Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1017

infection, or even perhaps academic fraud has not been conclusively determined." [2021-10-08 15:30:24] [Robert Garry] Wow - just incredible. [2021-10-08 15:32:37] [Kristian Andersen] Technically he is correct. Technically, it also has not been conclusively determined if climate change is indeed caused by human activity. [2021-10-08 15:50:04] [Eddie Holmes] That person should be in the dock. [2021-10-09 02:53:18] [Andrew Rambaut] The emails from Jeremy Farrar - for @Robert Garry's benefit: they are suggesting releasing some of the emails that are out in heavily redacted form about the conference call on the basis that they contain nothing incriminating and the redactions are being used to insinuate they do. I really feel sorry for Jeremy (and Tony and Patrick) here because they are being accused of being ringleaders in a cover-up where the emails clearly show they were just trying to facilitate open-minded examination of the matter. But my University has taken the same position as Eddie's and is saying all emails are off limits because even their existence is being used to incite abuse and harm. This argument will be considered by the Information Commissioner soon we guess and selective release would undermine this position. My main concern is that the requests are extremely broad (i.e., all emails between any of us in the last 2 years, all emails in the days 1st-3rd Feb 2020, any email with a Chinese institution) that loosing the broad (and in my view, valid) protection of the harm defence will mean we just open up more and more avenues of attack and FOI requests. However, given these emails about the Feb call have already been released by NIH and UK Gov in highly redacted form, I don't know if it would be possible for them to coordinate releasing more details from those emails unilaterally. Or just the interactions with Kristian (who is not FOIable)? [2021-10-09 05:45:59] [Robert Garry] I agree there is nothing harmful in the now famous emails re the Feb 1 conference - most of it is public knowledge anyway withe perhaps the exception of Fouchier's summary - again not harmful. [2021-10-09 05:51:28] [Robert Garry] I also appreciate the point about protecting the harm defense. As much as the Leakers - the anonymous and occasionally anonymous ones - would like to say we attacked them - it's the opposite. Alina and Blooms attacks on us and other scientists have been brutal. I guess this is where Jeremy is coming from, but yes it could backfire, just opening more worm cans. [2021-10-09 05:59:15] [Robert Garry] Tulane like Scripps is a private institution. That offers some defense against FoIA. No one can demand internal emails. However, our communications with gov entities like NIH are exceptions and subject to FoIA. I've been FoIA'd many times regarding NIH grants as a form of harassment instigated by covidfaker. NIH gets the same request and they have to comply - what happens is that they redact everything except for the title and abstract of the grant. Still the harassment works - it makes the NIH ppl uncomfortable and wastes a lot of time. [2021-10-09 06:01:41] [Robert Garry]