Epstein Data Wiki

The 2018 proposal to Epstein to edit human embryos

Properties1
tagstopic, genetics, biotechnology, epstein-correspondence, 2018

26 min read

What is recordedCorrespondence between Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Bishop, July to November 2018, about a proposed company to edit the human germline123
How it beganAustin Hill wrote to Epstein on July 19, 2018 proposing a conversation with Bishop; the subject at that point was cryptocurrency regulation1
Who wrote to Epstein about itBryan Bishop, directly, from July 21, 20182
What Bishop called it”the designer baby and human cloning company”3
The project document the searches returnedA four-page reference list headed “Key references for human germline genetic editing”, marked v3, filed under EFTA008048554
What Bishop asked for”$1.7m/year for up to 5 years + $1m for lab setup. ($9.5m to fund 5 years, $6m for 3 years)”, August 5, 20183
Epstein on investing”i have no issue with investing the problem is only if i am seen to lead”, July 21, 20185
Epstein on the proposal itself”i like implant embryo , wait 9 months. […] great ending”, August 30, 20186
What the documents show about moneyA request, figures, and proposed structures. The searches set out below returned no payment, transfer, subscription or company connected to the proposal37
Not establishedWhether Epstein put money into anything Bishop proposed
Related pageBryan Bishop

Between July and November 2018 Jeffrey Epstein exchanged emails with Bryan Bishop, a software developer then leaving the bitcoin clearing house LedgerX, about a company Bishop proposed to found to make genetic modifications to human embryos and to attempt human cloning.823 Bishop sent Epstein a slide deck, a “use of funds” spreadsheet, a list of scientific references and a written outline of the concept; he asked for roughly $1.7 million a year for up to five years plus $1 million to set up a laboratory, and told Epstein the money would take the project “out of our self-funded ‘garage biology’ phase to the first live birth of a human designer baby, and possibly a human clone, within 5 years.”3 Epstein replied to the approach that he had “no issue with investing”, on one condition, that he not be seen to lead; to the deck, “i like implant embryo , wait 9 months. […] great ending”; and to the spreadsheet, “no rush”.563 Austin Hill, who made the introduction, proposed to Epstein an offshore structure for the investment; Epstein answered “I dont hide”.7

What the documents record is a solicitation, a set of figures and a discussion about secrecy. They do not record that any money moved. Bishop circulated four things to Epstein: a deck, a spreadsheet, a reference list and a written outline. The searches set out at the end of this page returned the covering emails, the file names they carry, and one of the four.

How Bishop and Epstein came to be corresponding

Bishop’s name reaches Epstein in November 2015: Jeremy Rubin wrote about a proposed open letter from bitcoin developers to a To line listing Jeffrey Epstein, Joichi Ito and Bryan Bishop, describing Bishop in his own body text as “(CC’d)”,9 and the same day Bishop replied to Rubin, with Epstein and Joichi Ito on the Cc line, introducing himself: “And it is nice to meet Jeffrey—”.10 In March 2016 Rubin described Bishop to Epstein, in the course of pitching him an investment in LedgerX, as “one of the sharpest Bitcoin guys out there”.11

The 2018 sequence begins on July 19, when Austin Hill wrote to Epstein: “Sorry, was in a conversation with Bryan Bishop (polymath) and thought we should talk. The whole cryptocurrency regulation is making a mess of the markets”.1 Epstein asked about him the same day: “bryan bishop wants to talk to me. do you know him?” That question survives only as a quoted block inside a later message, with no To and no Cc line printed above it, so the document does not record whom he addressed it to or who was copied on it. Two men answered. Rubin’s reply, in the quoted chain, is “Yeah I do.”, and, on the lines beneath it: “He’s a smart guy, quirky though.” and “Does a mix of Bitcoin things and dna data storage.” Vincenzo Iozzo’s reply, at the head of the same document, is “Similar feedback, but I don’t know him that well”, stamped in its own header Fri, 20 Jul 2018 06:01:19 +0000; Rubin’s is attributed inside it to 03:32 on July 20 with no zone printed against it, so the interval between the two is not stated here.12

Hill set up a call for the afternoon of July 20 under the subject “Financial markets & cryptocoins with Jeffrey, Bryan”. Epstein asked to move it: “can we do either 1 or 4 instead”; Hill agreed: “I can do 4. I’ll just verify with Bryan but let’s assume 4pm. Same web link in the google calendar link will work then.” Bishop replied: “4 is better for me”.13 In introducing himself to Epstein beforehand, Bishop wrote that he was “now leaving LedgerX, the first CFTC-regulated bitcoin clearinghouse, after working there for 4 years as their expert on bitcoin and software development.”8

Neither the invitation nor Bishop’s self-introduction mentions embryos. The subject’s first appearance among the documents described here is in the hours after that call.

