Editor’s notes: Apologies for inconsistencies in this transcript, they were transcribed from a tape recording of a meeting provided to us by Rick. It was recorded on a hidden Olympus Note Corder DP-311 digital recorder and while the sound quality is usually clear for this device, it was hidden in a jacket pocket and it has picked up noises from movement around the table. It is therefore difficult to perform an accurate transcription during the noisy bits.
Everyone, this is Josh, and he promised me that I would be out of here in time for my four-o’clock detail. Everyone else in here, I am serving in an administrative capacity only in this meeting. If any question arises with regards to the principal research of this work, I will not comment. I will only ask questions of the marketing team in this meeting. Now, we have one official transcription of this meeting. Alex, you are taking the notes as the ex-officio, is that correct? Lessee … We have concurred by majority that for this meeting, an audio or video recording is not necessary and we can run on the notes of the ex-officio. In order to avoid pre-existing conflicts of interest, I’ll ask each one of you in the room if you are currently recording this meeting in any way, other than personal notes, hand written on a notepad, or typed notes into a computer. You will also either affirm or not-affirm to me that you have all audio and or video recording on your computer, pocket device or any other electronic means turned off. Eddie?
I affirm, I am not recording this meeting in any way, nor will I during this meeting.
Okay, Leandra?
I affirm, I am not recording this meeting and I will not record this meeting.
Cassandra?
I am not recording and I will not record for the length of this meeting.
Do you affirm?
I affirm.
Shin Liu?
I affirm, I am not recording this meeting and I will not record this meeting.
Rick?
I do not-affirm.
Okay. Alex, Dr. Yukon has entered a “not affirm” please note.
Rick, why do you claim a “no affirm?”
Conflict of interest.
Alex please note Dr. Yukon’s claimed COI.
Rick, under the guidelines of this funding opportunity, do you accept to leave the room now for the remainder of the meeting?
Yes.
[Editor’s note: at this point, the sound fell apart, Rick apparently took off his jacket and placed if over the the back of the chair. Other than a few random words, we had to move forward by 43 seconds in the recording to continue the transcript.]
Yes, but please pull the plug from the back of the laptop … Dr. Hui?
I affirm, I am not recording this meeting and I will not record this meeting.
Josh?
I affirm, I am not recording this meeting and I will not record this meeting.
Okay, we’re good now, we can get started.
On the side. It might still be on though. It has a battery. Why don’t you just open it up and check?
We’re not going to open it up. Alex, would you please hand the computer to the guard at the door, and tell him to bring it to Rick? Unplug the charger too, bring him him charger.
Alex, please note time, day and participants in attendance. Now, Josh, without discussing the specifics of why we hired you for this contract, do you have any questions for me as the administrator of this meeting?
(inaudible) on the third line of the second graf.
Yes, it should be number 3447. 8022 is the old funding object.
Josh, what is the current projection for Year 2 total fatalities?
We have two, which do you want first, the Bacardi Scenario or the Jameson Scenario?
Bacardi first.
Okay, Bacardi … current year two projections are three point five million. We can conceivably get that to zero average burden fatalities over five years. For the zero, we projected on decreased flu and pneumonia deaths, decreased air pollution deaths averaged at approximately seven hundred thousand per year. We didn’t include accidental hospital deaths because we can’t verify the model for those, but we expect the Bacardi option to increase accidental hospital deaths by no more than five percent over burden. The burden for flu, pneumonia and noncorrelated air pollution for lung and full cycle cardio is currently a shade south of seven million premature deaths per year, so we’ll only need to hit ten percent under burden to show zero average deaths. But this one is going to require some creative accounting.
Creative accounting …
Some remarkably creative accounting.
Jameson?
The Jameson is safer and it’s easier. For the Jameson we just market the whole thing as a conspiracy theory.
Josh … I’m quite sure that we don’t have that kind of budget.
It might not be as expensive as you think. We’ve used this strategy a bit lately, it works well so far. The first year isn’t even as expensive as the Bacardi, so you’ll have a year to get your ducks in a line. Year two is about the same as Bacardi, then then you have three and four, for which you’ll be ready. You can probably cover it in two years by just starting a new token swap.
