Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.951 [SLACK_001165] · slack_pm:msg:09893

Date: 2021-06-20 10:07
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

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.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-06-20 10:03 Robert F. Garry open

"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/
2021-06-20 10:07 Kristian G. Andersen

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.
2021-06-20 10:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's racism. Full stop.
2021-06-20 10:11 Andrew Rambaut open

Is the exact same data deleted from NCBI on NGDC?
2021-06-20 10:15 Robert F. Garry open

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.
2021-06-20 10:16 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'm digging too... Irrespective of this, all the relevant SNPs are in Table 1 - not trying to "hide" anything

Full conversation →