July 20 to 22: the approach, and its ground rules

In the hours after that call Hill wrote to Epstein, copying Bishop, under the subject “Thanks - just the three of us”: “Fun talking today. Lots of good ideas [a]nd ways to follow up. On idea stuck in Bryan’s head - and if your se[r]ious”, then a video link, then: “Then we should setup some secure communicati[o]ns and I’ll let Bryan pitch you on a way to have total deniability.”14

Bishop’s own approach came the next evening. Under the subject “Designer babies”, copying Hill, he sent Epstein a link to a file named designer-babies-deck.pdf on his own website and wrote:

I have talked with Austin again, and we have a series of questions about how serious you are about wanting this, and what the ground rules are for me even exploring this with you and getting to next steps.

Most of these questions are around your requirements for secrecy and privacy, specifically regarding reputational risk and also any financial involvement. I think there would also need to be some understanding about goals and feasibility of different results.

I think that one way this could be done is under the banner of my designer babies project, since the other deliverable is similar and shares so many of the same procedures and lab requirements. This might offer a sufficient level of deniability.2

The message is written as an answer to a request Epstein had made. It asks “how serious you are about wanting this”, refers to “the other deliverable”, and offers to run that deliverable under the “banner” of the designer-babies project. Nothing in the documents described on this page says what “the other deliverable” was, and no message from Epstein setting out a request is among them. The question of what Epstein had asked for is raised by Bishop’s sentence and is not answered by anything cited here.

Epstein replied eleven minutes later: “im traveling in mid east until the 1st. lets do it after that , i have no issue with investing the problem is only if i am seen to lead.”5

Bishop answered the following day. He proposed a call for the afternoon of August 2 and wrote:

Sounds like you could be the first investor as long as absolute anonymity is kept. I have always envisioned there would be anonymity requirements about babies— we can’t publicly identify who these are or their parents or benefactors, it would brand the child as (essentially, and sadly) a freak for life in the media. So I had always assumed the investor would need absolute anonymity, for these kinds of products. So the financial structure needs to be designed with these details in mind.

He added that Hill “has been advising me on this”, and that it was an open question whether Hill would be involved in the project himself.15

Epstein’s reply was one line: “i cant program but iam not bad at structuring :)“16

The structure discussion

The secrecy question was worked out with Hill rather than with Bishop. On July 21 Hill asked Epstein: “How good is your info sec / serveillance teams - do we need to bring some skills to the table to do a proper info sec sweep? … Also - should we setup or assume you’ve got OpenPgp capabilities for secure email?” Epstein answered “Later”, and then, when Hill returned to it: “I working with ideas for Bryan. … the way this might work might be an offshore hedge fund, investment trust. That’s makes a few acquisitions of Bryan’s and mine side projects. All settled and managed in Tumbled bitcoin transactions.”

Epstein replied: “I dont hide”.7

Hill wrote back the same day: “Ok. Let’s discuss how to set it up. For pl[a]usible deniability.”17 The following day Epstein asked “open pgp?” and Hill recommended two tools for it.18

Neither the offshore vehicle Hill sketched nor any other entity connected to the proposal appears in the documents returned by the searches described at the end of this page.

August 2: the appointment

On July 23 Bishop asked whether Aug 2nd 4pm EST worked; Epstein answered “Yes”.19 Bishop sent a Google Calendar invitation the same day for Thursday August 2, 4pm to 5pm Eastern, under the title “Designer babies (Bryan Bishop)”. Its agenda line reads: “Agenda- Designer babies, structuring, finance, privacy, project goals, feasible outcomes, timelines”. On July 31 Epstein forwarded the invitation to Lesley Groff.20

A reminder sent to Epstein that Thursday, by a correspondent whose name is redacted, carries the entry “Designer Babies-Bryan Bishop” against the four o’clock hour.21 On the afternoon itself Epstein wrote “im late in landing can we do 445 -545”; Bishop agreed; Epstein asked “ready when you are? what medium”; and Bishop answered “I am at a hotel so phone would be best.”22

August 5: the use of funds

Three days later Bishop sent the document Epstein had asked for. It is the only message in the exchanges described here that names a figure:

Attached is the doc you requested, it’s the “use of funds” spreadsheet for the designer baby and human cloning company.

