8 ms·

1) talk about failure to read a room 2) even the alleged learning from the experiment: "The conclusion of the study is that mutations in the spike protein of t

1) talk about failure to read a room 2) even the alleged learning from the experiment: "The conclusion of the study is that mutations in the spike protein of the Omicron variant are responsible for the strain’s ability to evade immunity people have built up via vaccination, infections, or both, but they are not responsible for the apparent decrease in severity of the Omicron viruses." ...does not hold up, because this was in mice. Ordinary lab rats were immune to the original strain of covid-19, but not to Omicron, which shows that it is not at all unlikely for there to be significant differences in the resistance of rodents to one strain or the other, compared to humans. So, they made a hybrid covid-19 strain, that could conceivably have been as contagious as Omicron but as lethal as the original strain. Nice work, folks.

baja_blast 4y ago
Well the mice the researchers used were genetically modified mice to have human ACE2 receptors which is standard practice in Virology. But! I will say it 100% is not worth the risk, just last year a researcher in Taiwan got infected with the delta variant in the same level lab BSL3, so any dangerous or novel virus they create has a real possibility of escaping. Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic, but none of the research helped in anyway combating it. For example the Ecohealth Alliance the main collaborators with the WIV has still to this day refused to share research and data they have collected over the years. So either the research is worthless and thus why are we funding it despite the dangers, or they have something they want to hide.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  This particular research helps to understand how important this particular variant of the spike protein is. When future virus variants are discovered and sequenced, this information helps understand what to expect. Because the virulence of new Variants can't be estimated for months after their first detection.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    This particular variant that didn't exist until humans combined two variants into a new one?
    - clint 4y ago
      Which is simulating what could and probably will happen in nature, before it really happens
      - JamesBarney 4y ago
        Or could cause it to happen. There's still a decent chance the original covid wouldn't have happened if people weren't doing this type of research.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        There is zero indication of the Virus having originated in a lab. Some hand-waving, no actual evidence. No genomic signature. No merging of known lineages (which would happen). No plausible mechanism (to those who know the subject). Much more likely: This Virus originated just like the thousands before it. From ordinary Human-to-animal contact. Virus particles pass from animals to Humans trillions of times a year. Most of the time exactly nothing happens at all. Even rarer are actual transmissions. Still rarer are chains of transmission that allow the Virus to evolve into an actual threat.
        buscoquadnary 4y ago
        I love how everyone involved always jumps on the most extreme version of the lab leak hypothesis "Chinese government made COVID super weapon" and then use that to discount everything else instead of admitting the much more nuanced reality of the situation. The lab leak hypothesis has a range from "This virus was created and released by the Chinese government as a bio-weapon against the US and to kill off their own aging population" at the extreme. To the "The virus was being studied at the Wuhan Virology Institute and someone one got lax on safety protocols got exposed accidentally and then took the train home." Most people that seem to argue against lab leak, seem to assume everyone ascribes to the first position, whereas the majority of the people that believe in the lab leak subscribe to the later position, including myself.
- foobarian 4y ago
  I read this and dream of the day where the common cold is cured. And it makes it all seem worth it.
  - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
    There is no common cold. There are over 200 distinct viruses that cause the illness we call "a cold."
    - foobarian 4y ago
      s/common cold/over 200 distinct viruses that cause the illness we call "a cold."/
      - echelon 4y ago
        Sure, but investigators need to treat this subject with reverence. Unlike pretty much every other discipline on earth, this one has the potential to disrupt billions of lives from a single mistake. Virologists were the first ones that jumped to say Covid wasn't a lab leak, yet what they should have been saying was, "we'll get to the bottom of this and then, even if wasn't a lab leak, work to make sure that outcome never comes to pass." Instead we got a blame game, accusations of racism, and everyone not in their field was called stupid or incapable of understanding the situation if we asked for more light to be shed in the subject. Also, what happened to the scientific method? There was a whole lot of certainty being prematurely thrown around. This hubris won't do. I don't know how Covid came about, and at this point the only reason to know is to prevent the next one. But no matter the case, whatever is next better not be from a lab.
        varelse 4y ago
      - John23832 4y ago
        You want a global replace, so the end is "/g"... but I feel you lol.
- dilap 4y ago
  > or they have something they want to hide. Indeed. I recommend this interview with Jeffrey Sachs, who headed Lancet's commision to investigate Covid-19. https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2022/10/jeffrey-sachs-lessons-from-covid.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2022/10/jeffrey-sachs-lessons-... You may find your eyebrows a couple inches higher after listening :-)
  - beebmam 4y ago
    No thanks, I'd rather trust virologists and the people who are doing the actual engineering. I don't trust directors/executives, by definition. They have ZERO idea about nearly anything, other than sounding confident.
