Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1072
of 1123 pages · Bates SLACK_001286
← p.1071 p.1073 → · this page in the original PDF · package
He's clearly coming from the angle of wanting to discredit us because we stepped on his territory (and I called him
out on a few meetings) - so I honestly wouldn't be surprised.
[2022-01-23 10:32:13]
[Robert Garry]
Baric also keeping the low profile -which makes me suspect he's sending Chan out to do his dirty work. It wouldn't
surprise me to find that Baric and eDim have formed some sort of cabal and are both feeding Paul and Jordan etc.
eDim cause he's an ass - Baric to cover his.
[2022-01-23 10:34:50]
[Robert Garry]
[thread - ID: 2022-01-23 10:01:54]
@Kristian Andersen @Eddie Holmes tanker has turned on the science front - it's the book-sellers, grifers and
politicos that are are still fanning the Leaker flames. Hopefully those flames turn to dying embers post the two
papers hitting....
[2022-01-23 11:14:24]
[Eddie Holmes]
The Sunday Tines thing is a total non-story: chunks of it are out of Jezza's book.
[2022-01-23 11:18:57]
[Kristian Andersen]
Yeah, it's rather bizarre - nothing in there. Such wankers.
[2022-01-23 11:21:35]
[Andrew Rambaut]
I think people are actually struggling to make a story out of it
[2022-01-23 11:22:12]
[Eddie Holmes]
That the title ends with a question is a common trick when you have nothing.
[2022-01-23 11:23:02]
[Robert Garry]
zip-zero-nada
[2022-01-23 11:23:50]
[Eddie Holmes]
I'm now glad I spoke to her and she used that quote from me.
[2022-01-23 11:24:07]
[Eddie Holmes]
Total silence may have looked bad.
[2022-01-23 11:28:59]
[Robert Garry]
Yes - excellent job Eddie. One thing you've got to do - looks like you did it here - with the obviously biased ones is
assail their supposed journalistic ethics. Truely . Let them know in plain language that you will if fact call them out if
they twist what you told them or misrepresent it.
[2022-01-24 08:35:56]
[Andrew Rambaut]
Just to let you know - My FOI-refusal has been appealed (no surprises) so for this stage the Information
Commissioner needs to see the emails (they will not be released from there - if they overturn the refusal then it
would come back to us for redaction etc.). I did notice one or two that haven't come out through the NIH route that
would certainly be latched on to: [shared file(s): image.png]
This is our OCR of the page, with running headers and footers removed. The
Committee's PDF
is authoritative; quote from it. Machine-readable, including the uncleaned
text: /api/page/slack_pm/1072
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| slack_pm:msg:11171 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1071–1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11172 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11173 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11174 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11175 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11176 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11177 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11178 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11179 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11180 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11181 | 2022-01-23 | chat message | 1072 |
| slack_pm:msg:11182 | 2022-01-24 | chat message | 1072 |