Shoddy Coronavirus Studies Are Going Viral And Stoking Panic (buzzfeednews.com) 73
Scientists are rapidly posting findings about the new coronavirus outbreak online, accelerating the speed of scientific discoveries -- and of misinformation. From a report: Last Friday morning, after a week in which the coronavirus outbreak had been declared a global public health emergency, a group of scientists from India posted a paper online. A handful of genetic sequences in the new coronavirus matched those found in HIV, they reported, suggesting that this "uncanny similarity" meant the two diseases were linked. A scientist in India blasted out the provocative finding to his more than 200,000 Twitter followers: "They hint at the possibility that this Chinese virus was designed ['not fortuitous']. Scary if true." A Harvard researcher with tens of thousands of followers called it "very intriguing." The official-looking, highly technical paper whipped dozens of onlookers into a frenzy, declaring on Twitter and at least one blog that it showed the virus was "man-made" and "not natural" and "prob. not random." But that day and throughout the weekend, an army of scientists also tore apart its claims and pointed out there was no proof the matches were anything but a meaningless coincidence.
For the second time in as many weeks, a segment of social media was tfreaking out over a coronavirus study that hadn't been reviewed by experts or published in a journal. It was a "preprint," or a preliminary draft, published on BioRxiv (pronounced "bio-archive"), a free repository that hosts thousands of unvetted papers about the biological sciences. Preprint servers bypass the long, arduous timelines of traditional, peer-reviewed scientific publishing, and can lead to lightning-speed information sharing during outbreaks like this one. But the coronavirus is also bringing to light the pitfalls of this new system for the first time, as everyone from bad actors to naive ones grasp for new information in a panic-driven climate. The "uncanny" paper was withdrawn by its authors on Sunday, putting an end to an undeniably messy situation that spread misinformation about a little-understood virus that has so far sickened upward of 20,600 people and killed more than 420, the vast majority near the outbreak's epicenter in Wuhan, China.
For the second time in as many weeks, a segment of social media was tfreaking out over a coronavirus study that hadn't been reviewed by experts or published in a journal. It was a "preprint," or a preliminary draft, published on BioRxiv (pronounced "bio-archive"), a free repository that hosts thousands of unvetted papers about the biological sciences. Preprint servers bypass the long, arduous timelines of traditional, peer-reviewed scientific publishing, and can lead to lightning-speed information sharing during outbreaks like this one. But the coronavirus is also bringing to light the pitfalls of this new system for the first time, as everyone from bad actors to naive ones grasp for new information in a panic-driven climate. The "uncanny" paper was withdrawn by its authors on Sunday, putting an end to an undeniably messy situation that spread misinformation about a little-understood virus that has so far sickened upward of 20,600 people and killed more than 420, the vast majority near the outbreak's epicenter in Wuhan, China.
Nothing to see here folks (Score:1, Insightful)
Move along, this information was not blessed by the priestly class. Disregard it immediately, or face the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you probably won't have a conscience but you will certainly not be conscious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to only listen to "Scienticians" [youtube.com] myself.....
Re: (Score:2)
9 out of 10 non-scientists agree you should trust anything you read from non-scientists, its the magic of no vetting.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, what else should we use as a source of information? Bullshit peddlers online who make a living creating clickbait articles? Or priests who make their money sponging off those actually doing some real work?
Concrete example (Score:5, Insightful)
blessed as it is by the magic of peer review!
There's nothing magic in peer review.
It's basically the academic's equivalent of internet's RFC (Request for comment).
One scientist has done some tests, has made a first attempt at interpreting the results (and pre-print server are designed to hold such work-in-progress draft of article to increase exposure and attract comment. Not to have conspiracy theorist speculate on them) and now he will ask other scientist to have a look in case he has missed something criticla (everybody make mistakes). The other scientist will bring up any problem they find.
Concrete exemple: the paper in question considers "matches to HIV" to be extremely short sequence of 6 amino-acids. It's an obvious problem.
In layman terms, it's like saying that coronavirus and hiv are obviously the same family because they share an "I" letter in their name.
While technically true ("I" letter is present in both case) the proof is extremly tenuous.
In this case they consider as "a positive match" an overlap with only a litteral 10th scientists is remanded to the nearest re-sciencification camp.
Given the kind of horribly broken arguments used to support his bad conclusion, I doubt if the 10th could really qualify as a scientist. He might have been drunk, or too junior. He made mistake, luckily the standard scientific process has noticed the mistakes.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
He, like all conspiracy theory nuts, is a complete fucking ziplock. Conspiracy scum are a scourge of the modern age. It's so bad now that I am especially credulous just because I despise the 'they don't want you to know!!!' rabble.
For example, I firmly believe Epstein killed himself as it is the most likely scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn right, these fucking egg head scientists are all full of shit anyway. I get all my information from Twitter and dodgy right-wing blogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"dodgy right-wing blogs" didn't give it away? That level of self awareness is beyond the reach of Q anon cranks.
Fun fact, did you know that anyone can become a scientist. You don't need to be born to one of the 108 blessed families. And you don't need to swear allegiance to the dark lord. The only requirement is you show up to college for 4 years and go into a moderate amount of debt.
