Private channel session 1528
9 messages over 36m, 2021-06-20 – 2021-06-20.
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.
-
"fear of the CCP and them making it very clear they control everything - yes, not ideal, but welcome to the real world." THat certaiunly could be it, but It actually does not even need to be fear of the CCP - Take a look at the Wang2020 paper - it's very good - it not a paper abput the early case they just used the samples to validate theirnanopore sequencing. Furthermore, they have most of the sequence data in there that JB says they are *hiding* inthe form of a Table. Same numbering of samples same data in Table 1 of Wang 2020https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/smll.202002169 as in the Bloom preprint Table 1. What are more likely explanations is that they 1. pulled this data from NCBI so they could post it here National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/
-
Yup, agreed - I came to a similar conclusion over night too. In any case - while we can't rule out the reason forpulling the data that JB describes as by far the most likely, in my eyes, while possible, it's highly unlikely. JB iscoming from the angle of all Chinese scientists acting in bad faith, hence he can only see that reason - it's disappointing, frankly. And yes, they provide a table. And yes, by reading their description of the mutations, it's clear they didn't even thinkof this as important data for understanding the origin - they were focused on a diagnostics. Plus, what do we _really_ learn about the origin now we _do_ have the data? Nothing - other than A and B lineages were circulating, which wealready knew.
-
It's racism. Full stop.
-
Is the exact same data deleted from NCBI on NGDC?
-
I made stab at finding it - PRJNA612766 doesn't pull anything up on NGDC. But, they could have renamed it or just didn't bother yet.
-
I'm digging too... Irrespective of this, all the relevant SNPs are in Table 1 - not trying to "hide" anything
-
(otherwise, why the heck would they include Table 1...)
-
Also, it's not that they mentioned the BioProject in their paper and then later pulled it - they added it there, presumably to later share the data, but then took it down for whatever (likely non-nefarious) reasons. Maybe the IPlawyers told them to. Maybe they thought, you know, maybe next time. Maybe they didn't have full IRB approval toshare the raw data - who knows. What I find deeply problematic here actually has to do with the SRA - apparently "deleting" data from the SRA doesn't actually do that. That's a HUGE issue for many other reasons
-
Joel will join us for the call in 20 mins too