Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1112
of 1123 pages · Bates SLACK_001326
← p.1111 p.1113 → · this page in the original PDF · package
[Robert Garry]
I don't agree with this summary by exLLer MC.. And JC's BINGO would not be my response. What happened is that
WE threw out a bunch of scenarios - many people on the call trashed us for even considering Lab Leak. Franky the
most substantive thing I took away was that we needed to be circumspect about the computartional prediction of
O-linked glycans, which we were. [shared file(s): image.png]
[2022-04-30 10:54:28]
[Kristian Andersen]
Everything said on the call we had already internally discussed and considered. Full stop. There's nothing more to it
- other than sour grapes from Baric.
[2022-04-30 11:06:27]
[Robert Garry]
100%
[2022-04-30 11:09:45]
[Robert Garry]
Plus, the call was explicitly private/confidential as it should have been. Everyone on the call signed uo for that
stipulation.
[2022-04-30 11:17:46]
[Robert Garry]
Another black mark from me for Jesse - that call was confidential too. Yet he felt the need to blast out with his own
spin. eBan failed to mention she was publishing JB's notes and you and I were left to say basically that we weren't
going to discussdetails about a confidential call with heads of NIH. NO opportunity to respond to JB's BS.
[2022-04-30 11:19:27]
[Robert Garry]
It shoud be obvious wht Tony, Francis and Lawrence refuse to release those private emails re the confidential calls
and summary of confidential consultations with experts.
[2022-04-30 11:23:27]
[Robert Garry]
If govt officials can't privately consult with experts and not assure those experts that everything they say will not be
later revealed and raked over how can said experts expected to be free to provide unfettered consultation? Next
time it might be something really important :face_with_rolling_eyes:
[2022-05-02 17:40:24]
[Eddie Holmes]
@Andrew Rambaut USyd won a FOIA court case last week. I'm not sure these will be useful for you, but there are
the rulings etc. [shared file(s): Kang v University of Sydney [2022] NSWCATAD 135 Amended.pdf, Kang v University
of Sydney [2022] NSWCATAD 135.pdf]
[2022-05-03 07:27:24]
[Robert Garry]
I think quite useful - way to go @Eddie Holmes
[2022-05-11 14:41:36]
[Robert Garry]
Seriously - Who is pushing this crap and how much is JB contributing to the propagation of this nonsense?
[2022-05-23 12:29:09]
[Kristian Andersen]
Did you guys get the invitation to the SPIKE dinner in London in July? My plan is to decline, unless, of course, y'all
are planning on attending it?
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/1112
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| slack_pm:msg:11602 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1111–1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11603 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11604 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11605 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11606 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11607 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11608 | 2022-04-30 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11609 | 2022-05-02 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11610 | 2022-05-03 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11611 | 2022-05-11 | chat message | 1112 |
| slack_pm:msg:11612 | 2022-05-23 | chat message | 1112 |