Private channel session 128
17 messages over 10m, 2020-06-04 – 2020-06-04.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
Stoking it up on twitter for that 50K.
-
Good. Although to reach that, I think you might have to say we were wrong...
-
Go full Trevor?
-
Indeed (actually, he's chatting me right now about that new 'paper')
-
It is my retirement project - become a creationist.
-
Get the Templeton Prize > that's your ticket
-
It is really annoying - those BC sequences that sit between WA1 and WA2 cluster are almost certainly artefacts (the second defining mutation is in a primer site and they are calling it for the primer). Happens with some of the other BCones in the WA2 cluster too.
-
But the folk in the BCCDC won't do anything about it until they have checked it with sanger sequencing
-
Eh? Don't they trim primers? iVar does that...
-
I don't know the details. It was Nick that was discussing it with them.
-
Hmmm. They certainly should. Does this affect the conclusions from your recent preprint?
-
We excluded them because we thought they were flawed. Some of the arguments are based on the fact there are no intermediates with only one of the two SNPs. But they are still there and of course the reviewers have pointed itout.
-
Anyway - not my problem (Mike's problem).
-
It's amazing what a couple of SNPs can do :wink:
-
So what does Trevor think about the new proof of lab origins paper? He going to come out supporting it? Sure wayto hit the 1m followers.
-
One has to wonder how much noise there is in the dataset by now - between sequencing (including amplicon and RT) errors and contaminants. Probably ~10% of genomes are wrong.
-
Haha, Trevor was pretty shocked by how terrible the paper was - but yeah, he should come out and rebuff us to getto a cool million.