Let those without student loans, mortgage payments, or maxed out credit cards throw the first stone!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My mistake, carry on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fairness the paper did not come from random fuckhead posts online but from a highly credible and qualified source.
On the one hand the sequences in common with HIV are in a highly variable region. On the other that is also where one might bio-engineer the sequences. On the one hand some of the sequences are short, with the longer sequences not being perfect matches. On the other all of those sequences are only found in this virus and HIV samples (though the shorter sequences are individually found elsewhe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, there is a lot of your DNA matches a sea sponge. [sciencedaily.com]
DNA similarity is extremely common. As a result, it's not only insufficient proof of this extraordinary claim, it's little-to-no proof at all.
Re:Nothing to see here folks (Score:5, Informative)
The best rebuttal I have read is this one.
from the comments on the paper so you can all calm down:
Alex Crits-Christoph
All four of the identified amino acid insertions are extremely short and are found in the genomes of many other organisms, not just HIV. In other words, the primary finding of this work are entirely a highly expected coincidence.
All organisms contain a DNA code that has the genetic instructions for development, functioning, and growth - this is known as the "genome". You can imagine each genome as a book of instructions. What these authors did is look in the genome book of the 2019 novel coronavirus and identified 4 sets of letters that aren't found in the genome book of SARs, a related coronavirus. They then compared these letters to the genome book of HIV, and found some places where they looked somewhat similar - but not even identical. However, because these sets of letters were so short, they are often found in many genome books by chance - they way you might search for the phrase "can be there" in Google Books and find that thousands of books contain those words - but this is not an example of plagarism.
Note here: We call these sets of letters "insertions" because they are in one genome, but not in a close relative - "insertion" does not imply human interference or engineering - it is an evolutionary term and refers to a natural evolutionary mutation.
Here are the four insertions:
TNGTKR
HKNNKS
RSYLTPGDSSSG
QTNSPRRA
These four insertions are protein sequences, that are encoded by a DNA sequence (which you may know uses molecular "letters" of A, G, C, and T to encode for proteins, which uses 20 molecular amino acid "letters").
You, dear reader, do not have to take anybody's word for it that these letters are a concidence - you can do the bioinformatics yourself!
If you would go to: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [nih.gov]
You will arrive at a search engine for these genome books, kind of like the Google of biology. Click on "Protein Blast", because are going to search for these protein sequences.
Under where it says "Enter accession number", you can paste any one of the four sequences above.
And then you can hit the "BLAST" button at the bottom of the screen. In a few minutes you will get a set of results.
Let's go through the results for the longest sequence, "RSYLTPGDSSSG", together.
Under the "Description" field you can see resulting hits. The first hit you see is to "spike glycoprotein [Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus]" - this is good, because we know that this sequence came from this genome. Under "Per. Id" you can see the similarity of this sequence to other hits - in this case, you can start by seeing that this sequence is also found in Bat coronavirus, so isn't actually novel at all! And there are many comparative hits that as equally as good, or often better, than the HIV comparison.
Let's then take a look at the second sequence, "HKNNKS", together.
If you go through the same search process for this sequence and look again at the results, you can see hundreds of perfectly identical matches. Maybe you see Sipha flava - that's an Aphid, or Tetrahymena - that's an Amoeba. Drosophila is a fruit fly. Clearly this sequence is found in thousands of genomes.
Fortunately, the search has a built in way of answering the question "How likely was this result to have occurred by chance?". It is called the E-value, or Expect Value - the number of times we'd expect to see this result purely by chance. As you can see here, many of the E-values listed on this page are greater than 7829 - so we'd have expected to see 7829 instances of matches like these completely by chance! This is not evidence for gene transfer or gene similarity - it's simply a coincidence. As you now search for the other insertions described by this paper, you'll see that all of them hit hundreds of other genomes simply by chance. It is no surprise at all that they could have matches with some similarity in the HIV genome.
Congratulations! You are now a more careful and proficient bioinformatician than the authors of this paper.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really is a bad paper.
You share a lot of DNA sequences with sea sponges [sciencedaily.com]. That doesn't mean you're engineered from sea sponges, or sea sponges are engineered from humans.
DNA similarity is extremely common. By itself, it is not evidence of engineering by humans.
Re: (Score:1)
We are related to every living thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that preclude genetic engineering? "BuzzFeed" has put an impossibly high bar on the authors to prove that it was engineered. In reality the authors simply said the sequences in this coronavirus were unlikely to occur in nature and they left it at that.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that preclude genetic engineering?
it doesn't. What it does do is preclude DNA similarity alone as evidence of genetic engineering.
First, you need to know how common that similar sequence is. If it's already in an enormous number of genomes, it's very unlikely to have been engineered. If the sequence is only found in one completely unrelated animal, then you'd have to figure out if it's co-evolution or engineering. Lots of almost-unique sequences from non-relatives would point towards engineering, but you can't rule out co-evolution.
This
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence of genetic engineering would be something like finding an actual gene encoding some known function from the other virus.
