David Baltimore passes at the age of 87. Baltimore and his colleagues came to understand reverse transcription, the writing of DNA segments into our own DNA. That became the key element in understanding AIDS.
He was attacked without basis by the Congressman Dingell, a ruthless attack without merit, which may have very well set back AIDS work a decade.
Baltimore was a fantastic leader and scientist.
In a debate between Musk and Yann LeCun who is at Meta, aka Facebook, they argue over what is "science". LeCun demands peer reviewed publications. The Nature article notes:
LeCun, chief scientist at tech giant Meta who is known for his foundational work in deep learning and neural networks called out Musk’s post, saying that he “claims to want a “maximally rigorous pursuit of the truth” but spews crazy-ass conspiracy theories on his own social platform”. It escalated quickly, with Musk questioning what science LeCun had done in the past 5 years. LeCun, who also holds an academic post in AI at New York University in New York City, replied: “Over 80 technical papers published since January 2022. What about you?” LeCun then posted saying “if you do research and don’t publish, it’s not Science”. He argued that research is only ‘science’ when it is collected as a body of knowledge, tested for correctness and reproducibility, and then published. “Technological marvels don’t just pop out of the vacuum. They are built on years (sometimes decades) of scientific research,” he said. Without sharing that scientific information, “technological progress would slow to a crawl”.
The Frenchman perhaps forgot Darwin, Darwin took forever to publish his work. In today's world publishing comes in a variety of means and methods. Ironically in the same issue of Nature they note:
The retraction rate for European biomedical-science papers increased fourfold between 2000 and 2021, a study of thousands of retractions has found. Two-thirds of these papers were withdrawn for reasons relating to research misconduct, such as data and image manipulation or authorship fraud. These factors accounted for an increasing proportion of retractions over the roughly 20-year period, the analysis suggests. “Our findings indicate that research misconduct has become more prevalent in Europe over the last two decades,” write the authors, led by Alberto Ruano‐Ravina, a public-health researcher at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain. Other research-integrity specialists point out that retractions could be on the rise because researchers and publishers are getting better at investigating and identifying potential misconduct. There are more people working to spot errors and new digital tools to screen publications for suspicious text or data.
That is, many published papers are useless. The Frenchman seems to neglect reality. Science is a progression of ideas and counter ideas. Some are correct and some need alterations. I have found that "publishing" draft ideas of value, having had some 100,000 readers. Some ideas may be great, others lacking. My Technical Reports all are DRAFT and subject to revision. The Frenchman seems to have that arrogance I have seen frequently in those of self-possessed excellence, yet lacking in substance.
First of all, the Press is out to sell a story. They want eyes and they are driven by internal political world views. The Press is not some benign organization of truth seekers. It a group of ego driven characters who want to get as much personal benefit as possible.
Second, scientists and in this I would include physicians, do not understand the press, but the younger generation feel they can push their own world views along with their view of what science says.
Third, science is ever changing. What is accepted today may be rejected tomorrow. History is filled with examples.
Now Science has a piece bemoaning the attack on these poor scientists when they expose themselves via the press. They note:
When Marion Koopmans, a virologist at Erasmus University Medical Center, visited a museum in Amsterdam with her family last year, she was spotted by the wrong crowd: people who hate Koopmans because of her work on COVID-19. “They started really yelling, banging,” she says. “Security locked the doors.” Since early in the pandemic, Koopmans has found herself targeted by people who believe the pandemic is a hoax, the virus was created intentionally to cause harm, or vaccines are dangerous. She has received death threats, been accused of belonging to an elite network of pedophiles—a belief held by devotees of the QAnon conspiracy theory—and told she should be tried for crimes against humanity. Now, Koopmans no longer makes public appearances without first alerting the police. As a frequent guest on Dutch TV, “I cannot go out on the street anonymously,” she says. Her family is not comfortable walking outside with her, and they worry about her ever traveling to the United States, where much of the vitriol originates.
These scientists fail to understand the common person, the one who lost their job, have been quarantined and lack food or human companionship. The scientists pontificates from their safe sinecure while the press positions and promotes their world view. The naive scientists has no idea what their pompous words will do to the masses. The become characters out of "The Big Bang Theory", oblivious to the human race.
Perhaps the best solution is to stick with their science and avoid the press.
One of the out front promoters during this pandemic has a paper on PLOS Biology wherein he asserts:
In summary, the aggression against science and scientists in America arises from three sources: 1) Far-right members of the US Congress, 2) the conservative news outlets and 3) a group of thought leaders who provide intellectual underpinnings to fuel the first two elements.
For researchers working in the pandemic response to continue to do so effectively, we seek help in halting the aggression. This is essential not only for our personal safety or national security, but also the reality that attacking science and scientists will both promote illness and cause loss of life. For example, currently more than 99% of the COVID-19 deaths now occur among unvaccinated people, and almost as many hospitalizations. To begin, the following steps must be considered:
• The President of the United States, together with science leaders at the federal agencies should prepare and deliver a robust, public, and highly visible statement of support. The statement would reaffirm the contribution of scientists across United States history.
• We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by farright extremism in the United States. ...a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849) to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes. Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections.
Now science and especially what we have seen in this pandemic is a give an take of ever increasing facts and hopefully the use of of logic to assemble conclusions which then get tested in the arena of ideas. The author is proposing that if another's scientific assertion different from his that such becomes a hate crime! One cannot accept that.
Defending a PhD thesis was a process of give and take, of alternate theories and the insertion of new facts. This paper is a clear example of politicizing the whole process which in my opinion is why we face such a lack of faith in science. "Believe what I say or we will incarcerate you!"
