Yeah, it’s pretty sad. But I have fun digging into the sources for the misinformation, so there’s that.

Grant Project Number: 2R01AI110964-06

“Aim 1. Characterize the diversity and distribution of high spillover-risk SARSr-CoVs in bats in southern China. We will use phylogeographic and viral discovery curve analyses to target additional bat sample collection and molecular CoV screening to fill in gaps in our previous sampling and fully characterize natural SARSr-CoV diversity in southern China. We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3). Aim 2. Community, and clinic-based syndromic, surveillance to capture SARSr-CoV spillover, routes of exposure and potential public health consequences. We will conduct biological-behavioral surveillance in high-risk populations, with known bat contact, in community and clinical settings to 1) identify risk factors for serological and PCR evidence of bat SARSr-CoVs; & 2) assess possible health effects of SARSr-CoVs infection in people. We will analyze bat-CoV serology against human-wildlife contact and exposure data to quantify risk factors and health impacts of SARSr-CoV spillover. Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”

Color me shocked, but that’s the funding proposal and there’s nothing in there even approaching whatever you’re talking about. But hey, maybe you’re referring to the rejected DARPA grant proposal leaked by DRASTIC:

“THE PROPOSAL PLANNED TO INTRODUCE “KEY RBD RESIDUES” INTO LOW RISK STRAINS TO TEST PATHOGENICITY IN HUMAN AIRWAY-CELLS”

Wowie, looks like we have a hit! Rather than reading their spin though, I went and found the REJECTED grant proposal:

“We will sequence spike proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into bat SARSr-CoV backbones (these use bat-SARSr-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from dual-use and gain or function concerns)”

If you’re not aware, these backbones are common lab vectors which aren’t pathogenic themselves, made from different viruses. Their sequences are significantly different than either SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2. So, chimeric receptor/backbone pairs are used to assess viral entry into humanized cells more so than virulence. You may disagree with whether or not that’s still too dangerous of a method, but it’s a moot point here because 1. The backbones proposed here are completely different than COVID, so it can’t be the same viral agent and 2. This is a REJECTED PROPOSAL. None of this was actually done and it’s fantasy to pretend it is.

Next claim: aerosolized droplet for vaccines:

“We will complement [broad scale immune boosting with bat interferon] by coupling agonist treatments with SARSr-CoV recombinant spike proteins to boost pre-existing adaptive immune response in adult bats… we will incorporate [recombinant spike proteins] into nano particles or raccoon pox virus vectors for delivery to bats”

They’re not proposing aerosolizing whole droplets with competent SARS-CoV in them you moron, they’re basically saying “hey, you know those nasal sprays we use for the flu every year? Let’s give that to bats”.

Ooh, my favorite. No scientist with integrity says that the genome wasn’t manipulated.

You’re gonna have to tell that to the couple hundred scientists who have been studying this for a while:

“There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an un- usual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering. The only previous studies of artificial insertion of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary in the SARS-CoV spike protein uti- lized an optimal ‘‘RRSRR’’ sequence in pseudotype systems (Belouzard et al., 2009; Follis et al., 2006). Further, there is no ev- idence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”

There really isn’t any evidence of manipulation at all. The backbone isn’t a standard lab construct. The cleavage site could have arisen from recombination. In the spirit of good science, I would never rule anything out, but the evidence very much supports a natural origin. Lab leak from a sample? Maybe, but that’s different than genetic engineering. For that you need stronger evidence. The strongest bit of evidence we have is the stonewalling from WIV and China, which is certainly suspicious. But, it’s unfortunately incidental and that isn’t good enough to jump to conclusions.

Try actually reading the text of these proposals before reading someone else’s spin on it.

The original grant was to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then subcontracted the Wuhan institute to collect wild samples from bats. In other words, the whole point of the research was to try and catalogue viruses that existed in the wild with pandemic potential.

It’s not coincidence that lab samples there or in other facilities exist that are close in sequence to viruses later identified in humans. That was, in fact, the goddamn point of surveying bat coronaviruses: to identify those with spillover potential. And it’s absolutely possible one of these collected samples was mishandled and leaked from the lab. After all, lab leaked viral outbreaks happen almost every other year, and there were already safety concerns at this particular site published long before the pandemic.

But what you and every other mouthbreathing idiot is trying to say is that Fauci, a director of the NIAID at the time, personally directed gain of function research to engineer new viruses to infect humans and then that virus escaped. Which, speaking as a molecular biologist myself, is laughably backwards.

No self-respecting scientist concluded that either a natural origin or a lab leak were the definitive cause of the pandemic. This is clear if you actually read scientific literature. It’s why phrases akin to “the most supported hypothesis is X” or “the Y theory is unlikely without more supporting evidence” are used. Both hypotheses were and are still possible explanations.

