4 ms·

Parent is correct about COVID attacking the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen. This has been known for a while. Many sources if you search. Here is one

Parent is correct about COVID attacking the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen. This has been known for a while. Many sources if you search. Here is one: https://chemrxiv.org/articles/preprint/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173 https://chemrxiv.org/articles/preprint/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8...

timr 6y ago
This is a paper that used a computer simulation method ("docking") of computer-generated protein structures to arrive at the conclusions you're citing. I did my PhD in this area. Docking methods are not anywhere near reliable enough to make this sort of claim. This is little more than a story told with software.
- cthalupa 6y ago
  One side is producing research papers and other sources. You are saying you have a PhD in this area so trust you. I do not know you, I do not know if the PhD in question actually qualifies you to speak on the subject, and I do not know if it did that you would actually be fully up to date on the subject. I do not necessarily want to dismiss this out of hand as an appeal to authority, but as a layperson, you do not making a convincing argument when it boils down to "Listen to me, I have a PhD, trust me over these other people who have PhDs who are also publishing peer reviewed papers that disagree with me."
  - timr 6y ago
    > One side is producing research papers and other sources. You are saying you have a PhD in this area so trust you. That's not a paper. It's a pre-print. It isn't peer-reviewed. It isn't published. Literally anyone can push a document to a pre-print server. I'm saying I have a PhD in this exact discipline, and this document isn't proof of what it claims. You certainly don't have to believe me, but saying "this is a paper, and therefore it is likely to be correct" is not a standard of evidence that exists.
    - cthalupa 6y ago
      >That's not a paper. It's a pre-print. It isn't peer-reviewed. It isn't published. Literally anyone can push a document to a pre-print server. I stand corrected. > but saying "this is a paper, and therefore it is likely to be correct" is not a standard of evidence that exists. It is still at least showing some work beyond the "making claims with zero supporting evidence", which is what you are doing.
      - dna_polymerase 6y ago
        > It is still at least showing some work beyond the "making claims with zero supporting evidence", which is what you are doing. Really? OP knew exactly what was going on in this pre-print. Unlike you who took this for a published paper. Don't ask someone to show work when you yourself didn't read the summary. Also the paper doesn't talk about the 'ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen', the attack is first and foremost reported to result in less hemoglobin being available. There is a difference here.
        tremon 6y ago
        To be fair, the OP mentioned "the ability of the blood to carry oxygen", not blood cells, which would be correct if the overall concentration of hemoglobin was lowered.
        vmception 6y ago
        OP here. This is a great discussion and I'm glad this particular subthread chose not to dismiss it and instead chose to debate the progress of the research into it or lack thereof. Would be even greater to get NIH to invest $1B into looking into it further. 6 months ago people would have retorted slightly differently, although they would have balked at the assertion they would have assumed that people already researched it and ruled it out, and therefore I would have been "fearmongering" because the scientists already researched it! now we can acknowledge that they haven't and needs to be peer reviewed. so the goal post has moved, but I'm all for data being collected.
  - nradov 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong with publishing a computer model. But until it has been experimentally validated in humans then it's medically irrelevant. You're really reaching on this one.
    - cthalupa 6y ago
      It's still more than the literal zero evidence presented by the person I replied to.
- trevelyan 6y ago
  Thanks for sharing your off-topic criticism. Here is NIH on the same topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7267810/#:~:text=COVID-19%20combines%20the%20so,hypoxia%20(low%20hemoglobin%20saturation).&text=Oxygen%20deprivation%20and%20iron%20accumulation,regardless%20of%20the%20incurring%20pneumonia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7267810/#:~:tex.... Next time, if you're going to try gatekeeping, be sure you have grounds for it.

timr 6y ago

This is a paper that used a computer simulation method ("docking") of computer-generated protein structures to arrive at the conclusions you're citing. I did my PhD in this area. Docking methods are not anywhere near reliable enough to make this sort of claim. This is little more than a story told with software.

cthalupa 6y ago
One side is producing research papers and other sources. You are saying you have a PhD in this area so trust you. I do not know you, I do not know if the PhD in question actually qualifies you to speak on the subject, and I do not know if it did that you would actually be fully up to date on the subject. I do not necessarily want to dismiss this out of hand as an appeal to authority, but as a layperson, you do not making a convincing argument when it boils down to "Listen to me, I have a PhD, trust me over these other people who have PhDs who are also publishing peer reviewed papers that disagree with me."
- timr 6y ago
  > One side is producing research papers and other sources. You are saying you have a PhD in this area so trust you. That's not a paper. It's a pre-print. It isn't peer-reviewed. It isn't published. Literally anyone can push a document to a pre-print server. I'm saying I have a PhD in this exact discipline, and this document isn't proof of what it claims. You certainly don't have to believe me, but saying "this is a paper, and therefore it is likely to be correct" is not a standard of evidence that exists.
  - cthalupa 6y ago
    >That's not a paper. It's a pre-print. It isn't peer-reviewed. It isn't published. Literally anyone can push a document to a pre-print server. I stand corrected. > but saying "this is a paper, and therefore it is likely to be correct" is not a standard of evidence that exists. It is still at least showing some work beyond the "making claims with zero supporting evidence", which is what you are doing.
    - dna_polymerase 6y ago
      > It is still at least showing some work beyond the "making claims with zero supporting evidence", which is what you are doing. Really? OP knew exactly what was going on in this pre-print. Unlike you who took this for a published paper. Don't ask someone to show work when you yourself didn't read the summary. Also the paper doesn't talk about the 'ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen', the attack is first and foremost reported to result in less hemoglobin being available. There is a difference here.
      - tremon 6y ago
        To be fair, the OP mentioned "the ability of the blood to carry oxygen", not blood cells, which would be correct if the overall concentration of hemoglobin was lowered.
        vmception 6y ago
        OP here. This is a great discussion and I'm glad this particular subthread chose not to dismiss it and instead chose to debate the progress of the research into it or lack thereof. Would be even greater to get NIH to invest $1B into looking into it further. 6 months ago people would have retorted slightly differently, although they would have balked at the assertion they would have assumed that people already researched it and ruled it out, and therefore I would have been "fearmongering" because the scientists already researched it! now we can acknowledge that they haven't and needs to be peer reviewed. so the goal post has moved, but I'm all for data being collected.
- nradov 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with publishing a computer model. But until it has been experimentally validated in humans then it's medically irrelevant. You're really reaching on this one.
  - cthalupa 6y ago
    It's still more than the literal zero evidence presented by the person I replied to.
trevelyan 6y ago
Thanks for sharing your off-topic criticism. Here is NIH on the same topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7267810/#:~:text=COVID-19%20combines%20the%20so,hypoxia%20(low%20hemoglobin%20saturation).&text=Oxygen%20deprivation%20and%20iron%20accumulation,regardless%20of%20the%20incurring%20pneumonia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7267810/#:~:tex.... Next time, if you're going to try gatekeeping, be sure you have grounds for it.