A puzzling discrepancy: In late 2018, Latinne et al. presented their abstract at a Taiwan symposium. H/T @Ayjchan

Latinne et al. abstract: "Our dataset included more than 1300 partial RdRp sequences from CoVs..in China." 1/4
sites.google.com/site/2018biohe…
hackmd.io/@4vUYkxFUR3-B9…
In Y3 of EHA's grant report, the same figure is quoted: "Host-virus co-phylogeographic analysis of a diverse group of >1,300 bat CoVs showing that
these viruses have a larger host range, weaker host specificity and higher frequency of cross-genera transmission.." 2/4
However in Latinne et al. published in @Nature (2020), they only report 1,246 sequences: “Our final datasets include 630 sequences generated for this study and 616 sequences from GenBank or GISAID.” (1,229 sequences in the supplementary material) 3/4
nature.com/articles/s4146…
The resulting gap amounts to more than 54 bat CoV sequences, which is quite significant.

So serious question: where is it?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Seeker

The Seeker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TheSeeker268

10 Sep
"All but one scientist who penned a letter in The Lancet dismissing the possibility that coronavirus could have come from a lab in Wuhan were linked to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or funders"

Who is the conspiracist now?
telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/1…
"Conflicts of interest were not reported for any of the other 26 signers of the letter – not even those with obviously material undisclosed conflicts such as EcoHealth employees and Predict contractors."
"The standard remedy for fraudulent statements in scientific publications is retraction. It is unclear why retraction was not pursued.”
Read 4 tweets
7 Sep
@Ayjchan @theintercept @MaraHvistendahl @fastlerner WIV budget justification (Shi Zhengli, Peng Zhou, Ben Hu):

i) RNA extractions for 1,000 bats per year.
ii) RT-PCR assays on 2,000 samples per year.
iii) DNA sequencing on 1,500 samples per year.
@Ayjchan @theintercept @MaraHvistendahl @fastlerner WIV budget justification (Lili Ren, Li Guo):

i) RNA extractions on 1,000 samples per year.
ii) RT-PCR assays on 1,000 samples per year.
ii) DNA sequencing on 3,200 samples per year.

Where is the data?
@Ayjchan @theintercept @MaraHvistendahl @fastlerner "We have developed primary cell lines and transformed cell lines from 9 bat species using kidney, spleen, heart, brain and intestine. We have used these for virus isolation, infection assays and receptor molecule gene cloning." cc @franciscodeasis
Read 6 tweets
5 Sep
We had two valid covid origin hypotheses at the beginning and both should have been treated that way. Excluding one was for all intents and purposes an attack on science. It has since become clear that part of the offensive was a targeted campaign.
The media, for the most part, failed to fulfill an important task of journalism: to keep responsible institutions accountable and to keep the public up to date with the latest knowledge.

I expected the media to report the obvious inconsistencies earlier.
Scientists, by and large, failed to push for transparency, data accessibility and verifiability. If scientists have any belief in scientific principles, if it doesn't matter here, take those words out of our mouth.
Read 5 tweets
2 Sep
The article is: Basically, let's ignore everything and revert to "...but Huanan market".

Clearly many scientists didn't get the memo: There is no epidemiological evidence to support the market origin theory. Earliest cases had no link to the market.
.@MichaelWorobey says.. “The fact that early [COVID-19] cases were linked to the market, and that the market was selling what were very likely intermediate hosts? .. All of that is probably trying to tell us something.”

What Worobey doesn't say:
It's almost as if they choose to believe in the market origin theory, rather than actually focus on facts and data.
chinaxiv.org/abs/202107.000…
Image
Read 9 tweets
1 Sep
A short chronology:

1) December 10-11, 2019
2) December 12, 2019: Top officials meet in Wuhan. (Feng Zijian also present)
3) December 12, 2019: After a 3-month hiatus, WIV database is online.
Image
Read 4 tweets
29 Aug
A point often missed: "The world of virology is not that big. The Chinese lab in question...they’re very much part of the scientific establishment globally...So I think there was a desire to protect their colleagues, which once again, these are human."
conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/zeyne…
"Plus, if a lab incident of some sort or a field incident of some sort could be implicated, that really would bring the push for much more strict regulation on the kind of research we do."
"As the defensiveness grew, it became really hard, from what I heard from a lot of people in the field, to say, if you thought it was a viable thing, it should be investigated. You didn’t even have to believe what had happened because there’s so much obfuscation."
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(