Private channel session 1546

22 messages over 35m, 2021-06-25 – 2021-06-25.

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.

1. 2021-06-25 15:05 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.963
   Hang on - I will check to see if this is one of the same recombinant we discuss in our preprint.
2. 2021-06-25 15:08 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.963
   Perhaps I should post it and let the public decide
3. 2021-06-25 15:09 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.963
   It doesn't cite our recombination in B.1.1.7 paper - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.21258689v1 (which was also on virological for a few months)
4. 2021-06-25 15:10 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.963
   This paper is saying that B.1.1.7 is itself a recombinant
5. 2021-06-25 15:10 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
   It also doesn't cite our original virological post https://virological.org/t/563 which gives a suggestion of how it arose (not stepwise)
6. 2021-06-25 15:11 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
   It isn't a recombinant.
7. 2021-06-25 15:11 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
   But I don't care really - it won't get anywhere
8. 2021-06-25 15:12 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.964
   I'll ponder it...
9. 2021-06-25 15:12 Kristian G. Andersen open PDF p.964
   I'd reject it - if they then come back, it can go online. But the methods are incorrect.
10. 2021-06-25 15:12 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    There are some intermediates but we believe they are sequences of mixtures (we can look at the BAM files - they are all one ENA unlike the Wuhan genomes)
11. 2021-06-25 15:13 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    I think they have found some dodgy sequence. Jotun Hein also sent us a preprint which claimed to have discovereda recombinant but when we looked, the negative control for that plate was hooching with reads.
12. 2021-06-25 15:14 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    They need to check the raw data (which is available)
13. 2021-06-25 15:14 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    However, I assume it isn't your job to review it
14. 2021-06-25 15:15 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    You could at least say they should contact CoG to collaborate
15. 2021-06-25 15:15 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    As that are the GISAID rules
16. 2021-06-25 15:15 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.964
    Our job is not to review. I only reject if it is dangerous/malicious/nutso.
17. 2021-06-25 15:15 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.964
    Accept it then - won't hurt anyone
18. 2021-06-25 15:16 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.965
    Yes, that's my inclination. Hopefully people will just shit on it quickly.
19. 2021-06-25 15:18 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.965
    Yeah. Nick will destroy it with a quick look at the BAM file and a tweet
20. 2021-06-25 15:19 Kristian G. Andersen open PDF p.965
    Will he delete the BAM file then? Because... you know.
21. 2021-06-25 15:23 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.965
    We should do that - just to troll those Chinese authors.
22. 2021-06-25 15:41 Kristian G. Andersen open PDF p.965
    I'm sure this'll be insightful... https://www.republicanwhip.gov/news/select-subcommittee-republicans-announce-expert-witness-forum-on-covid-1 9-origins/