitics or political ramifications of particular hypotheses is false. As an expert having worked on viral origin/emergence questions for more than a decade, such conspiracy theories are, frankly, absurd and insulting. The idea that there was a "prefered narrative" and that people like Drs. Fauci and Farrar had influence over our scientific conclusions (i.e., the idea that there is a conspiracy) is also false - which is clear from e.g., FOIA'd emails and news articles at the time. For example, it is public knowledge that the "origin… **[2022-01-20T13:37:44] Edward C. Holmes:** :+1: And I don't remember the bit in PO1 where we mention conspiracy theories **[2022-01-20T13:38:59] Kristian G. Andersen:** Nope - we didn't. Maybe we should have... **[2022-01-20T13:39:41] Edward C. Holmes:** The irony is that Madeleine is in fact invoking a conspiracy to shut down a conspiracy **[2022-01-20T13:39:57] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yup - I point that out to her. **[2022-01-20T13:40:49] Edward C. Holmes:** I expect a torrent of shit on Twitter **[2022-01-20T13:42:04] Kristian G. Andersen:** Gotta get the mob riled up before the actual science lands... **[2022-01-20T13:54:13] Robert F. Garry:** that's what's keeping me going **[2022-01-20T13:57:16] Andrew Rambaut:** It is clear that Fauci/Collins were concerned about the negative effect of unsupported allegations of wrong doing byChinese groups. **[2022-01-20T14:02:50] Edward C. Holmes:** Which is entirely reasonable. But they gave us no instruction of what to think or write. **[2022-01-20T14:12:27] Kristian G. Andersen:** We should _all_ be concerned about unsupported allegations (many of which are conspiracy theories) targeting any group - whether Chinese or not. That is absolutely the right approach. **[2022-01-20T14:16:19] Robert F. Garry:** Listening to Rep Jordan and seeing some "coverage" on Fox News I can say that some pretty serious unsupported allegations have targeted another group - us. **[2022-01-20T14:18:07] Kristian G. Andersen:** Yup, it's no longer about the Chinese - it's all about a stolen election.