This gets us out of our self-funded “garage biology” phase to the first live birth of a human designer baby, and possibly a human clone, within 5 years. Once we reach the first birth, everything changes and the world will never be the same again, much less the future of the human species. Attached doc shows $1.7m/year for up to 5 years + $1m for lab setup. ($9.5m to fund 5 years, $6m for 3 years).

Next steps: I am happy to hop on another call, or I could take a trip to meet you in person? And if you have any thoughts about what I might be missing, or whether this is a reasonable estimate to get to the first live birth, then I would really appreciate any feedback you have.3

Epstein’s entire reply, stamped 14:44:01 UTC the same day, was: “no rush”.3

The spreadsheet itself is not among the documents these searches returned, and the link to it is blacked out in the copy of Epstein’s reply cited here.

Bishop wrote again on Monday, August 13, saying he would be back in the United States the next day, late Tuesday, and on August 16, saying he was back and asking to schedule a call at which he could discuss any questions or concerns.2324 A search of the released files under the variants set out at the end of this page returned no reply from Epstein to either message; the next exchange between them in that set is of August 28.

Late August: the deck, and Epstein’s answer to it

On August 28 Bishop wrote under the subject “new genetic editing deck”, saying he had just put it together and giving a link to the same designer-babies-deck.pdf file name. Epstein replied “thurs?”; Bishop, “Yes pick a time”; Epstein, “coordinate early thurs”.25

Thursday was August 30. That morning Bishop wrote under the subject “More genetic editing (cont.)”: “Good morning. I’m around until 11am EST”, with links to the deck and to the use-of-funds spreadsheet and a telephone number, which is blacked out.6

Epstein’s reply was one line: “i like implant embryo , wait 9 months. […] great ending”.6

Nineteen minutes later Bishop sent what he called “Other updates”. He was “proceeding with more mouse testing” at what he called “my ukraine lab (surgeries/microinjection)”; an “amateur in Mississippi h[a]s been testing human sperm modification (just fluorescent tagging so far, [d]oesn’t work for my purposes yet)”; and that weekend he was going to a garage biohacking conference in San Francisco.26

Half an hour after that he sent a link to a 1983 paper on the fusion of bull and human sperm with tobacco protoplasts, prefaced “Alright, from the department of crazy plant stuff…”, and undertook to “assemble + send you some specific references for my genetic editing proj[e]cts.”27

September: the two files, and which of them is in the release

That undertaking is what identifies the one project document the searches returned.

On September 4 Bishop wrote to Epstein under the subject “References for embryo editing” and gave two links on his own website. The first he introduced as “References for tech [d]iligence on embryo editing”, and it points to a file named human-germline-key-references.pdf. The second he introduced as “A long-form writeup of our concept”, and it points to a file named human-germline-genetic-modification-outline.pdf.28

On September 7 he wrote again on the same thread: “The references have been updated”, giving the first of the two file names and not the second.29

EFTA00804855 is a four-page document whose first line is the title “Key references for human germline genetic editing”, marked “v3”, and whose second line reads “Narrative outline of our project: Human Germline Genetic Modification”. At the page image that second line carries a hyperlink on the title, not a heading: this document is the references file, and it links out to the separate outline file. The two file names Bishop sent on September 4 answer to those two lines in that order, and Bishop describes the second as “our concept”. The first of the pair is in the release; the outline is named in the emails and is not among the documents these searches returned. That is how authorship of EFTA00804855 is established: not from anything outside the release, but from Bishop’s own covering email naming the file whose content the document is.428

The document is a reading list with commentary, organised under the headings Reviews, Cell Sorting, CRISPR, Base Editing, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, In vitro gametogenesis and Human cloning. Its own note on approach reads: “Our approach is testis-mediated gene transfer (transfection of sperm stem cells).” Of a paper arguing that tetraploid complementation should be banned in humans because it can be used for cloning, the commentary says: “This is a method we are interested in using.” Of a theoretical route to nuclear transfer using induced pluripotent stem cells, it says: “sadly not researched further since there’s no true ‘medical’ need to do it. But we will try it out.” It closes with three primary research questions, the third of which asks whether it is “more practical to target sperm stem cells in the testis, or better to invest in R&D on in vitro spermatogenesis or in vitro oocyte genesis (which has not yet been achieved for human)”.4

