3 ms·

> some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in

> some sequences appear to have been deleted That is a completely unrelated issue. The sequences you're talking about are sequences from patients (obtained in February 2020, I believe). They are not bat coronavirus sequences, which is what the poster above you is referring to. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes the sequences it discovers. RaTG13, the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, was published in 2016, for example. Even if we're talking about the patient data, even though the authors withdrew their raw data from a database, they still published the most important information in a paper: the genetic sequences.

imiric 5y ago
I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  There was no "manipulation of patient data." The authors withdrew their raw data from a database, and then published the summary data (what most people will actually want to know) in a paper. The summary data matches the raw data (later recovered from the cloud). > Could you link to this please? It's in Table 1 of their June 2020 paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002... > If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. The patient data had nothing to do with bat sequences. The paper we're talking about was a methodology paper, in which the authors were trying to test a new sequencing technology using recent patient samples. They were not focusing on SARS-CoV-2 origins, and they certainly weren't working with bat coronavirus sequences. I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute.
  - imiric 5y ago
    There certainly was deliberate deletion of raw patient sequence data from the NCBI database. See the paper by Jesse D. Bloom that the NYT article references[1]. I would classify this as "manipulation". The author is also puzzled why this was done if the data matches the published summary in the Wang et al. 2020b paper, but hasn't received any replies from the authors. This is also interesting: > Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to maximize information about viral sequences from early in the Wuhan epidemic. > I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute. The authors of the nanopore paper are associated with Wuhan University. Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research it's safe to say that a connection with the WIV certainly exists and they would be in a position to control the output of both. Again, the reason behind this will likely never be known to the outside world. But to take anything coming from Chinese researchers as evidence for a narrative that exculpates China from any fault would be extremely naive. Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.... [2]: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      "Manipulation" means faking data, deliberately altering it, etc. What happened in this case is that the authors removed the raw data from a database and then published an accurate summary of the data in a peer-reviewed paper. > Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research Not everything in China is automatically connected to everything else. People working on a new medical diagnostic tool at one university are not automatically related to people doing bat coronavirus research at another institute. > Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? I'm sure there are lots of people here on HN who live in China, and who can explain the extremely strict and effective measures China took in early 2020 to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from within their borders. China had a first wave that was largely confined to one city, and has had no large outbreak since. It's had small, local outbreaks that have been quickly contained. There's really no mystery about this at all.
tim333 5y ago
This is totally related to the Chinese hiding all the data they can related to the origins which suggests there may be a reason for the hiding. (some details - they even tried to hide the original sequence which our vaccines are based on. When a lab released it against orders they closed the lab. When Australia suggested an independent investigation they put 80bn of trade sanction on them. When a doctor at the start warned his colleagues privately to be careful as the vaccine was contagious they arrested him and made him sign a confession etc etc...)
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I feel this is like throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks: > they even tried to hide the original sequence which our vaccines are based on. By the accounts I've read, there was rivalry between the China CDC and researchers at different institutions to publish the genome first, not to hide it. The China CDC was taking longer to validate the genetic sequence and write up a publication, and they didn't want to be scooped. But regardless of the delay this caused, the genome was published extraordinarily quickly - less than two weeks after the first patient test results even suggested that there might be a new virus.
  - tim333 5y ago
    Ok - googling the story on the original sequence seems to have changed. The original reporting https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chin... suggested a cover up but a more recent interview with the guy suggests not https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coronavirus-genome/ https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coro...

imiric 5y ago

I'm not familiar with genetics, so speaking as a layperson here, but if there was manipulation of patient data why should we consider WIV publications to be truthful and exhaustive? If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. Unfortunately any claims pointing in the direction of a zoonotic transfer or lab leak is speculation at this point until serious research is done. And even then the extent of data manipulation might be so deep that drawing any conclusions might be impossible. It's an absolute disgrace that science has become so entrenched with politics that more than a year later we're still not clear on the origins of a world disrupting pandemic. > they still published the most important information in a paper Could you link to this please?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
There was no "manipulation of patient data." The authors withdrew their raw data from a database, and then published the summary data (what most people will actually want to know) in a paper. The summary data matches the raw data (later recovered from the cloud). > Could you link to this please? It's in Table 1 of their June 2020 paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002... > If the patient data had links to unpublished bat sequences the lab was working on, it would certainly be motivation to get rid of both. The patient data had nothing to do with bat sequences. The paper we're talking about was a methodology paper, in which the authors were trying to test a new sequencing technology using recent patient samples. They were not focusing on SARS-CoV-2 origins, and they certainly weren't working with bat coronavirus sequences. I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute.
- imiric 5y ago
  There certainly was deliberate deletion of raw patient sequence data from the NCBI database. See the paper by Jesse D. Bloom that the NYT article references[1]. I would classify this as "manipulation". The author is also puzzled why this was done if the data matches the published summary in the Wang et al. 2020b paper, but hasn't received any replies from the authors. This is also interesting: > Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples (Pingui 2020) and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19 (China CDC 2020; Kang et al. 2020a), this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to maximize information about viral sequences from early in the Wuhan epidemic. > I don't even think there's any connection to the WIV here: the corresponding authors don't appear to be affiliated with the institute. The authors of the nanopore paper are associated with Wuhan University. Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research it's safe to say that a connection with the WIV certainly exists and they would be in a position to control the output of both. Again, the reason behind this will likely never be known to the outside world. But to take anything coming from Chinese researchers as evidence for a narrative that exculpates China from any fault would be extremely naive. Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? [1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v2.... [2]: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    "Manipulation" means faking data, deliberately altering it, etc. What happened in this case is that the authors removed the raw data from a database and then published an accurate summary of the data in a peer-reviewed paper. > Since the CCP controls all aspects of Chinese research Not everything in China is automatically connected to everything else. People working on a new medical diagnostic tool at one university are not automatically related to people doing bat coronavirus research at another institute. > Or do we really believe there's nothing suspicious about a country of 1.4bn people having 5,508 reported deaths from COVID-19[2]? I'm sure there are lots of people here on HN who live in China, and who can explain the extremely strict and effective measures China took in early 2020 to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from within their borders. China had a first wave that was largely confined to one city, and has had no large outbreak since. It's had small, local outbreaks that have been quickly contained. There's really no mystery about this at all.

tim333 5y ago

This is totally related to the Chinese hiding all the data they can related to the origins which suggests there may be a reason for the hiding. (some details - they even tried to hide the original sequence which our vaccines are based on. When a lab released it against orders they closed the lab. When Australia suggested an independent investigation they put 80bn of trade sanction on them. When a doctor at the start warned his colleagues privately to be careful as the vaccine was contagious they arrested him and made him sign a confession etc etc...)

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I feel this is like throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks: > they even tried to hide the original sequence which our vaccines are based on. By the accounts I've read, there was rivalry between the China CDC and researchers at different institutions to publish the genome first, not to hide it. The China CDC was taking longer to validate the genetic sequence and write up a publication, and they didn't want to be scooped. But regardless of the delay this caused, the genome was published extraordinarily quickly - less than two weeks after the first patient test results even suggested that there might be a new virus.
- tim333 5y ago
  Ok - googling the story on the original sequence seems to have changed. The original reporting https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chin... suggested a cover up but a more recent interview with the guy suggests not https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coronavirus-genome/ https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coro...