I trust the New Yorker’s fact-checking chops, but I think it’s wise to be skeptical about Pottinger, as he’s the primary source for the story. I believe he advo

I trust the New Yorker’s fact-checking chops, but I think it’s wise to be skeptical about Pottinger, as he’s the primary source for the story. I believe he advocated for a stronger response, and was summarily dismissed by his colleagues as there’s plenty of evidence for that. But I don’t know how accurate his portrayals of the intentions behind the CDC and the FDA officials are. There aren’t a lot of ways to cross reference his analysis of the quoted meetings, since the CDC and FDA both declined to comment for the piece. This is as close to a “full story” as we’re going to get before a hypothetical “COVID commission” congressional investigation, but it’s still quite two dimensional.