A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Creating a BioSample for a pandemic virus two weeks before it's known that you have a patient with said virus is alittle strange - if the timeline is correct.
-
The collection date sounds totally right. I don't understand why there is a file creation date 2 weeks earlier. Makes nosense at all. And why would BGI know about this? They are a commercial company that have nothing to do with Wuhan. WIV do their sequencing in-house I think.
-
That's the bit that's strange - because typically you don't create a BioSample before you have the data, unless you know the data is immediately forthcoming and you want to make sure there's no delay in submitting the data.
-
So if those BioSamples were created on, say 12/25, then that's totally what you'd expect - but we're talking two weeks before there was any (official) realization of a novel coronavirus.
-
2020-10-30 15:05
Edward C. Holmes
Yes, I don't get it at all. I'm contacting people now. But 2 weeks also sounds WAY too far in advance!
-
Yeah, definitely - very interesting.
-
Company A is Vision Medicals. I don't believe for a nanosec that BGI knew there was a pandemic virus on Dec. 10th. That time-line makes zero sense with any known timeline, the epidemiological history of the outbreak, nor what was on Chinese social media. Nor would WIV have anything to do with BGI. The best time-line is here and confirmed my colleagues in China: https://apnews.com/article/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae
-
The idea that 2-3 weeks before all this it was known at a commercial sequencing company based in a different city seems untenable to me. Nor does it fit the time-line of the first patients seen by the doctors (sorry to include awikipedia link): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang
-
However, I'm checking with colleagues there now.