An article full of mistakes. 1. A commercial NGS company, Visionmedical, first sequenced and assembled full genome of this bat-like beta coronavirus from sample of a unknown pneumonia patient in Wuhan, before 2020.
2. The 'rectification' was a result of a normal and yearly CNAS biosaftey inspection, btn 3rd-5th Jan 2020, an expert team of 5 did a full inspection, evaluated the emergency response of SHPHCC BSL-3 lab. After inspection, expert team listed 8 issues, suggested rectifications
according to CNAS regulations asap.
In comparison, a CNAS expert team of 4 listed 7 issues and suggested rectifications according to CNAS regulations, in the biosafety inspection in year 2018.
Both above were posted on SHPHCC website news section with timestamp and photos.
Absolutely GOLD to watch the usual participants and media launched campaign again repeating March 2023.
Absolutely shame to use 8 young students' future as human shield to spark this nonsense, nobody actually cares abt these young students, whom weren't even enrolled in 2020.
The snapshots contain rich information. 1. 'it is a novel coronavirus' = distinctive from SARS1, must have been successfully isolated from patient samples, must have been verified (revisit the *chlamydia* in SARS1)
@martinenserink 2. W/o knowing the exact contents, based on the low resolution image and file name of the pptx, predated Virological. That alone, already can be treated as a high confidence evidence that China, through GISAID, was providing a unique additional info regarding the novel cov to WHO
@martinenserink 3. By a glance of the low resolution image of pptx, a possible standard NJ tree of ORF1b. Normally, considering the file size, one page ppt would incl the details of tree creation, against CoV family or particular strains, and *source(s)* of the colour highlighten genomes.
chinaxiv.org/abs/202303.103…
Would love to have a comparison of June 2022 revision and today's new release on ChinaXiv.
If available. So, pls, that 'reviewer who claims to have reviewed the manuscript for Nature'.
I am not caring too much for the conclusion part, as this new version seems targeting for expedited peer-review process. We all see 'toned down' with previous preprints vs publications.
What's important was the comparison of results in those versions.
If the June 2022 vs ChinaXiv, not much difference, and new version get published. Then, I think not CCDC but someone else get explanation to do.
Is it an established fact that no one on twitter or press seem bother emphasising? that: 1. In SAGO meeting, the original data generators said they already *KNEW* the raccoon dogs etc al sequence in the data they produced (before lifted embargo) , and was in the middle of
submitting a revision. 2. The coauthor(obviously not the communication authors with email listed and mobile number too well known to *everyone*) of both preprint and initial illumina data& BGI data, expressed during the initial contact, that(pls pay attention)
*we were told to release the data....feel free to analyse....happy to answer any questions... *.
A brief 'announcement'.😹 Busy with something more important, just break in briefly. 1. Pls, don't want to reply to the DMs flooded in, until we see the origonal data generators' own publication.
2. Accuracy...... If we want to avoid accusations of *power of media*, perhaps anyone point to me the reference of this specific usage implied transferring live animals, 'In one sample from a cart used to move cages', as if the reporter was there...... nature.com/articles/d4158…
3. I *strongly believed* that the original environmental sampling documents and records were written in *Chinese*, no? Why not?
So, if u googled 脱毛机, isn't human epilators all over ur screen? I knew it's hard for some male reviewer #3 to comprehend🤭.