Slack / Private Message Drop — page 116

[Kristian Andersen] We could also write to Ralph on his Proton email - "Dear Ralph [...]"... Sorry, but I feel like having some 'fun' here. I'm offended by this email and I'm not known for just taking the punches... [2020-07-28 19:33:29] [Eddie Holmes] Let me sleep on it as well. I would be good to be proactive, but we don't want to drop anyone else in the shit. [2020-07-28 23:04:34] [Eddie Holmes] Notice the use of the word 'coronavirologists' in this tweet and the anonymous email. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 4.03.00 pm.png] [2020-07-28 23:07:12] [Eddie Holmes] Perhaps we should all block in on Twitter just to let him know we know [2020-07-29 04:55:59] [Robert Garry] "My point is that if Jon ignores him, will he send it to some other journo?" Eddie - you are a very wise man. Yes - Deep Throat WILL peddle - or already has - his fiction elsewhere - not to mention peddling the slander/libel on every barstool he sits on for the rest of his life [assuming anyone gets to sit on barstools again of course]. My prior experience with Joseph Fair* tells me the story will only get further and further embellished - so raising the issue with Clare makes perfect sense. Breach of review ethics is VERY serious. I'd be surprised if undark, slate etc has not already gotten the protonmail. I think we can assume DT is shopping this around as we speak. Imagine if an idiot reporter - like for ex Emmanuel Freudenthal - gets wind of this. On the other hand Amy Maxmen or other nature reporter might take the breach of review ethics seriously. [2020-07-29 05:00:11] [Robert Garry] *BTW - you can't spell CovID-NInEtEen FRaUd without curefinder. [2020-07-29 05:07:46] [Andrew Rambaut] I very much doubt he (who ever it is) will let it lie. But it is not clear what we can do. [2020-07-29 05:28:41] [Robert Garry] Be prepared to counter-punch with the E/K email - inform potentially affected parties beyond Farrar [Fauci, Colllins. Nature editors, etc} another possibility. [2020-07-29 07:19:56] [Robert Garry] Is it too snarky to point out that the main conclusion of Baric's first SARS-CoV-2 paper rushed out in March is 180 degrees wrong? They wrote: "Compared to previously isolated SARS-CoV strains, 2019-nCoV likely uses human ACE2 *less* efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year 2002) but more efficiently than human SARS-CoV (year 2003)." IIRC wE nearly fell for this but fortunately, before we finalized "proximal Origins" new data came out showing the opposite. https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20.long [2020-07-29 07:34:23] [Kristian Andersen] Wouldn't be the first time he was wrong :wink:. I think contacting Clare is the right move - this is pretty serious and we need to counterpunch. I emailed Tony already and he's seen our draft emails - we haven't heard back as I'm sure he's much much too busy (that guy