The copy in the release is filed on its own, without a covering email. Its version marker and its contents point to a later version than the one sent on September 4: it carries the reference “Generation of human oogonia from induced pluripotent stem cells in vitro”, which Bishop described on October 16 as one of the new references in the version he was sending that day.430

October: legality and other investors

On October 16 Bishop wrote that Japan had announced it would allow human embryo gene editing in the laboratory, and continued: “By tremendous fortune, I happened to be in Tokyo last week speaking with a handful of investors. I got a bite (and now the question is, do I want to take /their/ money…).” On the lines beneath it: “Attached is an updated diligence doc of technical references. Did you want a second set of eyes to look at this?”30

Epstein replied: “we need to get a read on legal. first. cant do anything where US rules apply to us citizens regardless of where.? its such a great subject. what type of investors.”30

Bishop answered that day:

Legality — we can do R&D in the US but yes I will need to do careful analysis about medical tourism and other options. Ultimately maybe do partnerships with overseas clinics and get commissions on referring the customers. We can just sell the additive DNA to those overseas clinics. Many ways to structure. In the US, self-experimentation is not explicitly banned. US animal testing is open.

During my Tokyo trip the investor that made me an offer is part of a financial services company. They operate various exchanges in Tokyo, and acquired a bitcoin exchange. So I have to really decide are they the right partners and/or maybe I shouldn’t care.30

Epstein’s answer the next day was: “i dont think you have enogh info to decide whether these partners are good or bad”. Bishop replied “Certainly not.” and, on the line beneath it: “Talk soon.”31

November: the Chinese announcement

On November 26, 2018, as reports appeared that a Chinese researcher had produced gene-edited babies, Bishop wrote to Epstein under the subject “Chinese edited embryos are mosaic…”:

I am sure you have seen the news. Short version of the core technical problem, there’s high mosaicism because of their technique, meaning only a low percentage of cells in the body have any of the modifications.

He listed three published reports, and continued:

My team has been working on a new technique which does not involve stem cells in the testis, instead it’s an embryo editing technique more similar to cloning which does not require an injection to the biodad. The idea hit us like a bolt of lightning so we’re moving along in that direction.

Meanwhile our overseas lab has reported some mouse testis transfection results. They are observing maybe 5% transfection efficiency, which might be enough, further testing is ongoing. But ultimately this method is inferior to our new embryo modification technique.32

Epstein replied: “great”.33 The next day he sent Bishop and Hill a link to the New York Times report of the Chinese work, with no comment.34 Bishop answered the day after: “I typed a transcript of his presentation and Q&A while I watched”, with a link to his own transcript of the researcher’s appearance at the Hong Kong human genome editing summit.35

That is the last exchange between them among the documents returned by the searches described below.

What the documents do not establish

The subject line “Designer babies (use of funds)” is a subject line, and the spreadsheet under it is an attachment the searches did not return. Read together, the messages record the following and no more: that Bishop asked Epstein for money and named a figure; that Epstein said he had no issue with investing so long as he was not seen to lead; that Hill proposed an offshore structure and Epstein answered “I dont hide”; that Bishop told Epstein he “could be the first investor”; and that in October Bishop told Epstein he had an offer from investors in Tokyo and was weighing whether to accept it.

No payment record, wire instruction, subscription agreement, share register, invoice or company formation connected to this proposal is among the documents returned by the searches described below. Bishop’s “Sounds like you could be the first investor” is Bishop’s own characterisation of a position he was hoping Epstein would take; it is not a record of Epstein taking it. Epstein’s “i have no issue with investing” is a statement of willingness with a condition attached, made within a day of the proposal reaching him.

How the documents were searched, and what was read

The released files were searched for the exact phrase “Bryan Bishop”, which returns sixty-seven runs; and separately for “designer babies”, “designer baby”, “germline”, “human cloning” and “embryo editing”, and for the two web hosts that appear in Bishop’s signature and file links, heybryan.org and diyhpl.us. Most runs those searches returned that are part of the 2018 sequence are described above or cited below; the exceptions are sibling copies of a cited message, save one, a duplicate of the July 19-20 thread carrying one further exchange between Hill and Epstein about connecting for the call that is not otherwise described here.36 None of them is a financial record.

Several of the messages exist in two production families. One prints headers in the form “From / Sent / To / Subject” and carries transmission damage in the page image itself, so that a character is missing from words such as “diligence” and “plausible”; where a quotation on this page supplies such a character it is shown in square brackets, an ellipsis in square brackets marks an artefact removed from inside a quotation, a bare ellipsis marks a deliberate omission of print rather than a defect in it, and words the print actually carries are not altered. The other family prints full internet headers with a UTC offset and is generally undamaged. Where the two disagree, the citation below names the copy that was read.

