COVID-19 Records

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

RecordDateTypePages
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