Slack / Private Message Drop — page 843

SLACK_001057 From: "Bloom PhD, Jesse O, a &<': Date: Wednesday, May 19,2 at 4: I&gt;, David A Reiman i &01:, "Worobey, Michael - gt: (worobey)" Subject: Re: Technical Commen External Sender. Be aware of links, attachments and requests. Hi Bob, I just wanted to follow up, and am also cc-ing Mike Worobey as he is interested in this topic. Thanks again for looping us in about your comment piece. It sounds like we don't have to draft a full formal response now. But if Science considers your comment then we'd be happy to draft a response. If they don't (I'm not sure how often they published letters about letters?), if you submit your comment as an e-letter online then we would be happy to submit a response as an e-letter too. Anyway, really appreciate you keeping us informed about this, and we agree it's important to try to figure out ways to discuss these topics in measured academic formats exactly as you are trying to initiate here! --Jesse [Andrew Rambaut] @Robert Garry I think Bill may have taken my removal of his post the wrong way - ~~ After contemplating this for the last two days, I have decided to make zero substantive response to your action. However, I do intend to make a very few additional posts, confined entirely to scientific data that will continue to support the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and then retire permanently from the field of virology. It has been my passion since the age of 12, while in quarantine in the New York metro area in the face of the 1957 Asian flu, listening to stories from my father about his recovery from poliomyelitis as a teenager. I believe that I have made a number of useful contributions in the last 15 months, working from home solely from my desktop computer and laptop, including the bulk of my post late this past Sunday. I do apologize for my intemperance toward the end of my post that likely presented the most difficulty. I had passed it by three reviewers, with license to redline, but none of them, including Bob Garry, changed a word. I actually toned it down a notch from the final draft, before posting. I understand that neither Eddie Holmes or Kristian Andersen objected either, and you yourself did not disagree. I regret the difficult position it put you in. I have a deep respect for you and your work over the past quarter century, am honored to have been a co-author with you, and wish you the best. Regards, Bill Gallaher ~ I do think he should publish it - just not on virological. Any thoughts? [Robert Garry] That's just Bill - I'd call this only very mild by Bill's standards (you've now seen the other end of the scale). *For sure he is 100% sincere about the last few sentences." I told him that you just were simply interested in keeping virological to the science, which lab leak clearly is not, and not to the personal stuff. I would not give it another thought. Yes - he can submit an toned down version to eLetters if he wishes, which it's much more appropriate. [Andrew Rambaut] I have replied to encourage him to publish it and assure him he did nothing wrong. [Robert Garry]