3 ms·

> It is unlikely. The samples collected would be checked for fragments. It is not straightforward to identify a new virus that is not closely related to known

by _yb2s 2y ago

> It is unlikely. The samples collected would be checked for fragments. It is not straightforward to identify a new virus that is not closely related to known human viruses. You cannot just “check for it.” It is largely an unsolved problem, and there are likely a huge number of common viruses that frequently infect humans that still remain undiscovered. When we sequence real world DNA and RNA there is a whole bunch of mysterious stuff that is unexplained, and may include many undiscovered viruses, and bacteria. I don't agree about the rest of the stuff you mentioned. In fact, there are academics actively studying things like what you mentioned- including Gerald Pollack at UW, but the reality of these phenomenon are more complex than the popular conspiracy theory level explanations imply, and there is no reason to think they lead to things like what you are claiming. Look here: https://www.pollacklab.org/ https://www.pollacklab.org/ I used to feel the same about science unfairly rejecting fringe ideas, and that was part of my motivation to become a scientist... but after becoming one I found it is mostly not true. Plenty of scientists openly study and consider stuff like this and are not "discredited" - the reality is a bit more mundane, that the conspiracy theory versions of these stories are just lacking so much nuance that they have little to no relation to the actual research. You can see from Pollacks' website above that he has a big problem with fraudulent products using his name and likeness to claim some medical benefit, which neither he or his research actually support.

trod1234 2y ago
> You cannot just "check for it"... I had read and heard that many places had started using preliminary tools like Lucaprot that scan viral dark matter retrieved using nano-pore sequencers to identify the sequences and common secondary structures of proteins which all viruses need to replicate, to automate detection of new viruses. Is this not widespread? I'm aware of Pollack's research, but as you said he's suffered reputational harm which started when he began that research. The stories surrounding Luc Montagnier and Benviste, were pretty poorly handled, and they both were somewhat discredited for merely pointing out undiscovered anomalies that merited further investigation. Nature sent their hatchet man James Randi, who has been known for discrediting people, sometimes without sound basis especially in cases where the underlying mechanism is not understood. There is something to be said that When you suddenly can't get any funding because you published something which no one else had found in a methodological scientific way, that could be duplicated; that tends to gives teeth to those calling something conspiracy theory, where it seems more like a conspiracy practice. Every little quirk we find, can potentially be used in an engineered solution to get to some amazing outcome not previously considered. Quantum dot based technologies are an example of this, from what I've read with regards to their history.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Yes, that is the process basically for new virus discovery- sequencing and then looking for similarity to known viral sequences. That is still an expensive and time consuming research project, and it fails if the virus is too different to identify any sequence homology. We still find a lot of DNA and RNA we can’t make any sense of in almost every sequencing experiment- there’s a ton of stuff out there undiscovered and unexplained. I suspect a lot of currently mysterious diseases and health problems may have viral origins. That’s why I’m saying we can’t rule out a virus here easily- not until some other cause is proven. You can also have more complex mechanisms that also involve a virus plus generic or environmental factors- for example the recent finding that implicates HSV in Alzheimers, despite the fact that most people with the virus still never get Alzheimers.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    I wasn't aware of that tidbit with HSV and Alzheimer's, always nice to learn something new. Thanks for mentioning this.

by _yb2s 2y ago

trod1234 2y ago

> You cannot just "check for it"... I had read and heard that many places had started using preliminary tools like Lucaprot that scan viral dark matter retrieved using nano-pore sequencers to identify the sequences and common secondary structures of proteins which all viruses need to replicate, to automate detection of new viruses. Is this not widespread? I'm aware of Pollack's research, but as you said he's suffered reputational harm which started when he began that research. The stories surrounding Luc Montagnier and Benviste, were pretty poorly handled, and they both were somewhat discredited for merely pointing out undiscovered anomalies that merited further investigation. Nature sent their hatchet man James Randi, who has been known for discrediting people, sometimes without sound basis especially in cases where the underlying mechanism is not understood. There is something to be said that When you suddenly can't get any funding because you published something which no one else had found in a methodological scientific way, that could be duplicated; that tends to gives teeth to those calling something conspiracy theory, where it seems more like a conspiracy practice. Every little quirk we find, can potentially be used in an engineered solution to get to some amazing outcome not previously considered. Quantum dot based technologies are an example of this, from what I've read with regards to their history.

_yb2s 2y ago
Yes, that is the process basically for new virus discovery- sequencing and then looking for similarity to known viral sequences. That is still an expensive and time consuming research project, and it fails if the virus is too different to identify any sequence homology. We still find a lot of DNA and RNA we can’t make any sense of in almost every sequencing experiment- there’s a ton of stuff out there undiscovered and unexplained. I suspect a lot of currently mysterious diseases and health problems may have viral origins. That’s why I’m saying we can’t rule out a virus here easily- not until some other cause is proven. You can also have more complex mechanisms that also involve a virus plus generic or environmental factors- for example the recent finding that implicates HSV in Alzheimers, despite the fact that most people with the virus still never get Alzheimers.
- trod1234 2y ago
  I wasn't aware of that tidbit with HSV and Alzheimer's, always nice to learn something new. Thanks for mentioning this.