This reminds me of the old Soviet Union. Marxism is a philosophy wherein the future is predictable. My first book was Stochastic Systems and State Estimation. The opening in my Preface was,
To anyone familiar with measurements it should be quite obvious that the world is filled with uncertainty. Through ingenuity and insight scientists and engineers have over the past several centuries found ways to combat these uncertainties.
Each experiment lends itself to an observation and a possible alternative view. Silencing those with differing views is what the Soviets did with my works.
What makes a far-right extremist? Someone who has an opinion at variance with the author. Is it not possible that one may apply their own talents and be capable of making assertions based on the facts that differ without having to be silenced?
There is no single truth in science. Science is successful if we can present the facts, the data, the basis for our assertions, and as such posit something of merit.
Take the spreading of the virus. I contend we still do not have a clear understanding of how this is done. I have examined multiple approaches and still fins no conclusive evidence. How small are the virion aerosols and how effective are these masks? Frankly the results are spotty, the physics complex, and the organism a challenge.
What we can assert is that we understand the organism per se, we understand how it enters cells, and we have thanks to the previous administration a vaccine cadre that is efficacious. What we seem to have is a segment of the population for a variety of reasons are objecting. Frankly I do not know why. I drove to Delaware in March to get inoculated. I have been inoculated against dozens of threats from smallpox to polio to rabies to corona. But that is me. I do not believe that incarcerating those who differ solves the problem. In fact I believe that even suggesting it exacerbates the problem.
Now to the opening data display. The assertion of the author that it is only right wing trouble makers seems in New Jersey to be refuted. The groups noted above are primarily Democratic wards whereas the vaccinated are at the least a mix at at the most more right leaning. Thus the author's assertions seem without merit, lack any basis, and frankly are outright wrong.
As folks go back and forth on the origin of the current viral pandemic there is a recent paper that some use to justify a natural origin. In this paper they state:
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 differs markedly from documented laboratory escapes that, with the exception of Marburg virus24, have been of readily identifiable viruses capable of human infection and associated with sustained work in high titer cultures25–27. No previous epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—were working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Viral genomic sequencing without cell culture, which was routinely performed at the WIV, represents a negligible risk as viruses are inactivated during RNA extraction28 and no case of laboratory escape has been documented following the sequencing of viral samples. Known laboratory outbreaks have been traced to both workplace and family contacts of index cases and to the laboratory of origin25–27,24. Despite extensive contact tracing of early cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been no reported cases related to any laboratory staff at the WIV and all staff in the laboratory of Dr. Shi Zhengli were reported to be seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 when tested in March 202010. During a period of high influenza transmission and other respiratory virus circulation29 reports of illnesses would need to be confirmed as caused by SARS-CoV-2 to be relevant. Epidemiological modeling suggests that the number of hypothetical cases needed to result in multiple hospitalized COVID-19 patients prior to December 2019 is incompatible with observed clinical, genomic, and epidemiological data20. The WIV possesses an extensive catalogue of samples derived from bats and has reportedly successfully cultured three SARSr-CoVs from bats, all of which are genetically distinct from SARS-CoV-230–32. These viruses were isolated from fecal samples through serial amplification in VeroE6 cells, process that consistently results in the loss of the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site33–39. It is herefore highly unlikely that these techniques would result in the isolation of a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor with an intact furin cleavage site. No published work indicates that other methods, including the generation of novel reverse genetics systems, were used at the WIV to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats. Gain-of-function research would be expected to utilize an established SARSr-CoV genomic backbone, or at a minimum a virus previously identified via sequencing.
First and most important, all earlier viral work, say a decade ago, did not have the ability to do what can be done today with bio-technology. We can now splice, insert, and so forth, and China has shown great leadership in this field. Thus the argument that it never happened before is specious at the very best and in my opinion useless.
Second the furin issue is a a key one which in my opinion the authors dismiss out of hand.
Third, and this is key, the last sentence asserts a "fact not in evidence". It assumes something that justifies their conclusion.
I am far from having an answer, the data is lacking and one would now guess unattainable. But just from a simple reading of the text one sees major faults in the basic logic and defects in the evidence as well as an attempt to ignore the the clinical expertise of the Chinese in this area.
COVID-19 is an elegantly engineered virus, by nature or by man. It not only attacks the pulmonary system but is systemic, most likely via an explosion of the immune system, innate and adaptive. My guess, TLR-7 and IL-6, but time will tell, Along comes a writer in Science Translational Medicine who notes:
The New England Journal of Medicine today has the final report from the team studying remdesivir in a >1000 patient randomized controlled trial. This group was randomized and divided roughly half-and-half to standard of care plus remdesivir versus standard of care plus placebo, blinded. So this is the most solid look we have at the drug’s efficacy in coronavirus patients. The good news is that the patients receiving the drug had a shorter time to recovery (9 to 11 days, in the 95% confidence interval, versus 13 to 18 days with non-remdesivir standard of care. That’s real, but it’s not real dramatic, either, which is what you would realistically expect from a single broad-spectrum antiviral drug. This ain’t sofosbuvir clearing out hepatitis C, and even that one doesn’t do the job by itself. As for the hardest endpoint of all, mortality by Day 29 for these patients was 11.4% with remdesivir therapy as compared to 15.2% with the controls. So again, that’s a real improvement and very much worth having, but it’s not a Miracle Drug, either.
Frankly no surprise. This elegant virus demands a Cocktail approach. We said that in early April. Thus any criticism of this therapeutic agent alone is baseless in my opinion. Oncologists have known now for half a century that one must treat the full chain of events, assuming one knows them.
Thus, in my opinion, I would strongly suggest a criticism of one therapeutic is meritless. But I guess someone must fill the web site with something.
Posts
All Comments
