On this episode, UK grants EUA for Pfizer vaccine, advice for CDC on who to immunize first, news from Das Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 protease regulates innate responses, and viral mRNAs are not an indication of viral replication.
Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker
Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 688 (66 MB .mp3, 110 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email
Become a patron of TWiV!
Links for this episode
- UK grants EUA for Pfizer vaccine (NY Times) 2:47
- ACIP advice on who to vaccinate first (NY Times) 5:16
- Das coronavirus update 9:56
- SARS-CoV-2 protease regulates innate response (Nature) 14:32
- Viral mRNAs do not indicate viral replication (Nat Comm) 42:53
- Letters read on TWiV 688 56:15
- Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks!
Weekly Picks 1:34:45
Brianne – Pedromics
Kathy – Global map at Mars opposition
Rich – Janeway’s Immunobiology
Vincent – Janet Iwasa’s Animation Lab
Cheryl – BioRender.com holiday card templates
Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees
Send your virology questions and comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Holiday link! Virus snowflakes 20 pages of viral fun. https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_765622_smxx.pdf
Love the channel, appreciate your science info.
I listen to three hour podcasts in pieces. I note where I am in the time. When I come back a resume where I left off. That’s the advantage of a podcast rather than a lecture–you can interrupt it and come later to continue.
Great discussion as always . Thanks to your input I am back on an acceptable level in virologie and immunology (graduated in 1972 and left academia in 1976 /a lot happened I had to catch up with since).
I’m afraid the R-CT question (value of it) of the listener was not accurate enough to reflect on what is going on in the netherlands and beyond ie : the corman-drosten paper and protocol for R-CT(issues in jan2020)is questioned and NOT the intrinsic value R-CT as such(Borger – interview available on YouTube (only in Dutch unfortunately)).
It seems that certain points of the SOP could(or does) lead to loss of specificity and hence overreporting of positives etc.(court case is running)
A second point is a question on the RNA vaccin specific : are there data available on sequencing the host genome to check if no parts of the RNA vaccin are
found after vaccination (animal or human) ?
thanks for your answer and keep the good work up- it is so “enriching”-As of march 2020 I do not miss a podcast of twive, immune etc . Flies high –
thanks for yet another very interesting session –
I am a DVM ,graduated in 1972(belgium RUG) and left academia in 1976 -So you can understand that I did have to learn a lot of new scientific concepts – Here is where your contribution comes in – thanks for that .
2 points :
– the t-pcr comment in this session was mis- understood ie : there is a challenge by scientific people NOT on the intrinsic value of the test but on the protocol followed (in the majority of the European countries as it seems) based on the Corman-Drost paper (jan.2020) and the recommended protocol to use.
According to this group of scientifics the protocol(among others :primer ,number of cycles ,GC content etc.) does cause a lack of specificity meaning there is generation of false positives .(interview with dr.borger -available on YouTube in Dutch)
the actual situation : court case introduced and a retraction paper being prepared.
– second point : is a question ie : can RNA or DNA (pfizer-moderne/astra) used in the different vaccines finally end up in our genome ?
thanks for your view upon those 2 items and keep this program going please -you help out a lot of people like me to better understand the issues.
Hi, from sunny Seattle (at least on today where it is 49F/10C).
I do wish to comment on a couple of Rich Condit’s points:
First, anti-science foolishness is bipartisan, there are fools on both sides of the aisle. This blogger, Dr. Gorski, has been writing about anti-science on vaccines and cancer for about two decades, first on UseNet and then his personal blog (he is also a managing editor of the Science Based Medicine blog). You now have some folks complain about 2/3 hour podcasts, well lots of people complain about his very long blog posts. I think you will find one his more recent ones very interesting, it speaks to the politics of anti-science with this pandemic and vaccines in general:
Now a nitpick: vaccines are NOT homeopathic, they actually have measurable amounts of active ingredients (yes, once upon a time I made that mistake but learned more). The dilution of homeopathy is often used with a “C”, which is from the Latin word for a hundred. There is really no active ingredient on any that is past 12C due to Avogadro’s Number, and many are actually 30C. I wrote the following to illustrate how ridiculous homeopathy is about fifteen years ago. I did it as a UseNet post as someone named “Naturally Cheap.” Please enjoy:
Recipe for Nat Mur or Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum:
1) Take ½ teaspoon of sea salt and dissolve into 1 cup of distilled water in a bottle.
