Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 699 | 700 | 701 | 702 | 703 | 704 | 705 | 706 | 707 | 708 | 709 | 710 | 711 | 712 | 713 | 714 | 715 | 716 | 717 | 718 | 719 | Next > | Last >
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 10 days, 23 hours
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Srirachi]
    #26852317 - 07/29/20 05:06 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

close family friend is in ICU with covid, prognosis very bad :frown: has an implantable defibrillator


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,330
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 minute, 34 seconds
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Srirachi] * 1
    #26852327 - 07/29/20 05:14 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

700 km downstream. 300 km as the crow flies. Derp.

So you can’t quote where the article says water release already caused flooding in Wuhan. What it says is heavy rains caused flooding in Wuhan.

All of this based on your psychic ability to predict that this will happen in two months. You’re literally saying that in two months a dam break 700km upstream will wipe out all the evidence of the origin of the coronavirus in Wuhan. And you think I’m the one who needs to get my facts straight?

:laugh2:


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Edited by koods (07/29/20 05:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecannabinated
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/03/13
Posts: 14,743
Loc: Outside Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: koods]
    #26852344 - 07/29/20 05:34 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

thats terrible morrow :nonono:



just to be clear

the wuhan CDC, the authoritative body, corruption *ding ding ding*, was 280m away

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-cdc-exclusiv-idUSKBN21910S

kermit tea sip


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecannabinated
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/03/13
Posts: 14,743
Loc: Outside Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: cannabinated]
    #26852348 - 07/29/20 05:36 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

and they retracted their statement about it originating at a wet market but yall wanna pretend like u remember that was even a thing


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,731
Loc: The Primordial Mind
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: cannabinated]
    #26852353 - 07/29/20 05:41 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

I’ve seen a lot of Lowry & SerpentZ’s vids about traveling & living in China.  That’s how I learned about milk dogs.


--------------------
Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecannabinated
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/03/13
Posts: 14,743
Loc: Outside Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: The Blind Ass]
    #26852360 - 07/29/20 05:44 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Yo JSB !!!!

WATCH DA Vidya

i knew this shit monthz ago nd forgot it n stuff


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOvoidhunter
Buttery Crescent
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/16
Posts: 2,016
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: cannabinated]
    #26852565 - 07/29/20 07:59 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

I think I was just exposed. Cousin came in and has pneumonia in both lungs but hasnt been tested for covid yet.. he told me only after sitting and talking for hours.. also said he was having muscle aches all over and he was weezing when he came in ..:sad:


He's getting tested tomorrow. :ingodshands:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorlax
Male

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,697
Last seen: 4 days, 3 hours
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Ovoidhunter]
    #26852576 - 07/29/20 08:06 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Koods. You ignore facts. You are probably the most pretentious person this forum. You think everything you read if fact. U rarely ever state scientific paper reviewed articles. You are fully biased. We should almost slap a warning over your name starting RADICAL

If you want to know what they thought 6+ years ago it is almost identical to the situation we are in now. How would some predicted this almost to the TEE!


Quote:

Editorial

Influenza virus is one of a handful of infectious disease agents that can cause devastating pandemics with high mortality and morbidity in human populations. The human species is vulnerable to zoonotic infection with new influenza viruses, with the last occurring as recently as 2009. Influenza kills thousands of people each year, and the world is continuously confronting new epidemics. Today the complexity and interconnectivity of our society create vulnerabilities, such that pandemics with even low mortality have the potential to cause widespread suffering and economic disruption. Epidemics can have catastrophic effects on the social order and result in the disruption of benefits that we associate with current society, such as law and order and reliable food distribution (for a vivid and dramatic representation of the effect of epidemics on society, readers are invited to see the movie Contagion, where an outbreak with a new fictional virus leads to the breakdown of the social order). Hence, epidemics pose existential threats to civil society even when morbidity and mortality occur in a fraction of those infected. Given the biological characteristics of the influenza virus that ensure the continuous generation of antigenic variability, this virus poses a continuous extant threat, with the likelihood of new pandemics being determined by variables that remain poorly understood. In this environment, the influenza virus research community is humanity’s best defense against influenza virus. Consequently, anything that impacts influenza virus research is of utmost importance to societal well-being.

