Is it necessary to assume that 'in culture' detection of 'viruses' actually is showing a detected 'virus' and is NOT a bit of Circular Logic posing as truth? It is my concern that the 'in culture' process may ONLY be showing what are deemed to be specific Antibodies different from others known which energises the claim that therefore a 'new' virus is responsible and therefore must be present as the agent concerned. Voila - new 'virus' found and its associated 'antibody' must prove this 'fact'.
Please be gentle with my ignorance of this field. I am extremely wary of 'circular logic' as it is so compelling and enough people believe with fierce conviction that it 'proves' their claims with no comprehension that it actually proves the opposite.
It is not circular logic, it is conditional logic. When you inject someone's throat juice into a fertilized egg and a few days later there is a lot of cellular debris, what do you know about it at that point? Nothing until you see what effect the debris has on another medium (another egg or a ferret or a person) and what properties the antibodies caused by exposure to that debris have on other passages of the stuff in the debris. So what do you want to call the thing that leads to all these observable interactions spread out through time? A ghost? Propose something. You still won't get around the conditional nature of the logic. "Oh, I don't think it's a virus that you gave to that ferret that made it's blood later able to prevent that egg's debris from making another ferret sick, I think it's _____."
Thanks! I am not sure that the RSV origin theory that I disagree with really should be credited to anyone specifically - it is a meme I have noticed floating around. But TNE's post prompted me to collate my relevant research.
Finally sitting down. RE putting the history part in its own post, the feedback is appreciated. But I wanted to keep my powder dry on this topic because I might do a more general "Viruses before cell culture / electron microscopes" guide, so I didn't want to give the RSV thing a full post treatment.
It was not a didactic comment. I was explaining what the word meant in my usage. So all you have done is replicate the assumption that I was using a confusing science term instead of common lay meaning...
The sera used to amplify the oral polio vaccine in Africa during the 50s came from (wild) pans troglodytes troglodytes - a type of chimpanzee. This is how the AIDS pandemic began.
Likely a good suggestion. Even though, my angle on polio is basically that it is "the first HIV." At the same time, I am skeptical of all virus-disease links and that includes HIV->AIDS. So even though I set out to form a theory of how vaccines led to AIDS this year I haven't made any progress - because I don't want to weigh in until I audit the research supporting the theory that the virus causes the disease. Same way I reviewed flu research from the ground up for my OAS timeline...
Not a coincidence. The earliest known HIV cases come from the same towns where the oral polio vaccine was first trialed. You can read a great deal of detailed information about the theory here:
Thanks. I’ll have a look at it. I’m interested in Brian’s opinion (if he has one). The labs, trials and people involved overlap from what I can tell, but that would be expected if they are the ones doing the early research. If you invented photography it would be hardly surprising most of the earliest photographs would be of people and places around which you live or work.
The oral polio vaccine was amplified around the world using monkey sera. The only place it resulted in HIV is the same place they (uniquely) used wild chimpanzee sera, chimpanzees of the subspecies that carry the type of SIV that is the closest known relative to human HIV. No other OPV trials ever used chimp sera.
Thanks. I’m aware of links and the slipshod practices used in preparation of polio vaccines. I was reading a criminology paper looking at the practices of a well know Australian company and couldn’t help thinking their was a link between their less than ideal practices, polio, SIV and HIV. I then googled it and found I’m not the first to have noticed something similar. I don’t understand it well enough to rule out coincidence.
Very interesting! I am similar to several others who aren't convinced about the Greek alphabet soup variants being intentionally released aside from Omicron, but I'm open to seeing what is out there so I am looking forward to seeing how you piece things together!
And if you are out for the time being have a happy Thanksgiving to Brian and fellow Unglossed readers!
Alpha has many of the same problems with any alternate "story."
That includes innocent lab tinkering + leak. 100% of the published "we did gof on SARS-CoV-2 for funsies" studies, mouse-passage or recomb based, have used a pre-B.1 backbone. No one has published anything working with a B.1/B.1.1.1 virus. So published research cannot explain super-mutants that also have the B.1 mutation triplet (three mutations spread across the genome, with one silent). So the only lab-origin option available for these B.1 super-mutants is "secret." The reason people make viruses in secret is so they at least can release them, if they want to. Now, from there, you could still say it could leak as an "accident," but that's sort of like forgiving an abuser at this point.
