Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1059

the hypotheses we later outlined in the Proximal Origins paper with 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. > > There was never any concern amongst the group about these hypotheses being politically contentious as we were asked to look at the scientific evidence - in the report we simply went through the hypotheses and considered the evidence for each. > > The emails show some of the other participants did express concern that unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories (again with no supporting evidence) were damaging to open scientific investigations but that was not a consideration in our analysis. > > My point about about the teams in Wuhan was simply that they would have had samples taken in the market which was the most likely immediate source of the pandemic and information about live animal sales there (we now know these susceptible animals were in the market but didn't at the time). As I say in that email - the missing part of the picture was the intermediate host between the ultimate origins in wild bats and the human population in Wuhan. My opinion on the likely origins were exactly the same then as those published in the Nature Medicine paper and have remained the same. All the reasons supporting these opinions are in the published papers. > > Best, > Andrew OK - thoughts or suggestions? [2022-01-14 07:52:22] [Robert Garry] Looks good to me Andrew.... [2022-01-14 08:07:45] [Kristian Andersen] Looks good to me, although I wouldn't say "updated in Cell" - maybe "expanded upon". [2022-01-14 09:20:39] [Andrew Rambaut] Should I address this - `- Were you aware, while you were on that call, that Anthony Fauci had historically funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?` I mean I was aware that EHA had been doing work with them although I am not sure I knew specifically that NIH funded it. Also it is not correct to say Fauci funded it? It was the grant panels in the NIH surely? Or was there some special mechanism through NIAID's director? Or just ignore that one? [2022-01-14 09:21:23] [Andrew Rambaut] If pressed I could always say I am not really familiar with US research funding schemes [2022-01-14 09:24:18] [Kristian Andersen] I suggest not answering that question - I don't even think Tony himself was aware to be honest [2022-01-14 09:29:26] [Robert Garry] I agree - it wasn't any special mechanism from the director - just an R01 IIRC - not even sure if that a special mechanism even exists anymore though there are discretionary funds that the institute director and the overall directors have- TF doesn't take part in funding decisions at the r01 level so no not even aware. [2022-01-14 12:08:12] [Eddie Holmes] I got the same email. I will more directly say that Tony and Francis did not tell us what to think and what NIH fund was not discussed.