Just to clarify.
This is the Nanopore coverage Map.
Lowest point in the trough in the center looks like 2,000X coverage.
Highest point on the right is ~500,000X coverage.
Obviously full length infective virus can’t be more than the 2,000X and the stuff on the right is non-infect
Non-infectious fragments of RNA known as sub genomic RNA or sgRNA.
Why would you place your PCR assay on the yellow region? You know you are predominately amplifying non-infectious RNA.
Deliberate witch hunting.
Should could target ORF1a (in the trough of the coverage map) that makes less subgenomic RNA but her sensitivity would drop ~200 fold.
But she’s only working with 6-5,800 copies.
Most of the data would be blank.
They’d have to speak for hours...
Into a vacuum tube.
Redonkulus
Interesting detail.
They did not Try to culture the coarse fraction (Over 5um).
That would have been very valuable information.
The diagnostic PCR does have low Ct but that’s PCR with diff assay/ diff lab/ diff time.
130L/min vacuum for 15-30 minutes.
Really shouldn’t say there is anything wrong with the paper....just seeing people use this as evidence for masking kids and it does not follow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🔥Scientific Misconduct and Plagiarism from Dr. Richard Fleming🔥.
The Journal has been made aware of Richard Fleming plagiarizing our primer sequences and not citing them.
I normally wouldn't care. They are open source but the same primer table in @DJSpeicher et al contained the SV40 primer sequences he NEVER used while still claiming SV40 was not detected. He claimed this 3 times but never actually tested for SV40.
Irony.. Fleming was bragging about his work was peer reviewed.
Or Peer stolen, twisted and obfuscated... but to what ends? Who does Fleming work for and did he copy these sequences and refuse to cite the work while spreading non sense about the SV40 sequences?
What are the odds they picked the same primers by chance?