  - throwaway1248 4y ago
    Another interview that Jeffrey Sachs did: https://youtu.be/morj-3rdWwM https://youtu.be/morj-3rdWwM
  - harry8 4y ago
    sibling throwaway youtube link to interview with Jeffrey Sachs should not be dead. Disagree as much or as little as you see fit with him. Nothing there needs to be suppressed. How did it get to be dead? Seems odd.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic, but none of the research helped in anyway combating it. I was under the impression this research was partly responsible for quickly identifying parts of the virus that are conserved in evolution, thus making them good targets for mRNA vaccines. If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    The spike protein was selected because the virus was already well-adapted to humans and they assumed changes to the spike protein would make it less-fit and not able to infect as readily. They were wrong. > If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out. This is what happened - the variant later named Delta was first identified in Oct 2020, long before the vaccines were released. If anything the vaccines helped it become the dominant one.
    - cdtwigg 4y ago
      I guess I would have assumed the opposite? A virus that just jumped from bats to humans is expected to evolve pretty quickly in the binding domain as it “learns” to better target human ACE2. I thought the reason they targeted spike was that it’s on the surface of the virus and so an obvious target for antibodies to attach, whereas if you target some structural proteins deep inside the viral structure you’re taking a risk that the antibodies won’t be able to reach them.
    - peter422 4y ago
      The spike protein was selected because prior research into SARS and MERS showed that vaccines targeting the spike had the best immune response as compared to other proteins. They were aware it could mutate because the spike of SARS2 was different than SARS or MERS. Also vaccines against the ancestral stain are still quite effective at preventing serious disease against every variant we've seen so far. I don't know what point you are trying to make but you are basing it on incorrect information.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic [...] Huh? Coronaviruses have been pointed out as a big area of concern for decades, at least. What would you have expected as a prediction, exact date and time and genetic sequence?
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    If they had predicted it with any high degree of accuracy, many people would've considered that as proof that they caused it anyway.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
The result of the research is very valuable. It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. In reality, infectious success and malignancy are highly anti-correlated, strongly. The combined Virus (which probably has existed in a very similar form in the wild somewhere!!) is actually a lot less dangerous than the two sources. Also: Both Viruses have become a lot less dangerous to the world population because of immunity.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. Prove it.
- creato 4y ago
  Why is that valuable? It takes weeks if not days to synthesize a vaccine for a new strain. It then takes months if not years, and massive investment, to test it for safety and efficacy. How the hell does shortening the weeks part of this at the expense of potentially requiring a new expensive test, in case the experiment leaks, make any sense?
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Creating a vaccine was not the purpose of this research. The problem with new variants is that it takes months to know how virulent and how transmissible it is. Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants. We know now that Omicron's spike protein is responsible for the better transmission and better immunological evasion. If we see a new variant with Omicron's spike protein, but modified, we can first of all tell it's going to be better at evasion. If there are changes in parts that are highly selected, it's probably more transmissive. If that part is less selected-for (there are ways to tell from the sequence) we have a clue that it is probably a little less transmissive. We also know that the spike protein is less associated with the virulence. Which means researchers have to keep looking for what makes the Virus deadly. This could lead to more effective vaccines and antibody treatments or even antiviral agents. Knowing which protein to target is half the game.
brundolf 4y ago
alexfromapex 4y ago
I think the other part that is appalling is they did this in Biosafety Level 3 labs instead of 4 when COVID has basically brought the entire world to its knees for 3 years. What is wrong with the biosafety review committee? Also, they completely skirted the NIAID approval process, putting the public at risk, will anyone see jail time for that?
stuckinhell 4y ago
This alone has convinced me, these scientists need to be investigated and punished for biological terrorism. This represents an insane lack of ethics. Did they forget, we've been in a multi-year pandemic lockdown.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
thrown_22 4y ago
> 1) talk about failure to read a room The people most upset in the room are the same people who have been screaming that Covid was not a lab accident. I wonder why they would be upset at someone showing how easy it is to weaponize a coronavirus?
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  One of the worst "gotcha" takes I've read in a while. I'm sure people who believe covid was a lab leak are _also_ upset with this. Try not to interpret everything around you with an us vs them lens.
elif 4y ago
Establishing the efficacy of a non-existent and artificial pathogen is useless on it's own. Like I bred this dog, and i know for a fact because of it's brown snout its lethality went down 20%. no you don't. it's a whole chimeric dna operation. not a binary tree. Looks like there needs to be a criminal line drawn somewhere.