The other problems are discussed sufficiently in the Rambaut paper linked in this post. They obtain for several of the variants. Here is another paper remarking on the same thing - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.22.504731v2
“This strong acceleration of the overall rate compared to within clade evolution indicates that the evolutionary process that gave rise to the different variants is qualitatively different from that in typical transmission chains and likely dominated by adaptive evolution.”
Hm... a qualitatively different evolutionary process... couldn't lab manipulation fit that bill...?
I haven't looked too deeply into it so I won't make any claims for the veracity of continuous release aside from that I'm a bit skeptical, but I always look forward to seeing other evidence to support such an idea.
I just briefly skimmed the preprint and unfortunately it's above my knowledge so that may take a good deal of time to parse. I may try at some point but I certainly believe you're doing your due diligence in sourcing your evidence so I will mostly look forward you to piecing things together in your unglossed manner.
I am writing a guide to phylogenetic analysis right now (well, multi-tasking it with more sequence formatting). I think there is an impression that it is a sophisticated practice when really it's simple puzzle-putting-together. Hopefully will be able to convey what expectations easily arise for a "natural" variant, which hopefully will make it really clear why Alpha is remarkable. As for the preprint the fig's are really elegant though sparsely labeled, you can see how the selected clades pop in above the curve but actually mutate more slowly afterward.
I wouldn't say "all," particularly as Delta might be natural. Besides, the greek letter scheme wasn't implemented until May 2021 so it isn't really defining the clades that are problematic, there was one in California but it died out and never got a name.
Is it necessary to assume that 'in culture' detection of 'viruses' actually is showing a detected 'virus' and is NOT a bit of Circular Logic posing as truth? It is my concern that the 'in culture' process may ONLY be showing what are deemed to be specific Antibodies different from others known which energises the claim that therefore a 'new' virus is responsible and therefore must be present as the agent concerned. Voila - new 'virus' found and its associated 'antibody' must prove this 'fact'.
Please be gentle with my ignorance of this field. I am extremely wary of 'circular logic' as it is so compelling and enough people believe with fierce conviction that it 'proves' their claims with no comprehension that it actually proves the opposite.
It is not circular logic, it is conditional logic. When you inject someone's throat juice into a fertilized egg and a few days later there is a lot of cellular debris, what do you know about it at that point? Nothing until you see what effect the debris has on another medium (another egg or a ferret or a person) and what properties the antibodies caused by exposure to that debris have on other passages of the stuff in the debris. So what do you want to call the thing that leads to all these observable interactions spread out through time? A ghost? Propose something. You still won't get around the conditional nature of the logic. "Oh, I don't think it's a virus that you gave to that ferret that made it's blood later able to prevent that egg's debris from making another ferret sick, I think it's _____."
I added a note that you disagree with Naked Emperor
Thanks! I am not sure that the RSV origin theory that I disagree with really should be credited to anyone specifically - it is a meme I have noticed floating around. But TNE's post prompted me to collate my relevant research.
Thank you for this informative post. The history of cell culture and polio research was fascinating but maybe better in a post of its own. However...
"humans synthesize viruses intentionally."
As much as I appreciate heterodox science, I haven't seen anyone make the case for this.
Finally sitting down. RE putting the history part in its own post, the feedback is appreciated. But I wanted to keep my powder dry on this topic because I might do a more general "Viruses before cell culture / electron microscopes" guide, so I didn't want to give the RSV thing a full post treatment.
Heard of 'gain of function research'?
Oh dear, I thought Unglossed meant to say our bodies create them.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
Synthesize means lab.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cellular+synthesis+of+proteins&ia=web
It was not a didactic comment. I was explaining what the word meant in my usage. So all you have done is replicate the assumption that I was using a confusing science term instead of common lay meaning...
Apologies for the misunderstanding and thank you for the reply. :)
The sera used to amplify the oral polio vaccine in Africa during the 50s came from (wild) pans troglodytes troglodytes - a type of chimpanzee. This is how the AIDS pandemic began.