The order of the August 5 exchange has to be settled at the image rather than from the timestamps. The copy of Bishop’s August 13 message shows Epstein’s reply attributed to “9:44 AM” and, nested inside Epstein’s reply, Bishop’s own message attributed to “10:31 AM”, so that on its face the answer precedes the question. Two things settle it. The quotation nesting is a reply chain: Bishop’s message is quoted inside Epstein’s, so Bishop’s came first. And in the second production family Epstein’s reply carries the header “Sun, 05 Aug 2018 14:44:01 +0000”. Throughout this correspondence the “Sent” line of a message and the times in the attribution lines quoted inside it run on different clocks, and the offset is not constant: the same message is stamped in one copy four hours from its stamp in another, and in a third five hours from it; a November 27 message stamped 11:08 AM on its own “Sent” line is attributed to 5:08 AM where a later message quotes it, six hours apart. Two clock times printed on one page of this family were never comparable, and no interval on this page has been derived by comparing the two clocks. Every quotation on this page was read at the page image.

Statements

This page quotes Bryan Bishop, Austin Hill, Jeremy Rubin and Vincenzo Iozzo’s own contemporaneous messages at length. No later statement, and no public statement, by any of the four about this correspondence appears anywhere in the released files searched for this page. No check of press coverage, court records or any other public source for a later statement by any of the four has been made for this page; that absence is disclosed here, not filled. Epstein died on August 10, 2019 and no response from him beyond his own messages is possible.

Footnotes

  1. Austin Hill to Epstein, “You up for a conversation.with Bryan Bishop?”, Jul 19, 2018, and Epstein’s replies of the same evening. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004638 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, copied to Austin Hill, “Designer babies”, Jul 21, 2018, 20:50:13 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004795 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies (use of funds)”, Aug 5, 2018, 14:44:01 UTC, quoting Bishop’s message of the same morning in full. The link to the spreadsheet is blacked out on this page and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01003966 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  4. “Key references for human germline genetic editing”, four pages, filed under EFTA00804855 and read at the page image. The version marker “v3” beneath the title and the hyperlink on the second line are visible in the image and absent from the machine text. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804855 pp.1-4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies”, Jul 21, 2018, 21:01:11 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004801 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: More genetic editing (cont.)”, Aug 30, 2018, quoting Bishop’s message of that morning. The reply is printed on the page as “i like implant embryo , wait 9 months.=C2 great ending”; the bracketed ellipsis stands where the print carries transmission damage. The telephone number in the quoted message is blacked out and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625511 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Austin Hill to Epstein and Epstein’s replies, “Re: Thanks - just the three of us”, Jul 21, 2018, carried in one document with Epstein’s “I dont hide” stamped 13:33:21 UTC. A clause of Hill’s message concerning a third party is omitted from the quotation and is not reproduced anywhere on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004727 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Bryan Bishop to Austin Hill, copied to Epstein, Jul 20, 2018, 02:11 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01005702 ↩ ↩2

  9. Jeremy Rubin, “CFTC to regulate bitcoin”, Nov 12, 2015. The header’s To line lists Jeffrey Epstein, Joichi Ito and Bryan Bishop; Rubin’s own body text describes Bishop as “(CC’d)”. The Sent field carries no time zone and no clock time from it is used here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02365389 p.1. ↩

  10. Bryan Bishop, “Re: CFTC to regulate bitcoin”, dated in its own header Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:29:05 +0000. The To line lists Jeremy Rubin and Bishop himself; the Cc line lists Jeffrey Epstein and Joichi Ito. “And it is nice to meet Jeffrey—”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00840767 p.1. ↩

  11. Jeremy Rubin to Epstein, “[Potential Investment] Fwd: LedgerX deck”, Mar 23, 2016. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00830911 ↩

  12. Vincenzo Iozzo to Jeremy Rubin, copied to “jeffrey E.”, “Re:”, dated in its own header Fri, 20 Jul 2018 06:01:19 +0000, carrying Rubin’s reply and, beneath that in the quoted chain, Epstein’s original question, which is printed with no To and no Cc line of its own. The time attributed to Rubin’s reply inside this document carries no zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01005705 p.1. ↩

  13. Austin Hill, invitation “Financial markets & cryptocoins with Jeffrey, Bryan”, Jul 20, 2018, and the exchange moving it to 4pm. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004641 p.1. ↩