In recent years, some members of the scientific community have been involved in a vigorous debate over so-called “gain-of-function” (GOF) experiments involving pathogens with pandemic potential (PPP), such as influenza virus. Proponents and opponents of GOF work engaged in extensive discussion about the value, safety, ethics, and validity of this type of research. The debate was initially catalyzed by research experiments published in 2012, which reported that serial passage in ferrets rendered variants of the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 transmissible in a mammalian species (1, 2). These experiments were performed, in part, because there was debate in the field as to whether H5N1 could become transmissible in humans. The result was accompanied by publication of the specific mutations associated with this new function, which was essentially a “species jump” to mammalian transmission. Although influenza virus has historically demonstrated the capacity to move across species, in this particular experiment, the GOF was the acquisition of mammalian transmissibility for a virus that previously lacked it. The debate over this type of experimentation (i.e., that which changes the transmissibility of an influenza virus to include a mammalian species) resulted in a temporary moratorium on GOF experiments involving HPAIV, followed by continuation of the work with additional biosafety precautions and regulations (3, 4). There followed a period of relative quiescence as the new status quo established itself. However, several papers describing similar experiments with other influenza virus strains have subsequently been published (5–7), along with accompanying editorials that explain the decision for publication (8, 9). In recent months the controversy over GOF experiments has been rekindled by reports of the generation of new viruses that are similar to the 1918 strain (6) and further fueled by two laboratory accidents at the Centers for Disease Control that heightened concern about accidental escape of laboratory strains with pandemic potential. With this backdrop, GOF experiments have been severely criticized in the general media, and 18 individuals, including both authors of this editorial, signed a statement of concern involving influenza virus GOF experiments (http://www.cambridgeworkinggroup.org/). The essence of this statement from the Cambridge Working Group (CWG) was a call for curtailment of such experiments, during which time there could be a risk-benefit analysis of future work and the convening of a conference to discuss the many issues involved in this developing situation. The CWG statement has been criticized, but there appears to be some agreement on the need for an Asilomar-type conference to explore the many issues involved in GOF experiments (http://www.twiv.tv/2014/07/20/twiv-294/). Most recently, a group called Scientists for Science posted its own statement emphasizing the importance of research on potentially dangerous pathogens and also calling for a conference to discuss the issues (http://www.scientistsforscience.org/). We note that both statements share many points of agreement, which provides a promising base for constructive dialog. In the past, mBio has provided a forum for discussion and debate on the merits of this work. Here we take up the pen (or keyboard) to highlight some issues pertinent to the ongoing debate and promote further discussion, our major goal in signing the CWG statement. We note that the issues surrounding the GOF debate are enormously complex and involve deep questions of science, philosophy, and ethics.
WHAT IS “GAIN OF FUNCTION”?

Given that symbolic language is the basis for much of human communication, we begin with terminology and dissect the phrase “gain of function,” or GOF. When applied to influenza virus research, the term GOF has taken on the meaning of something dangerous, risky, and possibly nefarious. However, GOF means exactly what it says, that the entity in question has gained a new property. In the case of influenza virus, the concern regarding GOF has been associated with the acquisition of a new function, such as mammalian transmissibility, increased virulence for humans, or evasion of existing host immunity. For example, passage of H5N1 virus in ferrets allowed selection for variants with ferret-to-ferret transmissibility, and the GOF was the acquisition of mammalian transmission. However, the same type of experiment can be beneficial to humanity, since the principle of passage in a nonnative host can be used to generate attenuated vaccines. For example, some human-pathogenic viruses, such as poliovirus, were attenuated by passage in cells of another species, such as monkey cells. In those experiments, the GOF was replication in another species, and this property reduced the efficiency of replication in human cells, thus resulting in a new attenuated strain that could be used as a vaccine. Indeed, those attenuated viruses manifested a GOF, namely, attenuation. One of us recently published a GOF experiment with BK polyomavirus, in which mutation of a regulatory microRNA (miRNA) greatly enhanced replication (10). Hence, GOF is a powerful experimental tool that is routinely used in biomedical research, and the concern with influenza virus research is not gain of function per se but rather the selection of variants with increased mammalian transmissibility and virulence that could affect human populations if there were deliberate or accidental release. It is clear that GOF is a problematic phrase, and this term has acquired a particular meaning in the ongoing debate and particularly in the lay media. Unfortunately, the term GOF has come to only represent something that can be used to confer dangerous properties to a microbe. Despite these problems in terminology, we use the expression GOF in this essay with the understanding that we are referring to the narrow category of experiments that involve primarily changes to the virulence and transmissibility of PPP, such as influenza virus. Although influenza virus is the subject of the ongoing debate, it is important to note that these issues extend to other PPP, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus.
THE VALUE OF INFLUENZA VIRUS GOF EXPERIMENTS