I keep seeing this link. I’m hoping Brian addresses it in his follow up on polio.
Is it a coincidence or is there more to it?
I can also understand if Brian doesn’t want go there for obvious reasons.
Likely a good suggestion. Even though, my angle on polio is basically that it is "the first HIV." At the same time, I am skeptical of all virus-disease links and that includes HIV->AIDS. So even though I set out to form a theory of how vaccines led to AIDS this year I haven't made any progress - because I don't want to weigh in until I audit the research supporting the theory that the virus causes the disease. Same way I reviewed flu research from the ground up for my OAS timeline...
Not a coincidence. The earliest known HIV cases come from the same towns where the oral polio vaccine was first trialed. You can read a great deal of detailed information about the theory here:
www.aidsorigins.com
Thanks. I’ll have a look at it. I’m interested in Brian’s opinion (if he has one). The labs, trials and people involved overlap from what I can tell, but that would be expected if they are the ones doing the early research. If you invented photography it would be hardly surprising most of the earliest photographs would be of people and places around which you live or work.
The oral polio vaccine was amplified around the world using monkey sera. The only place it resulted in HIV is the same place they (uniquely) used wild chimpanzee sera, chimpanzees of the subspecies that carry the type of SIV that is the closest known relative to human HIV. No other OPV trials ever used chimp sera.
Thanks. I’m aware of links and the slipshod practices used in preparation of polio vaccines. I was reading a criminology paper looking at the practices of a well know Australian company and couldn’t help thinking their was a link between their less than ideal practices, polio, SIV and HIV. I then googled it and found I’m not the first to have noticed something similar. I don’t understand it well enough to rule out coincidence.
Very interesting! I am similar to several others who aren't convinced about the Greek alphabet soup variants being intentionally released aside from Omicron, but I'm open to seeing what is out there so I am looking forward to seeing how you piece things together!
And if you are out for the time being have a happy Thanksgiving to Brian and fellow Unglossed readers!
Alpha has many of the same problems with any alternate "story."
That includes innocent lab tinkering + leak. 100% of the published "we did gof on SARS-CoV-2 for funsies" studies, mouse-passage or recomb based, have used a pre-B.1 backbone. No one has published anything working with a B.1/B.1.1.1 virus. So published research cannot explain super-mutants that also have the B.1 mutation triplet (three mutations spread across the genome, with one silent). So the only lab-origin option available for these B.1 super-mutants is "secret." The reason people make viruses in secret is so they at least can release them, if they want to. Now, from there, you could still say it could leak as an "accident," but that's sort of like forgiving an abuser at this point.
The other problems are discussed sufficiently in the Rambaut paper linked in this post. They obtain for several of the variants. Here is another paper remarking on the same thing - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.22.504731v2
“This strong acceleration of the overall rate compared to within clade evolution indicates that the evolutionary process that gave rise to the different variants is qualitatively different from that in typical transmission chains and likely dominated by adaptive evolution.”
Hm... a qualitatively different evolutionary process... couldn't lab manipulation fit that bill...?
I haven't looked too deeply into it so I won't make any claims for the veracity of continuous release aside from that I'm a bit skeptical, but I always look forward to seeing other evidence to support such an idea.
I just briefly skimmed the preprint and unfortunately it's above my knowledge so that may take a good deal of time to parse. I may try at some point but I certainly believe you're doing your due diligence in sourcing your evidence so I will mostly look forward you to piecing things together in your unglossed manner.
I am writing a guide to phylogenetic analysis right now (well, multi-tasking it with more sequence formatting). I think there is an impression that it is a sophisticated practice when really it's simple puzzle-putting-together. Hopefully will be able to convey what expectations easily arise for a "natural" variant, which hopefully will make it really clear why Alpha is remarkable. As for the preprint the fig's are really elegant though sparsely labeled, you can see how the selected clades pop in above the curve but actually mutate more slowly afterward.
I am also unconvinced that ALL variants are lab made
I wouldn't say "all," particularly as Delta might be natural. Besides, the greek letter scheme wasn't implemented until May 2021 so it isn't really defining the clades that are problematic, there was one in California but it died out and never got a name.