baja_blast 4y ago

Well the mice the researchers used were genetically modified mice to have human ACE2 receptors which is standard practice in Virology. But! I will say it 100% is not worth the risk, just last year a researcher in Taiwan got infected with the delta variant in the same level lab BSL3, so any dangerous or novel virus they create has a real possibility of escaping. Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic, but none of the research helped in anyway combating it. For example the Ecohealth Alliance the main collaborators with the WIV has still to this day refused to share research and data they have collected over the years. So either the research is worthless and thus why are we funding it despite the dangers, or they have something they want to hide.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
This particular research helps to understand how important this particular variant of the spike protein is. When future virus variants are discovered and sequenced, this information helps understand what to expect. Because the virulence of new Variants can't be estimated for months after their first detection.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  This particular variant that didn't exist until humans combined two variants into a new one?
  - clint 4y ago
    Which is simulating what could and probably will happen in nature, before it really happens
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      Or could cause it to happen. There's still a decent chance the original covid wouldn't have happened if people weren't doing this type of research.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        There is zero indication of the Virus having originated in a lab. Some hand-waving, no actual evidence. No genomic signature. No merging of known lineages (which would happen). No plausible mechanism (to those who know the subject). Much more likely: This Virus originated just like the thousands before it. From ordinary Human-to-animal contact. Virus particles pass from animals to Humans trillions of times a year. Most of the time exactly nothing happens at all. Even rarer are actual transmissions. Still rarer are chains of transmission that allow the Virus to evolve into an actual threat.
        buscoquadnary 4y ago
        I love how everyone involved always jumps on the most extreme version of the lab leak hypothesis "Chinese government made COVID super weapon" and then use that to discount everything else instead of admitting the much more nuanced reality of the situation. The lab leak hypothesis has a range from "This virus was created and released by the Chinese government as a bio-weapon against the US and to kill off their own aging population" at the extreme. To the "The virus was being studied at the Wuhan Virology Institute and someone one got lax on safety protocols got exposed accidentally and then took the train home." Most people that seem to argue against lab leak, seem to assume everyone ascribes to the first position, whereas the majority of the people that believe in the lab leak subscribe to the later position, including myself.
foobarian 4y ago
I read this and dream of the day where the common cold is cured. And it makes it all seem worth it.
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  There is no common cold. There are over 200 distinct viruses that cause the illness we call "a cold."
  - foobarian 4y ago
    s/common cold/over 200 distinct viruses that cause the illness we call "a cold."/
    - echelon 4y ago
      Sure, but investigators need to treat this subject with reverence. Unlike pretty much every other discipline on earth, this one has the potential to disrupt billions of lives from a single mistake. Virologists were the first ones that jumped to say Covid wasn't a lab leak, yet what they should have been saying was, "we'll get to the bottom of this and then, even if wasn't a lab leak, work to make sure that outcome never comes to pass." Instead we got a blame game, accusations of racism, and everyone not in their field was called stupid or incapable of understanding the situation if we asked for more light to be shed in the subject. Also, what happened to the scientific method? There was a whole lot of certainty being prematurely thrown around. This hubris won't do. I don't know how Covid came about, and at this point the only reason to know is to prevent the next one. But no matter the case, whatever is next better not be from a lab.
      - varelse 4y ago
    - John23832 4y ago
      You want a global replace, so the end is "/g"... but I feel you lol.
dilap 4y ago
> or they have something they want to hide. Indeed. I recommend this interview with Jeffrey Sachs, who headed Lancet's commision to investigate Covid-19. https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2022/10/jeffrey-sachs-lessons-from-covid.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2022/10/jeffrey-sachs-lessons-... You may find your eyebrows a couple inches higher after listening :-)
- beebmam 4y ago
  No thanks, I'd rather trust virologists and the people who are doing the actual engineering. I don't trust directors/executives, by definition. They have ZERO idea about nearly anything, other than sounding confident.
- throwaway1248 4y ago
  Another interview that Jeffrey Sachs did: https://youtu.be/morj-3rdWwM https://youtu.be/morj-3rdWwM
- harry8 4y ago
  sibling throwaway youtube link to interview with Jeffrey Sachs should not be dead. Disagree as much or as little as you see fit with him. Nothing there needs to be suppressed. How did it get to be dead? Seems odd.
heavyset_go 4y ago
> Also it's not like this type of research helped us predict or even fight the pandemic. Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic, but none of the research helped in anyway combating it. I was under the impression this research was partly responsible for quickly identifying parts of the virus that are conserved in evolution, thus making them good targets for mRNA vaccines. If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out.
- Izkata 4y ago
  The spike protein was selected because the virus was already well-adapted to humans and they assumed changes to the spike protein would make it less-fit and not able to infect as readily. They were wrong. > If vaccine manufacturers had targeted proteins that have high rates of mutation, it would allow the virus to evade vaccine immunity faster, potentially making vaccines useless by the time they were actually rolled out. This is what happened - the variant later named Delta was first identified in Oct 2020, long before the vaccines were released. If anything the vaccines helped it become the dominant one.
  - cdtwigg 4y ago
    I guess I would have assumed the opposite? A virus that just jumped from bats to humans is expected to evolve pretty quickly in the binding domain as it “learns” to better target human ACE2. I thought the reason they targeted spike was that it’s on the surface of the virus and so an obvious target for antibodies to attach, whereas if you target some structural proteins deep inside the viral structure you’re taking a risk that the antibodies won’t be able to reach them.
  - peter422 4y ago
    The spike protein was selected because prior research into SARS and MERS showed that vaccines targeting the spike had the best immune response as compared to other proteins. They were aware it could mutate because the spike of SARS2 was different than SARS or MERS. Also vaccines against the ancestral stain are still quite effective at preventing serious disease against every variant we've seen so far. I don't know what point you are trying to make but you are basing it on incorrect information.
kadoban 4y ago
> Millions have been spent on studying and modifying wild coronaviruses and it not only failed to predict this pandemic [...] Huh? Coronaviruses have been pointed out as a big area of concern for decades, at least. What would you have expected as a prediction, exact date and time and genetic sequence?
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  If they had predicted it with any high degree of accuracy, many people would've considered that as proof that they caused it anyway.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

