TheEngineer2 🇨🇦

1/ Cleanup day. A summary of threads for things I've worked on in no particular order.

SARS2 needed the insertion of a furin cleavage site to spread to humans, which the authors of the paper studiously ignore No member of the sarbecovirus has such a site, indicating its origin may not be natural

@tgof137 There's four 41M Chen from Dec 2019. Two of them market related, two of them not. Three of them went to Central hospital. Samples got mixed up because of the obvious problem. Two accountants/financial advisors south of the river. If you look at it carefully, you'll see it. PA

@Engineer2The At least, that seems a lot more likely than to assume there were secretly multiple 41M accountant chens who had hospitalizations on december 8th, and only one was Covid, or wherever you were going with this... Still not sure what you're saying about onset dates, though.

1/🧵A while back I had been contacted by Andy Levin about the Dec 8/16 41M Chen onset date dispute as the first official case of the pandemic. I was surprised by the outcome of that chat.

@tgof137 Look closer - none of them have PA in the samples. I thought the same thing the first time I looked. You have to go back to the table and ignore chart colors plus read the text. None of those have PA.

@Engineer2The My guess, after glancing at this for a few minutes, is the label is wrong and Ren's pie chart C corresponds to 41M accountant Chen, because it contains both pseudomonas and klebsiella. That wouldn't be a crazy mistake, in as much the paper also has him as IPBCAMS-3, not -4.

@tgof137 If you look at the Dec 16 media leak, you'll see in the red circle PA. The Ren 2020 paper had no PA in the sample. Dig a bit deeper and you'll see the sampling date is different. I don't have all my notes handy, but it's true.

@Engineer2The I'm not sure what you're referring to, with different sampling dates, could you explain that?

@tgof137 Forgive me, but fish around here to refresh your memory for the WHO case/sample mix-up. Francisco figured that part out. x.com/franciscodeasi… While you are reading, you should wonder if a few cases of 41M at the same hospital might have aided that confusion.

@Engineer2The Even if there were another 41M accountant Chen in Wuhan, with a different onset date, how would Ren 2020 know about that person such that they could conflate the two? This isn't like the WHO report where they were trying to merge datasets.

@tgof137 I was just talking about 41M Chen from Wuchang south side of the river...and the facts - a Dec 8 and Dec 16 case that didn't need to be combined into 1 case. And the rest of us didn't notice it mostly because they are both accountants. Fancy that.

@Engineer2The It's especially funny, because that case is one of the first 2 patients at Zhongnan hospital, next to the WIV. So he took a data point that's actually great for market origin (first two Zhongnan patients were market linked), threw it away, and claimed its absence was important!

@MonaRahalkar 🍭🍭Frozen Popsicle Gate. They forgot that every Chinese CCP news controlled agency was trying to blame it on somewhere else. And then, use the data to make a story lol

And how did the virus infect the lobsters? Please ask Débarre! science.org/content/articl…

@tgof137 We had a couple discrepancies that couldn't be explained. The PA in the sample was troubling, but then I noticed different sampling dates. Andy is right in this case. I'm almost sure there is another paper error which is the same error as the WHO sample mix-up.

@Engineer2The The hospitalization dates in Ren also match the interview in the paper. Dec 22: Jiangxia People's hospital, Dec 30: Jinyintan Same dude. Multiple sleuths (Francisco, Brian Reed, Worobey, you) figured out the Dec 16th date was right, years ago

@tgof137 That's the correction I'm looking for. Either the table is wrong, or the pie chart is wrong. Both can't be true.

@Engineer2The LOL what? Ren 2020 lists the date as December 16th: journals.lww.com/cmj/fulltext/2…

I believe there is an error in either the case data table or sample pie chart in Ren 2020. If a scientist could ask that question to the author and get an answer, that would clear the picture. x.com/Engineer2The/s…

10/ Further, the sampling dates for the two cases don't match showing that they are two separate cases.

9/ The Chinese refuted Worobey's changed onset date for 41M, but didn't say why. The answer is they are not the same patient, despite similar case details. This Pseudomonas Aeruginosa defect can't be explained unless they are two different samples/cases.