COVID-19 Records

Slack / Private Message Drop — page 62

of 1123 pages · Bates SLACK_000276

← p.61 p.63 → · this page in the original PDF · package

[2020-06-08 08:48:42] [Andrew Rambaut] [thread - ID: 2020-06-08 08:20:53] @Andrew Rambaut "no you smell" [2020-06-08 08:48:57] [Robert Garry] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/Protest-coronavirus-george-floyd.html [2020-06-08 08:49:58] [Robert Garry] Amy Harmon is a national correspondent, covering the intersection of science and society. She has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for her series "The DNA Age", and as part of a team for the series "How Race Is Lived in America." @amy_harmon • Facebook [2020-06-08 08:52:31] [Kristian Andersen] Amy Harmon - yes, she should know better. It's worth pointing out the Trevor isn't an epidemiologist - same for Nate, myself, and many others - the only one who's an epidemiologist in that article is Marc. One thing is to report based on tweets (which is wrong), another is doing it when the person isn't a subject-matter expert - I find that really problematic, especially for something this important. Science by Twitter is not the way to deal with these types of questions... [2020-06-08 08:53:39] [Kristian Andersen] I still see the Forbes article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/norway-scientist-claims-report-pro ves-coronavirus-was-lab-made/#46c2c45b121d [2020-06-08 08:54:03] [Kristian Andersen] Apparently written by their top science journalist... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 8.53.24 AM.png] [2020-06-08 15:26:44] [Eddie Holmes] The corrected article has also just disappeared. [2020-06-08 15:31:12] [Eddie Holmes] It is indeed a major concern that scientific debates on Twitter make it into the NYT. Maybe we should debate, on Twitter, if scientific debates on Twitter should make it into the NYT and see if that gets into the NYT? [2020-06-08 15:34:43] [Kristian Andersen] Yes [2020-06-08 15:34:45] [Andrew Rambaut] I can see the Forbes article. Starts with: _June 8: This article has been substantially updated to reflect criticism of the published study, along with the general scientific consensus on Covid-19. It also clarifies Sørensen's financial interest in the development of the_ Biovacc-19 _coronavirus vaccine_. _This context did not appear in original post_ New claims that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was engineered have been dismissed by scientific and intelligence experts. [2020-06-08 17:58:20] [Robert Garry]

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/62

Records on this page

RecordDateTypePages
slack_pm:msg:00620 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00621 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00622 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00623 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00624 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00625 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00626 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00627 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00628 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00629 2020-06-08 chat message 62
slack_pm:msg:00630 2020-06-08 chat message 62–63