The result of the research is very valuable. It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. In reality, infectious success and malignancy are highly anti-correlated, strongly. The combined Virus (which probably has existed in a very similar form in the wild somewhere!!) is actually a lot less dangerous than the two sources. Also: Both Viruses have become a lot less dangerous to the world population because of immunity.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> It helps predict the attributes of future novel strains. Prove it.
creato 4y ago
Why is that valuable? It takes weeks if not days to synthesize a vaccine for a new strain. It then takes months if not years, and massive investment, to test it for safety and efficacy. How the hell does shortening the weeks part of this at the expense of potentially requiring a new expensive test, in case the experiment leaks, make any sense?
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Creating a vaccine was not the purpose of this research. The problem with new variants is that it takes months to know how virulent and how transmissible it is. Such research enables better prediction from the point of detecting and sequencing such variants. We know now that Omicron's spike protein is responsible for the better transmission and better immunological evasion. If we see a new variant with Omicron's spike protein, but modified, we can first of all tell it's going to be better at evasion. If there are changes in parts that are highly selected, it's probably more transmissive. If that part is less selected-for (there are ways to tell from the sequence) we have a clue that it is probably a little less transmissive. We also know that the spike protein is less associated with the virulence. Which means researchers have to keep looking for what makes the Virus deadly. This could lead to more effective vaccines and antibody treatments or even antiviral agents. Knowing which protein to target is half the game.

brundolf 4y ago

alexfromapex 4y ago

I think the other part that is appalling is they did this in Biosafety Level 3 labs instead of 4 when COVID has basically brought the entire world to its knees for 3 years. What is wrong with the biosafety review committee? Also, they completely skirted the NIAID approval process, putting the public at risk, will anyone see jail time for that?

stuckinhell 4y ago

This alone has convinced me, these scientists need to be investigated and punished for biological terrorism. This represents an insane lack of ethics. Did they forget, we've been in a multi-year pandemic lockdown.

saiya-jin 4y ago

thrown_22 4y ago

> 1) talk about failure to read a room The people most upset in the room are the same people who have been screaming that Covid was not a lab accident. I wonder why they would be upset at someone showing how easy it is to weaponize a coronavirus?

admax88qqq 4y ago
One of the worst "gotcha" takes I've read in a while. I'm sure people who believe covid was a lab leak are _also_ upset with this. Try not to interpret everything around you with an us vs them lens.

elif 4y ago

Establishing the efficacy of a non-existent and artificial pathogen is useless on it's own. Like I bred this dog, and i know for a fact because of it's brown snout its lethality went down 20%. no you don't. it's a whole chimeric dna operation. not a binary tree. Looks like there needs to be a criminal line drawn somewhere.