6 ms·
A large part of this blog post's ridiculous assertion lies either on ignorance or on the false assumption that horizontal gene transfer [0] does not exist in Na
by murphyslab 5y ago
A large part of this blog post's ridiculous assertion lies either on ignorance or on the false assumption that horizontal gene transfer [0] does not exist in Nature:
> It’s easy enough to change a single nucleotide (a single point mutation or SNP) or even insert or delete nucleotides (less common) but to insert 20 or 30 nucleotides with a code that works? Nope, that has to come from another virus or else it’s been done in a lab.
The original preprint which noted similarity of the HIV-1 sequences and those in the COVID spike protein, and on which this blog author's claims rest, was voluntarily withdrawn by its authors. [1]
Moreover, the assertions of uniqueness have been thoroughly addressed in the published article, "HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome" [2] :
> For any virus to obtain additional insert sequences from other organisms, it requires that it has direct interactions with other organisms, most likely through homologous or non-homologous recombination. [...] On the contrary, these motifs are widely present in various mammalian cells and so it will be more likely for bat CoV viruses to gain those motifs from the genomes of their infected cells if recombination indeed occurs.
That rebuttal article clearly suggests several feasible sources of the gene in Nature. That surely is more plausible than suggesting that Moderna or some other group nefariously created the COVID genome _in vitro_ before unleashing it upon humanity.
I deeply enjoy Hacker News for its ability to surface different ideas and sources of information that I would otherwise never find, but this article is simply ridiculous.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v2 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v2
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
- dekhn 5y agoThe really ridiculous thing is that we're expected to "explain it like I'm 5" to smart computer hackers who don't know biology and constantly try to poke holes in mainstream science without taking the time to understand the complexity and subtlety in that field.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- netizen-936824 5y agoI feel the same way when articles pop up about some drug. Sometimes it feels like I'm beating my head against a wall.
- feoren 5y agoI'm not really sure who you're talking about here. Who is expecting you to explain things to them simply? Informative comments are always appreciated, but I'm not sure why you're taking this as some personal obligation. Who is poking holes in mainstream science? I don't really see that happening in these comments.
- dekhn 5y agoI follow a lot of threads on the site, especially ones that appear to be COVID disinformation. And I see a lot of hackers asking "well, I read this <disinformation> and it made sense to me. Can you explain why it's not true?" This is pretty common. The reason I take it as obligation is that if there aren't people fighting disinformationn, the disinformation will win, because it tends to be full of simple, seductive, but. wrong ideas that naive people fall for.
- Jimmc414 5y agoDisinformation is defined as "false information intended to mislead". Do you think that is the intention of this author?
- dekhn 5y agoWell, it's possible the author believes what they wrote in which case it would be "false information believed to be true intended to teach" but I'm pretty sure this is active misinformation. I'm not sure which particular thing public health people said that you're complaining about in the last part of the section- but I don't really think that public health leaders who communicate things which aren't 100% correct are dissemination disinformation. That's sort of a pedantic and uninteresting argument to have about the philosophical nature of information.
- jesse_a_b 5y ago1 - You haven't even checked the sequences, HIV doesn't have this exact sequence. The 2015 moderna patent does.