Maria writes:
Dear TWIM TWiV team,
It is always a pleasure to have an episode with Jolene, and this one was no exception. Macrophages are cool! And not created in a lab.
I thought your approach to addressing Alina Chan’s article was really good. I found myself raging at the op-ed and how it very subtly makes the case for something nefarious going on while appearing to suggest all she thinks is that there was an accident. Commenters on the article suggested that the Wuhan lab had deliberately hidden any information about the alleged virus because “duh” but then that means it was a deliberate leak. If it was a deliberate leak then why would it matter that they had “lax” BSL 2 conditions? That would only be relevant for an accidental leak. But if your accusations are vague enough then everything proves your point, because the point is different each time and for each reader.
That said, I wish you had addressed a bit more of the “personal” stuff more than the science. Not because I care myself, but because I suspect it’s what people will continue to hold on to. I’m sure you didn’t address it because it feels like irrelevant gossip to you, but to draw the parallel with climate research further, I seem to recall that emails among researchers were also used to great effect to discredit climate change research (I bet Alan knows exactly what I’m taking about – he always does).
I’m sure Dr. Chan’s own emails would not survive quoting out of context. But the one exchange between Dr. Baric and Dr. Daszak that she cited (which comes from a much more balanced Vanity Fair article on Dr. Baric’s testimony before Congress (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ralph-baric-wuhan-lab-leak)) is interesting and I think will capture people’s imagination. It appears from the VF article that Dr. Baric does not believe that the virus spillover happened at the market. At some point his testimony will likely become fully public, and so I think if you could address his thoughts more directly, that would be great. Dr. Chan’s conspiracy thinking is clearly misguided. But Dr. Baric’s position feels like he’s pointing to a real scientific question – was some version of SARS CoV-2 circulating in October 2019? How would we know?
So my request, should you choose to accept it, is whether you could address this a bit further? I assume bringing Dr. Baric again on the show is out of the question, but perhaps you can figure out some middle ground.
That said, I’m going through the 2020-2022 catalog and my question may yet be answered – I’m a latecomer to TWIV. I’ll say that when this blows over, it might be nice to have a similar “evidence review” episode on everything we have learned these last 4 years (HOW IS IT 4 YEARS ALREADY?). As in, if someone were drafting a textbook article on the SARS CoV 2 virus and COVID-19, what would they write? Maybe I should just tune into Vincent’s lecture but I’m unfortunately too busy – I just get to listen during runs and commutes.
Thanks so much for everything you do. I’ve sent really short emails before because I only ever get the chance to work on them on my phone, but I tried to share a high-effort email this time (even though it’s still on my phone, so apologies for any typos and bad formatting).
Best,
Maria
Dave writes:
Vincent and Team,
Thanks for the recent podcast discussing Alina Chan’s opinion piece in the NY Times. Having read that article and being a listener to the “This Week In” catalogue, my initial thought-as always-was where is the evidence. I didn’t see any, and it seems like you didn’t either.
One of the references in Alina Chan’s article is to this article about Ralph Baric: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ralph-baric-wuhan-lab-leak
Quoting from the Vanity Fair article:
Baric told congressional investigators that he believes it’s far more likely that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over naturally from animals to humans, given the sheer abundance of viruses in nature. But he also said in his testimony that he disagrees with the most widely promulgated spillover argument: that the virus leapt from infected animals to people at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where it first burst into public view in December 2019. The argument does not hold up, he said, because genomic evidence suggests that COVID-19 was already circulating in the human population by mid-to-late October. “Clearly, the market was a conduit for expansion,” he testified. “Is that where it started? I don’t think so.”
My question for the TWIVers is what is Baric referencing or relying on to get to the mid-to-late October date?
Thanks and thanks for all you do,
Dave
Don writes:
Hi,
I came across this article over a year ago, and would very much appreciate hearing the thoughts on this from the experts at TWiV.
Timeline of SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Italy: Results from an Independent Serological Retesting
First, do you think the methods used and analysis were sound? Are the Authors’ assertions within the Discussion section reasonable? If so, that could indicate SARS-CoV-2 infections had occurred in Italy 2-3 months before the earliest “official” cases identified in Wuhan, and that it was likely circulating globally for at least several weeks to months before Dec 2019. This challenges the claimed time and place of the first human infections, and casts doubt on the Wuhan lab leak theory because it would have had to have occurred months earlier, and probably somewhere else. This doesn’t refute that wet market zoonosis occurred in Dec 2019, but just that it wouldn’t have been the index case.
I’m a retired Electrical Engineer, life sciences were not part of my formal education, but logic and analytical reasoning were. I really enjoy watching MicrobeTV: Dr. Racaniellos’ 2024 Virology Lecture series, Office Hours, Clinical Update, and many other weekly episodes with Dr’s. Griffin, Offit, and the esteemed TWiV panelists. You’ve opened up a fascinating new world of learning for me, Thank You!
Sincerely,
Don
John writes:
Drs TWiV:
With that Protein Arginine Methyltransferase, I correctly guessed why Protein was in the name before you hit on it as well. But significant word economy could be achieved by simply calling it Argininyl Methyltransferase.
Arginyl, by definition, means an arginine residue (arginine in peptide linkage) in a protein. Merriam-Webster even has it as a noun, for anyone who might raise that issue.
Otherwise, orchestras warm up, don’t they? And baseball players throw the ball around before the game, so weather etc before diving in on viruses is the same thing.
Cheers from a partly cloudy Greater Braddock (site of the 1755 Battle of Braddock’s Field and home of John Fetterman), where the humidity that Ernesto had bottled up has finally departed since he has finally left Bermuda alone and is now off in search of Newfoundland. As a result, here it’s now partly cloudy and 16C headed to 22 (71), which should repeat itself tomorrow and Wednesday.
Cheers,
John
Charles writes:
Hello TWiVers;
It is damn hot today in Chapel Hill, NC. 93F, 34C after a very nice weekend.
Derek Lowe has a good commentary about RFK Jr. A person I consider a mass murderer that uses words to kill. Too bad he will not be held accountable for his actions. His actions were at least as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater, but may not meet the “imminent lawless action” standard, though clearly meeting “clear and present danger”. There is a tiny bit of hope in Michelle Carter’s involuntary manslaughter conviction was for talking her boyfriend into commiting suicide.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/note-robert-f-kennedy-jr
Later,
Charles
Anthony writes:
Ten years ago or so, at the NJ State Park in Fort Lee at the top of the Palisades, adjacent to the GWB, I saw deer coming out of the woods at dusk. They proceeded to the parking area and investigated and then ate from the trash containers. If now there were face masks there, the deer would be sure to encounter that. I’d guess that saliva and sweat tinged fabric would be seen as a food item by a deer.
# # #
In the Jersey City Heights certainly from at least the very early ’60s until the early-’90s, there were no racoons, opposums or skunks. Now these animals are frequently encountered. I’d tend to guess that displaced populations did not move up from Secaucus where there was development in the ’80s. My guess is that as long as they could, wild animal populations receded away from human contact. Once they could retreat no more, individuals tolerant of living with people were what survived. Now with that ability, wildlife could turn the tide and flow back into urban areas that they’d left 100 or 100s of years before. Not a theory. Not a hypothesis. A guess.
On a separate note, I’d seen many years ago the small piles of mussel shells and crayfish exoskeletons on the banks of the Delaware from racoons feeding on what their fingertips told them was under rocks. I find amazing that the racoons in the Jersey City Heights — never having hunted in an aquatic environment — will on a fire escape investigate a dish of water.
Anthony Olszewski@TrueInfections@mstdn.science