Slack / Private Message Drop — page 77

the only lab with closely related bat viruses - obviously RmYN02 comes from a different lab; (iii) I don't see that 4 amino acid insertion and no flanking changes is at all problematic, particularly as these insertions are so common e.g. in H7N7 AIV the sequence went from PEIPKGR (low path) to PEIP*KRRR*R (high path). And Bill Gallaher's theory explains it. But most of all I am completely tired all this. Nor do I want to die on the hill - it's up to the WIV to deal with this, not us. [2020-06-13 04:05:06] [Eddie Holmes] Just sent an email as well (which I now think is probably unnecessary). [2020-06-13 04:05:15] [Andrew Rambaut] Totally agreed. I have talked to a few journalists about the origins recently but only if they seem genuinely interested in the natural origins. My approach has been to keep pushing how plausible it is and ignore anything that is trying to set up lab origins without actual evidence. [2020-06-13 06:34:53] [Robert Garry] "We have two choices: just ignore it or make a group response...it's up to the WIV to deal with this, not us." I agree we should ignore this BBC effort and whomever they've co-opted for their show. Totally agree that a group response would be counter-productive - we put our thoughts out, raised the issue ourselves and came to conclusions. I'm starting to see so many similarities to the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" decades-long shit show. Raising it ourselves BTW when many other "advisors" on the initial email chain got pissed off and said not too is starting to look correct. There is a third way - a commission - WHO or other - to look into the proximal origins - would give WIV a chance to clear themselves. Otherwise, scientists (Pain-Hobson LOL) who want to challenge our conclusions should write their own papers in science journals not say contrarian nonsense just so they can get on the teevee or the tabloids. [2020-06-13 07:28:19] [Kristian Andersen] It's absolutely ridiculous - the questions raised about our study are dumb (idiotic even) and show a complete lack of understanding. I might chose to respond vigorously - we gain nothing responding to individual questions, but I wonder if we might gain something by extremely strongly pushing back at him and his shitty journalism. I will think on it for a couple of hours. [2020-06-13 07:36:44] [Andrew Rambaut] I think a good strategy is not to directly engage with the nutters (or even acknowledge they exist) but address their attack points indirectly by reiterating the plausibility of the reality. Bring in new evidence and studies and admit the unknowns and sell them as exciting things to find out. Good science journalists like this stuff, find it fascinating and don't give space to the nutters. The bad journalists just want to report on the conflict. Perhaps it will soon be time for an update review - there is lots of new stuff to think about. [2020-06-13 07:44:28] [Kristian Andersen] Agreed! [2020-06-13 08:48:25] [Robert Garry] "time for an update review - there is lots of new stuff to think about.":beer: [2020-06-13 09:35:25] [Andrew Rambaut] Jotting down some of the new stuff: Bill's potential source of the furin site - perhaps could dig into that more.