  14. Austin Hill to Epstein, copied to Bishop, “Thanks - just the three of us”. The copy read carries a Sent line of Jul 21, 2018, 2:30 AM; the same message is attributed elsewhere in the thread to 10:30 PM on Jul 20. See the note on clocks below. The video link and the sender’s signature block are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02599930 ↩

  15. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: Designer babies”, Jul 22, 2018, 15:33:21 UTC. The message dates the proposed call “Wednesday August 2nd”, which was a Thursday; the error is the document’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004839 p.1. ↩

  16. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Designer babies”, Jul 22, 2018, 15:35:41 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004841 p.1. ↩

  17. Austin Hill to Epstein, “Re: Thanks - just the three of us”, Jul 21, 2018, 1:39 PM. The time and the sender’s line were read at the page image; the machine text of this page renders the date field as unreadable characters. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02601352 ↩

  18. Epstein to Austin Hill, Jul 22, 2018, and Hill’s reply of the same day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02600088 ↩

  19. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: Designer babies”, Jul 23, 2018, 13:41:52 UTC, and Epstein’s reply the same day, 13:48:22 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004904 p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004905 p.1. ↩

  20. Epstein forwarding to Lesley Groff the Google Calendar invitation “Designer babies (Bryan Bishop) @ Thu Aug 2, 2018 4pm - 5pm (EDT)”, sent by Bishop on Jul 23, 2018 and forwarded Jul 31, 2018, 12:08:25 UTC. The invitation’s backup telephone line is blacked out and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00478987 ↩

  21. Reminder to Epstein, “Reminder 4-5pm today Designer Babies-Bryan Bishop”, Aug 2, 2018. The sender is redacted throughout and nothing is inferred about who it was. The telephone line beneath the entry is blacked out and is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02252527 ↩

  22. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, Aug 2, 2018, 20:32:28 UTC, carrying the four messages of that afternoon. Telephone numbers on the page are blacked out and are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004130 ↩

  23. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: Designer babies (use of funds)”, Aug 13, 2018. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02603821 ↩

  24. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: Designer babies (use of funds)”, Aug 16, 2018. A parenthesis naming a third party he met while travelling is not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02604748 ↩

  25. Bryan Bishop, “new genetic editing deck”, Aug 28, 2018, with Epstein’s replies of the same day. Bishop’s covering words are damaged in the print of this copy. They are printed clean in a second copy of the same message, EFTA02625760 p.1, which carries the subject “new genetic editing deck” over the line “Just put this together:” followed by the link; that copy is cited for the words and this one for the replies. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625760 p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625569 ↩

  26. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: More genetic editing (cont.)”, Aug 30, 2018, 1:30 PM. The print runs the words “testing” and “at” together with a transmission artefact between them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625486 ↩

  27. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: More genetic editing (cont.)”, Aug 30, 2018, 2:00 PM. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625362 ↩

  28. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “References for embryo editing”, Sep 4, 2018. The two file names are quoted from the page image; the full web addresses are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02625025 ↩ ↩2

  29. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Re: References for embryo editing”, Sep 7, 2018. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02624289 ↩

  30. Bryan Bishop to Epstein and Epstein’s reply, “more gene editing (updates)”, carried in one document whose own header is dated Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:33:43 +0000; the October 16 messages quoted above are nested inside it as earlier turns of the same thread. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01019439 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  31. Epstein to Bryan Bishop and Bishop’s reply, “Re: more gene editing (updates)”, Oct 17, 2018. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01019438 ↩

  32. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, “Chinese edited embryos are mosaic…”, Nov 26, 2018, 15:56:18 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015526 ↩

  33. Epstein to Bryan Bishop, “Re: Chinese edited embryos are mosaic…”, Nov 26, 2018, 17:09:39 UTC. The reply is printed without a full stop. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015485 ↩

  34. Epstein to Bryan Bishop and Austin Hill, Nov 27, 2018, a link to a New York Times report of Nov 26, 2018 and nothing else. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02614895 ↩

  35. Bryan Bishop to Epstein, copied to Austin Hill, Nov 28, 2018, 18:43:37 UTC. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015238 ↩

  36. Austin Hill to Epstein, “Re: You up for a conversation.with Bryan Bishop?”, Jul 20, 2018, 20:06:51 UTC, a duplicate of the July 19 thread cited above carrying one further reply not quoted on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01004644 ↩

Backlinks