@Bryce_Nickels @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan So are you saying Kristian should not have taken his call when he asked to speak with him about SARS-CoV-2? There's nothing suggestive of any impropriety by Fauci or KGA. There's nothing remotely consistent with Fauci squashing discussion.

@gtuckerkellogg @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Kristian definitely should have taken his call. He had no choice. As far as impropriety by Fauci, any involvement by Fauci was not appropriate imo (regardless of his intent). As for KGA, many people have posted inconsistencies b/n his private and public statements after Feb 1.

@Bryce_Nickels @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan I disagree with your views on Fauci's involvment. Fauci was chief pandemic advisor to the White House, huge potential national security issues, he had to be involved. My only issue is that he should have been acknowledged. The tea-leaf reading of KGA's emails is tiresome, IMO.

@gtuckerkellogg @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan forgot to mention before that, imo, someone serving as chief pandemic advisor to the White House on something with potential national security issues should ABSOLUTELY NOT be involved in drafting a scientific paper

@Bryce_Nickels @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Unless I've missed something, I think there's not a single email involving Fauci and the authors of PO discussing the draft. Farrar sends Fauci a copy (without the PO authors) at one point, and Kristian sends Fauci a copy after it's been accepted. That's it.

@gtuckerkellogg @PrometheusCHT @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan I’m confused because you stated above that you agreed with me that Fauci should have been acknowledged. Why do you think Fauci should have been acknowledged? The word “drafted” was imprecise-I should have just said “Fauci should have had no influence in the contents of PO”

@Bryce_Nickels @gtuckerkellogg @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Let's not forget the confirmation of a kind in the witless construction below: "Tell me you've never had a discussion of a scientific draft manuscript without telling me you've never had a discussion of a scientific draft manuscript"

@PrometheusCHT @Bryce_Nickels @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Still true. You've willfully misinterpreted the ellipsis, and Fauci was not on the email

@gtuckerkellogg @Bryce_Nickels @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Accurately interpreted*. I challenge your comprehension skills. Concede TF wasn't on that particular email, but that's trivial when we can reasonably assume the same views were expressed on the call.

@PrometheusCHT @Bryce_Nickels @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan The call was over a week earlier, a period duing which views were evolving rapidly, so no you can't reasonably assume that. Moreover, the call wasn't about anything for publication.

@gtuckerkellogg @Bryce_Nickels @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan No, but as shown in other emails the man who publicly claimed masks don't work charged the team with managing "social media distortions". This narrative fitting exercise attempted to close the Overton window on lab origins—as your colleagues with little regard for truth have too

@PrometheusCHT @gtuckerkellogg @stgoldst @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan Carl, do you agree w/ me that it appears you and I are doing a good cop/bad cop bit on this thread. I was not trying to do this (or was I?) but looking through these posts, it does look that way to me. Moving forward, can we keep doing this, but be fully transparent about it?