2) Shake well.
3) This is a 1C solution (ratio 1/100).
4) Take ½ teaspoon of the 1C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 1C solution.
5) Shake well.
6) This is a 2C solution (ratio 1/10000).
7) Take ½ teaspoon of the 2C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 2C solution.
8) Shake well.
9) This is a 3C solution (ratio 1/1000000).
10) Take ½ teaspoon of the 3C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 3C solution.
11) Shake well.
12) This is a 4C solution (ratio 1/100000000).
13) Take ½ teaspoon of the 4C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 4C solution.
14) Shake well.
15) This is a 5C solution (ratio 1/10000000000).
16) Take ½ teaspoon of the 5C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 5C solution.
17) Shake well.
18) This is a 6C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000).
19) Take ½ teaspoon of the 6C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 6C solution.
20) Shake well.
21) This is a 7C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000).
22) Take ½ teaspoon of the 7C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 7C solution.
23) Shake well.
24) This is an 8C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000).
25) Take ½ teaspoon of the 8C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 8C solution.
26) Shake well.
27) This is a 9C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000).
28) Take ½ teaspoon of the 9C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 9C solution.
29) Shake well.
30) This is a 10C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000).
31) Take ½ teaspoon of the 10C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 10C solution.
32) Shake well.
33) This is a 11C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000).
34) Take ½ teaspoon of the 11C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 11C solution.
35) Shake well.
36) This is a 12C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000).
37) Take ½ teaspoon of the 12C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 12C solution.
38) Shake well.
39) This is a 13C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000).
40) Take ½ teaspoon of the 13C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 13C solution.
41) Shake well.
42) This is a 14C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000).
43) Take ½ teaspoon of the 14C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 14C solution.
44) Shake well.
45) This is a 15C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000).
46) Take ½ teaspoon of the 15C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 15C solution.
47) Shake well.
48) This is a 16C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000).
49) Take ½ teaspoon of the 16C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 16C solution.
50) Shake well.
51) This is a 17C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000).
52) Take ½ teaspoon of the 17C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 17C solution.
53) Shake well.
54) This is an 18C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000).
55) Take ½ teaspoon of the 18C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 18C solution.
56) Shake well.
57) This is a 19C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000).
58) Take ½ teaspoon of the 19C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 19C solution.
59) Shake well.
60) This is a 20C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
61) Take ½ teaspoon of the 20C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 20C solution.
62) Shake well.
63) This is a 21C solution (ratio 1 in 10^42 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
64) Take ½ teaspoon of the 21C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 21C solution.
65) Shake well.
66) This is a 22C solution (ratio 1 in 10^44 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
67) Take ½ teaspoon of the 22C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 22C solution.
68) Shake well.
69) This is a 23C solution (ratio 1 in 10^46 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
70) Take ½ teaspoon of the 23C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 23C solution.
71) Shake well.
72) This is a 24C solution (ratio 1 in 10^48 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
73) Take ½ teaspoon of the 24C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 24C solution.
74) Shake well.
75) This is a 25C solution (ratio 1 in 10^50 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
76) Take ½ teaspoon of the 25C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 25C solution.
77) Shake well.
78) This is a 26C solution (ratio 1 in 10^52 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
79) Take ½ teaspoon of the 26C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 26C solution.
80) Shake well.
81) This is a 27C solution (ratio 1 in 10^54 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
(the zeros are running off of the page!)
82) Take ½ teaspoon of the 27C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 27C solution.
83) Shake well.
84) This is a 28C solution (ratio 1 in 10^56 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
85) Take ½ teaspoon of the 28C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 28C solution.
