5 Comments
author
Mar 30, 2023·edited Mar 30, 2023Author

I'm out of words.

The Liu et ag (Gao) paper, which looked at reads not some arbitrary contigs, now shows that the "raccoon dog" sample (Env_0576/Q61) contains mostly normal dog, not raccoon dog reads. What the f**k is going on here?

http://chinaxiv.org/abs/202303.10351

Expand full comment
author

also, as always, Gilles Demaneuf is excellently informed also about raccoon dog sales at HSM:

https://twitter.com/gdemaneuf/status/1638615240316428289?s=20

Expand full comment
Mar 24, 2023Liked by Dr. Valentin Bruttel

superb work. Bruttel has been one of the best and most honest researchers regarding the origins of this pandemic.

Expand full comment
author

Another important point raised by @Daoyu15: DNA removal methods may preferentially affect human DNA, as it comes from sneezes/saliva (skin flakes don't pass filters), which is very accessible. DNA from animals comes from blood, where DNA is stabilized by fibrinogen. This explains why so many samples contain only/mostly cow or sheep nucleotides and SARS2.

Expand full comment
author

Angie Rasmussen aparently tweeted that the raccoon dog sample did contain human reads and contigs, just none that were 300 nucleotides long. https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1638002479999713285?s=20 So there was human nucleic acids in that sample, just no contigs above their arbitrary 300nt treshold. What a farce!

Expand full comment