We’re not in that business Josh. We do research.
We can license it. It’s not a big deal. The point is that the Jameson scenario lets you save all that money up front. We don’t need to hide anything, we just need to arrange a few extra coincidences so it looks conspiratorial. The mainstreams won’t touch it, the niche markets will eat it up and that will distance it even further from the mainstreams. If you can keep that up for four years, your provisional responsibility is eroded enough to sell the obligation outright.
Who would buy it?
I have a few labs that would buy it.
Josh, when you say buy it, you mean sell it, right?
Of course, only the big shops can actually pay cash for provisional responsibility. But we shouldn’t need it for this.
We can’t afford it for that.
I’m happy to get you out of here on time for your four o’clock, but you’ll need to just let me get to the end. Some of these details aren’t critical to the process.
Go ahead. Alex, Josh tends to speak quickly, so if you don’t get all the details in your notes, don’t stress, we’ve all been there. Go ahead Josh.
I recommend the Jameson option. It’s cleaner. We are never going to be able to fully hide this release. My in-house geneticist has already figured it out, and she did it with a twenty-year-old sequence setup. If you accept that the accidental release observation is unavoidable, which it is … which it is. If you accept that the observation is unavoidable at this point, then we just accept the life loss above burden, and put our chips on hiding the release. We can add just enough extra material to keep enough meat on the bone that a conspiracy would work. It doesn’t need to be much, but it needs to be enough to pull in some good names. We can’t manage a zero with this one, we’ll have to swallow the whole three point five or so. But it will remain a natural event.
Why can’t we just use the conspiracy theory for the Bacardi event too?
The foundation is wrong. We’re using that one for the fifty story teepee over Times Square for Native American Week.
Josh, is that real?
It was never an actual teepee, but we have the promotion in place for the five year summit. We’ve already done the creatives. We can’t use the conspiracy for the Bacardi scenario, it just isn’t built for that, it won’t work. But I can’t recommend the Bacardi because the accidental release could come right back to this lab and the whole funding opportunity. We have over a dozen sign-offs on this work, my other clients can’t risk that kind of exposure. Most of those dozen are public servants and officers, we don’t pay them enough to take that kind of exposure.
Josh, say I agreed to the Bacardi, but we also buy the first two years of the Jameson, it sounds like that wouldn’t be much extra, right?
I would need six month advance notice on cancellation if you decide to stay with Bacardi and attach yourself more permanently to Jameson. And I would need six month following the end of Bacardi to put that one to bed. So you’re looking at a one-fifth increase minimum, one quarter including our own contingency, which we attach out of policy. So add a quarter to the total contact and we can do it that way.
To be clear Josh, the actual deaths are the same for both options, right?
Yeah, I’m not in the business of killing people with shitty research practices, that’s your job. I’m just on the marketing side.
I’m going to ignore your comment. Alex, please do not note Josh’s previous comment, the funding guidelines specifically instruct us to avoid inflammatory comments.
And what are our current options to exist this contract?
Given the potential exposure for my other clients, you aren’t authorized for a release, You can use Bacardi, Jameson or both. You can also chose neither, in which case we will assume the process and you own nothing.
And I end up in a Chinese prison next time I order a bowl of sesame noodles on Sixteenth Street.
Yeah.
Alex, please do not record Josh’s comment, it followed my own comment which should also not be recorded, I made an inappropriate joke that could be considered inflammatory.
Okay, we’ll do the full Bacardi, full five year contract, and the first two point five years of Jameson, contingent on renewal before the end of Year Two.
Any questions anyone?
(inaudible)
Yes, that one should be 3447 too.
Adjourned? Anyone? Adjourned.
Alex, please tell the guard at the door to ask Rick to come back in here, and note it on your record.
No, that one is 3447, that one stays 8022 it refers to the previous funding object. Please remind Dr. Liu that she left her computer on the table, catch her before she leaves, please.