It’s people who get their scientific info from sources like the Telegraph that keep jumping to conclusions. Or people who don’t understand what a section leader at the NIH does, how research grants work, or what gain of function research is. You know, like yourself.

It’s a red flag when I’m making new friends too.

It just screams “I don’t read up on any viewpoints presented to me”

God I would kill for 2 real friends

I know two things. I really like to be right about stuff and if we’re going by the usual tests a majority of people are going to be near average intelligence.

So I’m most likely average and real smug about it.

I’m going door to door trying to gather pledges from all technology subscribers.

Will YOU downvote all Musk posts in this community until people post them in their proper place (c/enoughmuskspam)?

Me freezing my glove in leftover LN2

I was kinda hoping the enoughmuskspam community would be focused on talking about innovative tech/engineering work happening at other companies. I guess that’s more the point of “futurology”, but still…

But, enoughmuskspam is just… Musk spam

I long so desperately for the days when I didn’t know who Elon Musk was

Is every vaguely prominent leader in Russia dumb as rocks? How did he think he’d get away with an attempted coup while leaving the dictator in power?

Did he expect to get points for being bad at a coup?

Oh hey, I just completed a couple play throughs of this a few weeks ago!

Necromancers are horribly busted.

Can we take a moment to appreciate the very real possibility that the Soviet space program of the 50s would have been able to land a lunar probe better than the current Russian program?

(Obligatory /s, space is hard and shit goes wrong sometimes)

This is an obvious exaggeration, but I can’t help but feel like we’re witnessing a death match between American democracy and the Republican Party.

Now this is unpopular.

May god have mercy on your soul. LotR memes was one of the first communities to migrate over.

Look, I’m all for reforestation efforts, and if Rs are willing to start a large environmental project like that, great. But, it’s really not a solution for climate change on a global scale. At best it’s a repair effort for the damage already done.

Even if they get the scale right, and somehow manage to plant and cultivate a trillion trees successfully, trees are more of a short-term carbon sink when you’re talking about a geological time scale. They die, they burn, they get chopped down. When that happens, the carbon is liberated again. Sure, you can plant more trees, but all you’re doing is changing the equilibrium point for atmospheric CO2. With each gallon of gas burned, more CO2 enters the cycle that would have otherwise remained in the ground long term. Trying to solve climate change by reforestation is like trying to fill a leaky bucket with water. No matter how much you pour in there, at some point you’ll have to stop the leak.

The answer to climate change is the same, yesterday, today, and forever: long term carbon sinks (fossil fuels and chemical weathering) cannot liberate CO2 at the rate we’re currently running. Reduction is the only real answer.

Yes. Though I’d point out that HRT covers a much broader range of pathologies than what the current media landscape covers.

As far as I understand, in the original etymology, “replacement” in HRT referred to the fact that the hormone source is coming externally to buoy up a diminished supply in the body. It’s not (necessarily) referring to “displacement” of a hormone that’s already there. More like this usage: when you run out of milk, you go to the store to replace it.

Technically menopausal hormone therapy is HRT, for example. Testosterone replacement in males with low circulating levels is another. Nowadays the usage is definitely shifting, though, and clearly it has a different colloquial meaning.

I think you’re trying to oversimplify things a bit. Sexual differentiation is an extremely complex process. To be frank, a biological perspective doesn’t really care about “what’s recorded on the government ID”. As you get more and more granular, those kinds of generalizations become less useful.

For a pure science take, such an individual might be described as:

A 14-year-old unmarried girl was referred with complaints of primary amenorrhea and nondevelopment of breast. Her build was normal. Examination of her secondary sexual characteristics revealed no breast development, absent axillary hairs, and sparse pubic hairs. External genitalia was of female type. Karyotype showed genotype of 46, XY. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed hypoplastic uterus with absent fallopian tubes and ovaries. A diagnosis of Swyer syndrome was made. (Swyer Syndrome Case Study)

But that doesn’t really fit on a driver’s license, so…

I’m in the US.

The sex of the baby will almost certainly be recorded as female. Keep in mind that while the karyotype might indicate XY, babies generally aren’t karytotyped at birth, as that’s a pointless expense for the overwhelming majority of people. The parents, doctors, and children wouldn’t have any idea about their condition until:

1. Streak gonads are detected, which involves an MRI or ultrasound
2. Hormone levels are measured in a blood test
3. The child fails to undergo puberty as expected

Since only #3 is visible without a specific test, it’s usually the first indicator, and the other two tests are used as confirmations of the syndrome. That’s when supplemental hormone therapy and surgery are discussed as well.