Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1050

SLACK_001264 BBC asked me about this. I might go on the record as I'm so angry. [Andrew Rambaut] > The University of Edinburgh recently turned down an Freedom of Information request from The Telegraph asking to see Prof Rambaut's replies, claiming "disclosure would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health and safety of individuals". All of this proves that was a justifiable position [Eddie Holmes] Very true! [Andrew Rambaut] I have just got a request for comment from Le Monde. I think it might be good to reply and move this out of the USA/UK a bit. Any contact with this guy before (Le Monde is obviously the major paper in France - do they have any prior on leakyness?). > Dear Dr Rambaut > > I hope this message finds you well. As you are probably aware of, there is an ongoing controversy after some NIH emails were disclosed (https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf). I am seeking comment from the scientists involved in the discussion, trying to understand why their opinion shifted between the email discussion and the submission of their 'Proximal origin' paper in _Nat Med_. > > Would you have a few minutes to give me your account of the events ? > Many thanks ! > Best > Stéphane > > -- > Stéphane Foucart >_Le Monde_ > service Planéte/Science -_Environment/Science desk_ &at: [Andrew Rambaut] I am proposing this reply. I would be happy for your thoughts/suggestions: > Dear Stéphane, > > We were asked our opinion as experts in various relevant fields. We provided some initial assessments of the 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., in Nature Medicine and then updated in Cell late last year). All of the emails 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 shifted as the result of analysis and the examination of new data. Since then more data has been published that further supports our conclusions from that initial review. > > Best, > Andrew