HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
jbloom
PRJNA692319_public
Python2022–2023
jbloom / PRJNA692319_public

PRJNA692319_public

Analysis of Antarctica sequencing samples contaminated with SARS-CoV-2

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
4GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Analysis of Antarctica sequencing samples contaminated with SARS-CoV-2

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2022-02-09 23:44:01 UTC to 2023-08-30 13:36:41 UTC.

0122022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsFeb 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsNov 20222022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsAug 2023

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Mar 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20222022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20222022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20222022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20222022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20222022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20222022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20222022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20232023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20232023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20232023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20232023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20232023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20232023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20232023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
stringsandchars·Aug 30, 2023
> I'm sure all of the evolutionary biologists would love to have your level of confidence. It's easy to say this, as neither you nor I have the requisite knowledge to prove/disprove your assertion. But I read threads like this one [1] or resources like this one [2] and realize that there are experts who are able to distinguish earlier and later variants. Incidentally, I noticed that you edited your first response several times while I wrote this. The tone of what you wrote first was a bit less considered than the what I'm responding to now, but I hope it's ok to just leave it at this. [1] https://nitter.net/ydeigin/status/1695588327540347329 [2] https://github.com/jbloom/PRJNA692319_public
In Politicians, scientists spar over alleged NIH coverup using COVID19 origin paper
iam-TJ·Feb 10, 2022
It's disingenuous of the Telegraph journalist not to provide links to, or attributed quotes from, the Hungarian scientists. After doing some in-depth research to find the original research or reports I've found nothing published by the Hungarian institutions nor Dr Jesse Bloom - the only person quoted in the article. Having dug further I don't take his statements at face value either, for the reasons described below, since there's more than a hint of preconceived bias in his general thrust and previous publications. I REALLY wish journalists would clearly share published sources to original research and data for such important events rather than stir up controversy without demonstrating a strong foundation. Especially when claiming this is a "finding". For clarity, I've no opinion on SARS-Cov-2 origin but I do want to see claims well-supp
Read the rest
orted by evidence. I went looking on both the mentioned Hungarian web-sites [0][1], searched biorxiv, and checked the Bloom Lab [2] publications since the only person quoted is Jesse Bloom [3] who claims to have reproduced (Hungarian) results. In my research I also found a prior report by Bloom in June 2021 [4] reporting 'recovery of deleted files containing partial sequences' [4] that were soon criticised by multiple other scientists; e.g: "...The language of the paper is unusual, its contains a significant degree of supposition and conjecture, cites blog posts..." [5]. [0] https://univet.hu/en/research/topics/ [1] https://www.elte.hu/en/facts [2] https://research.fredhutch.org/bloom/en/publications.html [3] https://research.fredhutch.org/bloom/en/members.html [4] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1.... [5] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/health/coronavirus-sequen... Updated: just discovered there's a recent github repo [6] created by Bloom with much more detail. Telegraph should really have pointed to this. [6] https://github.com/jbloom/PRJNA692319_public Update 2: Pre-print [7] of the Hungarian report (see [6] for details as to why it was rejected by Biorxiv several times). [7] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1
In Early ‘lab-grown’ Covid virus found in sample lends weight to Wuhan theory
bewaretheirs·Feb 9, 2022
See also https://github.com/jbloom/PRJNA692319_public particularly the end of README.md: "On Feb-8-2022, I e-mailed the Chinese authors of the paper to ask about the sample deletion and restoration. They e-mailed back almost immediately. They confirmed what they had told Istvan: they had sequenced the samples with Sangon Biotech (Shanghai) after extracting the DNA in December 2019 from their samples. The suspect that contamination of the samples happened at Sangon Biotech. They deleted the three most contaminated samples from the Sequence Read Archive. They do not know why the samples were then 'un-deleted.'" (end quote)
In Early ‘lab-grown’ Covid virus found in sample lends weight to Wuhan theory

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.