Recent history has shown that GOF experiments in influenza virus research can provide unique insights into the potential threat posed by influenza virus strains and mechanisms of viral pathogenesis. Much of the debate involving the H5N1 experiments which demonstrated the “gain” of ferret transmissibility focused on the publication of the specific mutations that conferred this property. However, the major scientific finding was the observation that this virus had the biological capacity to be transmitted between mammals after alterations in a few amino acids. In fact, this finding is of great value to humanity, because it suggested that a human H5N1 pandemic might be able to occur if and when similar mutations occurred spontaneously, as is characteristic of influenza viruses, along with conditions favorable for bird-to-mammal transmission. In another set of GOF experiments, the HPAIV H7N1 was shown to be capable of mammalian transmission due to mutations that did not change receptor specificity (5). As a result of these experiments humanity has much more knowledge and stands warned of the potential perils these viruses pose. This information emerged from GOF experiments. In fact, it is difficult to imagine another mechanism for obtaining the information that has been gained from GOF-type experiments, particularly because it is only through experiments that can control the expression of given determinants that proof can be obtained. Since proof of the germ theory, modern scientific proof generally requires the use of approaches that attribute a given property to a given determinant. Hence, GOF-type experiments are of particular epistemological value because they directly imply causality. Apart from informing on the potential for virulence and transmissibility, GOF experiments are powerful tools for dissecting questions concerning viral pathogenesis. For example, H5N1 mutational analysis showed that the efficiency of viral replication in avian and mammalian cells is dependent on hemagglutinin polymorphisms that facilitate activation at lower pH (7, 8). This finding could be exploited to increase the yield of virus during preparation of vaccine stocks. Furthermore, the identification of sequence changes associated with GOF could in theory lead to the identification of new antiviral targets, thus providing a potential societal benefit. The power of GOF experiments is that they are a highly efficient, reliable, and effective tool that can identify certain phenotypes that often cannot be identified by using other scientific approaches. Hence, we feel that there is ample evidence that GOF experiments can provide important information and are useful tools for investigation of influenza virus-related questions. In fact, we believe that the crux of the debate surrounding GOF experiments is not their value but their potential risk.
THE RISK-BENEFIT CONUNDRUM

