A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
This is the earliest document on the outbreak from Shi's lab I think. She said that they sequenced SARS-CoV-2 and then screened their databases to see what matched. The only match they had was 4991/RaTG13. No evidence ofanything as close that they then deleted. It also confirms the Addendum to her Nature paper.
-
This is also the first reported tree with SARS-CoV-2 in.
-
Might not be much but it is at least consistent.
-
Ahhh, I see what you're saying - this tree contains *everything* relevant they have, including RaTG13, which is very very close if you only consider RdRp. If she was concerned about similarity because it came from the lab, she would have taken out 4991 - it's very very close in the tree, but once you have the full sequence, you know it ain't it, but you don't from just the RdRp fragment.
-
2021-05-29 18:32
Edward C. Holmes
Yes, that's it.
-
Is there anywhere to confirm the sequences are internal and not just from NCBI?
-
If the former, this is the 'effing SMOKING GUN of NOT lab escape.
-
Let me check with i
-
SLACK_001110 That'd be great. If I looked at that tree and I was Shi, my first thought would be - FUCK, did 4991 get out? Yet, she/they decided not to hide the similarity (of course, it would have been noticed anyway because 4991 was ina public database, but there's just no way they'd be thinking that way).