I'm mostly going by the author's own notes on how they responded, in which they state this: • You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I

I'm mostly going by the author's own notes on how they responded, in which they state this: • You assumed we'd never gene sequenced the bacteria, even though I posted the sequence publicly. I assumed you did not regularly sequence the bacteria because you did not say that you did and you did not report anything about following manufacturing regulations. That is a very weird defense to take in my opinion, and is the crux of my problem with the author in this argument. It is not acceptable to make a negative inference and then express it publicly as fact because the other party didn't mention something. That is not responsibly journalism, and to me it explains why the CEO was struggling to see good faith initially. That's not usually the behavior you see when people are communicating in good faith.