Coronaviruses have about 30 kilobases of RNA, HIV something like 10kb. Finding a shared sequence of six bases is analogous to comparing two books and finding out that the word "nonsense" is included in both. It's only a tiny fraction of a gene and meaningless without context.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you want to pull back the supposed common origin of life to basically an unfalsifiable "we're all related because we all come from atoms". And, naturally, propose there was only one abiogenesis event, because it's certain but so improbable that it only happened once, type of incoherent naturalist position.
And, in the case of an engineered organism, "related" is a rather tenuous descriptor.
Re: (Score:1)
Please do us a favor and shut the fuck up......
Re: (Score:3)
You seem remarkably unconcerned about answering your own question, considering that your link was just spam. Your post should be modded into the grave.
Re: (Score:1)
Well done, you replied to the spammer and gave their post extra visibility.
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
So if I put up a sign that said "DOGSHIT" next to a pile of dogshit camouflaged on a layer of bark mulch, more people would intentionally step in the dogshit?
That's lovely and all (Score:1)
"The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease." i.e. It's a bioweapon they create in the classic fail-west devils advocate pre-emtive problem for a solution that is destroying our very civilization. Quacks!
Thai Doctors have had success treating the virus with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir along with flu medication oseltamivir [pharmaceut...nology.com]
Who really knows, but I know one thing: only a sucker wou
information processing (Score:3)
But the virus itself was patented: patent link [google.com]
Yes, a completely different member of the (very large) coronavirus family, one that has not much to do with the current 2019-nCov and affects animals not even humans, has been patented for a procedure to make vaccine use a weakened variant of that specific coronavirus.
How does this serve as an argument that the completely different 2019-nCov is a bio weapon ?
Thai Doctors have had success treating the virus with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir along with flu medication oseltamivir [pharmaceut...nology.com]
0. "success treating". Nope. Read the actual interview: it's not a cure but it helps slow the progression and diminish symptoms.
1. It's based on an int
Semantics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is very non-committed. The paper with the HIV link hypothesis has nothing to say and will only cause stupid speculation so why publish it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine to publish it - we are not their intended audience and never should have even heard of this article. Blame the media for grasping at straws trying to scoop a story that isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, I looked but didn't find this story at any media outlet I trust, though I found a few "shoddy study makes morons panic" stories. So I'm not sure why you blame the media, unless you are reading and trusting media which would print tripe like this. And if so, then I'm pretty sure the media is not the problem.
Becuase BuzzFeed is an authority.. (Score:2)
So the paper says this coronavirus contains sequences that are not likely to have occurred in nature. Obviously with the advent of CRISPR it's now pretty straightforward to splice genes around in a lab. Then good old BuzzFeed comes to the rescue and ridicules the paper by claiming that because the authors can't prove it was engineered it could well just be a coincidence. The paper never claimed it was engineered, it just pointed out that these sequences were unlikely to occur in nature. Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the paper says this coronavirus contains sequences that are not likely to have occurred in nature.
And this is false. The sequences already occurred in nature, in other things. Some are in other coronaviruses, some are in other viruses, and some are in everything from humans to fruit flies to amoebas.
DNA similarity isn't in-and-of-itself proof of anything. Genes are pretty heavily conserved, and when they're not conserved, similar evolutionary pressure results in similar gene sequences (co-evolution).
To put it another way, the outside of mammalian mucous membrane cells are all pretty similar (conserve
Misreading + Poor Math (Score:2)
First off, reading the papers, the authors are speculating about some sort of in-situ exchange between the SARS virus and HIV. Not engineering, that was added on by media reporters.
Second, even withing the papers there's no formal analysis of the probability of the mutation given the suspected heritage, they just say, oh, that's unlikely
Third, the genetic record of coronavirises is far from complete, and that the actual ancestors were likely never in the record.
Forth, there's methodological problem for usin
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good list.
Zombie logic (Score:2)
The professionally panicky have a field day (Score:2)
As usual. It generates clicks, it generates revenue, so let's create a panic.
I'm done with idiots who believe those bullshit peddlers. Go sit in the corner with the religious and keep giving your money to the assholes that keep you dumb, ignorant and panicky.
Yeah. Totally the studies. ... (Score:1)
Not that batshit insane profit-through-panic "news" media system.
Riiight.
(Hypothesis: Without the media putting a spotlight on them, neither SJWs nor Trump would even be a thing.)
I don't get the panic (Score:2)
Most of the people, the large majority that died were over 60, high blood pressure and/or diabetic or cancer survivors or other pre-existing conditions.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah I mean more people die in car crashes than in 737 crashes, so why all the hubbub over some sensor?
I think people are clearly just racist against Boeing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The options are:
1. Temp, illness starts and they can go to hospital well before they infect others.
ie isolated, prevented from making others sick..
The numbers go down. The better math.
2. But if they feel fine and wonder around for days/week before seeking treatment?
Dont worry about self isolation as they still "feel" ok..
Shopping, education, walks, travel, tourism... for a week..
Thats the complex math of how many other people did t
Please no bully china (Score:2)
China government has it all under control this is no big deal
Please bow down to Winnie the Flu and accept your medical information from a country that believes you can heal yourself by sticking pins into the magical power points on your body.
Re: (Score:1)