---
type: Conversation
title: Private channel session 1546
description: "slack conversation, 22 messages, 2021-06-25."
tags:
  - conversation
  - slack
medium: slack
message_count: 22
started_at: "2021-06-25T15:05:18"
ended_at: "2021-06-25T15:41:00"
duration_seconds: 2142
sources:
  - { id: slack_pm, resource: /sources/slack-pm.md, title: Slack / Private Message Drop, author: "process:senate-hsgac-release" }
generated: { by: randpaul-corpus-pipeline/1.0, at: "2026-08-01T12:42:27Z" }
status: stable
---

A slack conversation of 22 messages spanning 0h 35m.

# Metadata

- **Started:** 2021-06-25T15:05:18
- **Ended:** 2021-06-25T15:41:00
- **Duration:** 0h 35m
- **Participants:** 3
- **Source:** [slack_pm](/sources/slack-pm.md)
- **Pages:** 963-965

# Participants

* [Andrew Rambaut](/people/andrew-rambaut.md)
* [Edward C. Holmes](/people/edward-c-holmes.md)
* [Kristian G. Andersen](/people/kristian-g-andersen.md)
* [Robert F. Garry](/people/robert-f-garry.md)

# Transcript

**[2021-06-25T15:05:18] Andrew Rambaut:** Hang on - I will check to see if this is one of the same recombinant we discuss in our preprint.

**[2021-06-25T15:08:16] Edward C. Holmes:** Perhaps I should post it and let the public decide

**[2021-06-25T15:09:48] Andrew Rambaut:** 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)

**[2021-06-25T15:10:31] Edward C. Holmes:** This paper is saying that B.1.1.7 is itself a recombinant

**[2021-06-25T15:10:55] Andrew Rambaut:** It also doesn't cite our original virological post https://virological.org/t/563 which gives a suggestion of how it arose (not stepwise)

**[2021-06-25T15:11:04] Andrew Rambaut:** It isn't a recombinant.

**[2021-06-25T15:11:34] Andrew Rambaut:** But I don't care really - it won't get anywhere

**[2021-06-25T15:12:07] Edward C. Holmes:** I'll ponder it...

**[2021-06-25T15:12:42] Kristian G. Andersen:** I'd reject it - if they then come back, it can go online. But the methods are incorrect.

**[2021-06-25T15:12:48] Andrew Rambaut:** 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)

**[2021-06-25T15:13:56] Andrew Rambaut:** 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.

**[2021-06-25T15:14:06] Andrew Rambaut:** They need to check the raw data (which is available)

**[2021-06-25T15:14:36] Andrew Rambaut:** However, I assume it isn't your job to review it

**[2021-06-25T15:15:04] Andrew Rambaut:** You could at least say they should contact CoG to collaborate

**[2021-06-25T15:15:15] Andrew Rambaut:** As that are the GISAID rules

**[2021-06-25T15:15:22] Edward C. Holmes:** Our job is not to review. I only reject if it is dangerous/malicious/nutso.

**[2021-06-25T15:15:44] Andrew Rambaut:** Accept it then - won't hurt anyone

**[2021-06-25T15:16:31] Edward C. Holmes:** Yes, that's my inclination. Hopefully people will just shit on it quickly.

**[2021-06-25T15:18:43] Andrew Rambaut:** Yeah. Nick will destroy it with a quick look at the BAM file and a tweet

**[2021-06-25T15:19:30] Kristian G. Andersen:** Will he delete the BAM file then? Because... you know.

**[2021-06-25T15:23:55] Andrew Rambaut:** We should do that - just to troll those Chinese authors.

**[2021-06-25T15:41:00] Kristian G. Andersen:** I'm sure this'll be insightful... https://www.republicanwhip.gov/news/select-subcommittee-republicans-announce-expert-witness-forum-on-covid-1 9-origins/