86) Shake well.
87) This is a 29C solution (ratio 1 in 10^58 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
88) Take ½ teaspoon of the 29C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 29C solution.
89) Shake well.
90) This is a 30C solution (ratio 1 in 10^60 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
And then you are done! To make the pills, go to baking center of your grocery store and get some plain cake decorating sprinkles. You can try dropping some of the solution on the sprinkles, or just set the bottle next to the solution for it to absorb the energy (which is the typical method used for over the counter homeopathic remedies).
You can make up other remedies by knowing what the mother tincture is… For instance “Nux Vomica” (or Nux Vom) is from the Nux Vomica plant which contains the poison strychnine, Nux Sulph uses sulpher, and the stuff advertised on the radio for colds, Oscillococcinum is from duck bits.
Thanks for covering our Nature Communications paper “SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs in diagnostic samples are not an indicator of active replication”, it is appreciated. In regards to some of the comments towards the end of the segment covering our paper, I would likely to point out that the work was done on left-over diagnostic samples and consequently with very small sample volumes. Also, as we at that time had fortunately only had few positive cases in Geelong, the number of samples included in our study is small. However, much larger numbers of samples have been looked at in the Dutch preprint we reference. Similarly, due to the very low volume of samples we were not able to look at infectivity, however, that is covered in the preprint referenced from the Dutch group. Furthermore, presence of infectivity and whether there may be active/early infection/replication are two different things; we focus on whether subgenenomic RNAs are found late in infection and indeed they are. Finally, as mentioned by you, we did detect cellular mRNA in samples, in particular those samples with a low virus load. However, please note, that the method we used, include PCR amplification with a primer panel that contains 237 amplicons targeting the virus genomic and subgeneric RNAs together with, and thus included in the same primer panel/PCR, another 5 amplicons targeting cellular mRNAs. Those are the amplicons we mention and not spurious amplification from unspecific priming. Also, while we fully agree that only including two samples for our fractionation experiments is absolutely minimal, again one have to consider that these are left-over diagnostic samples and in order to do multiple fractions, we had to select samples with a high virus load and a reasonable volume of sample available. Finally, as you, I found it strange that some samples were submitted to the diagnostic lab in water rather than in PBS/transport medium, however, as it turned out that inadvertantly did say something about vesicle stability. In any event, I want to thank you again for including our paper in your coverage and look forward to additional work on these coronavirus subgeneric RNAs and their stability in vivo.
Hello to all the TwivMasters,
Go for three hours of TWiV if you please, I’m listening. Those who need a shorter podcast can cut to their own personal chase. Meanwhile where is our bow tie wearing guide through hell, Dr Griffin? If he’s still willing, don’t ‘peal him off, bring him back.
When I was a little kid, my father told me about the world of mini, unseen microbes, floating or stuck on surfaces, lurking everywhere in unimaginable quantities, causing sickness and death. I jumped into a big leather chair, pressed my back into it, stared out at the minuscule motes of dust swirling slowly in the sunlight. ‘There they are’! Petrified and afraid to breathe, I remained stuck to the chair till my father came in and helped me out. He reassured me with the argument that microbes lose a home if they kill you. They adapt to coexist. Good thing he didn’t tell me the story of the 99% of the rabbits in Australia.
Thanks so much for helping us get through this scary shot show of a 2020.
I do love this virus, not because of the deaths that are occurring, but because so many people think that the plague was created in someones basement. It shows that science has been lacking in the last few decades. Guess science is too hard for the average person to understand and that anything else is easier. Just like math is hard, but since most of us never use math above a 5 grade level then it does not matter. I do see that it has one advantage is most of the dead will be Republicans. Being one of them I have always wanted a way to get rid of those narrow minded people.
How do you reason with a person who basic understanding of science goes as far as “Creative science”. That the planet is not getting warmer and man can not do anything about it even if the CO2 is the result of man doing it.
With this virus it will do what I always wanted to do to these narrow minded people, but lack the guts to do it.
It will put them and their primate beliefs in the grave.