A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
The pangolin viruses were Sanger sequenced here and this paper clearly shows that these animals are sick: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.164442v1
-
Do not fall into the stupid narrative set by Alina Chan. The idea that these viruses are fake is insulting.
-
"the Guangdong pangolin viruses have been sequenced multiple times by multiple groups. They have also been Sanger sequenced. Plus there are Pangolins from Guangxi that have been sequenced" Yup, I know this - hence I have no concerns about the data. Would still be nice to be able to say "yes, I looked at itdummy, and the data is perfectly fine" (as I just did with RaTG13). I'll grab the data and play around with it a bit.
-
The pangolin viruses from the Viruses paper were first assembled in that Virological post.
-
2020-09-17 14:21
Edward C. Holmes
All reads from Tommy's paper are on the SRA. The Guangdong ones are P1L and P2S. P2S is from the scales and at a bit patchy. All explained in the paper.
-
What *really* pisses me off is that everything is explained very carefully in Tommy's paper - the provenance of the sequences, how they were sequenced and analysed - and ALL the data is publicly available on GISAID/SRA. Asclean as it gets - take a look. But fucking Alina has managed to sow doubt by linking it to those dodgy pangolin papers.
-
Yeah, I totally agree Tommy's paper is very clear on this - the issue is that the other paper definitely isn't. But that doesn't take away the fact that Tommy's study is clean. Typical conspiracy way of dealing with inconvenient data.
-
Agreed. So fucking annoying.
-
The collective insanity is starting to get to me...