At the heart of the scientific debate over influenza virus GOF experiments are different perceptions of the risk-benefit ratio of such experiments. Proponents of continued GOF experiments emphasize the benefit and downplay or even deny the risk, while opponents do the converse. Since both risk and benefit involve quantitative assessments, in this case with limited information, the debate is fueled by the reality that weighing risks and benefits involves judgment calls. The risks fall into two general categories that are separate but related: namely, biosecurity and biosafety. Biosecurity risk is the likelihood that someone would use products or information gained from GOF experiments that led to a more pathogenic virus to carry out intentional damage in the form of bioterrorism. Biosafety risk is the likelihood of accidental escape that could trigger an outbreak and epidemic. When the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) considered the H5N1 GOF papers, the original discussions were focused on biosecurity, which was the charge of the NSABB, but as time passed, the concern evolved from biosecurity to biosafety. Biosecurity estimates are difficult, because they involve a calculation of the risk of deliberate nefarious action, and such information is simply not always available. In fact, these assessments are so difficult that we have called for the formation of a national board to handle questions related to dual-use research of concern (11). On the other hand, biosafety estimates can rely on historical data. Prior experience with lab accidents was used by Lipsitch and Bloom to suggest that there is a significant likelihood that a major lab accident could occur with GOF influenza virus strains (12). In fact, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the reintroduction of H1N1 into human circulation in 1977 after its disappearance in 1950 began with the accidental release of a laboratory strain (13). Calculations of risk must also consider that researchers have learned from mistakes in the past, that the biosafety precautions being taken today have improved over historical standards, and that new regulations were recently put in place for the laboratory of HPAIV (4), with the important caveat that the recent problems at the CDC show that even the most advanced laboratories are vulnerable to serious mishaps. While no one appears to have been harmed by the lapses at the CDC laboratories, there have been recent cases in which laboratory workers were infected with Yersinia pestis (14) and Brucella sp. (15), among others, highlighting the fact that laboratory accidents with virulent pathogens continue to occur despite knowledge of their potential danger and modern biosafety practices. Calculating the benefits of GOF research is also a somewhat challenging task, since the history of science shows that unexpected results can be more important than those that were originally anticipated when the experiment was designed. The importance of scientific findings is often not apparent at the time of discovery (16). Hence, the argument from GOF opponents that such experiments have little value due to their risk must be considered with caution, given historical precedents showing that the value of scientific information cannot always be judged with current understanding or knowledge.

Given the problems in calculating the numerator and denominator of a risk-benefit assessment, we urge both sides to approach this complex problem with consideration of the opposite view and with humility. To argue that the risk is overwhelming relative to the perceived benefit is not a tenable position, given the precedent that GOF experiments have arguably already provided useful information and the fact that the actual benefit may not be appreciated at present. Similarly, to argue that the risk is minimal relative to the benefit defies hard evidence of human fallibility and a history of serious laboratory accidents. Perhaps an initial meeting point for GOF proponents and opponents would be to agree that risk-benefit calculations are difficult to perform with the data at hand. That said, we note that in other contexts, risk-benefit calculations are routinely done in everyday science and medicine, even with incomplete data. For example, institutional biosafety and human subjects review committees debate risk routinely and do make decisions despite having to make judgment calls. We assert that actually doing a risk-benefit analysis with available data can lead to discussions and experimental modifications that could minimize risk and enhance benefit. Even though proponents and opponents of influenza virus GOF research place very different values on the parameters of the calculations, both sides are actually already doing risk-benefit analyses and using them to support their respective positions. Despite the disagreements on the value of the numerator and the denominator, risk-benefit analyses are always a good idea. They stimulate discussion, and such discussion can lead to improved experimental design and safety, and generate and prioritize the acquisition of additional knowledge. Therefore, we argue that risk-benefit discussions should not be avoided because the parameters are difficult to quantify.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Swirling around the GOF debate are a series of unanswered questions which are amenable to scientific study and which if answered could dramatically inform the debate.

What is the case-fatality ratio of HPAIV in humans?The mortality associated with H5N1 virus is a key driver of the GOF risk-benefit debate. Although there seems to be no debate that the case-fatality ratio of individuals who come to medical attention with H5N1 is high, the ratio of asymptomatic to symptomatic infections has been the subject of debate in the literature (17, 18). This is a key parameter for which additional information could become available with additional studies. If the case-mortality ratio is indeed as high as 50%, then the risk is greater, while a much lower ratio would portend a significantly reduced risk. It is worthwhile for experts on serological studies and influenza epidemiology to come to agreement on the type of information needed and then carry out the studies to address this important issue. Such studies should be prioritized. Irrespective of where one stands in the case-fatality debate, it is worthwhile to note that even a case-fatality ratio as low as <0.1%, such as that associated with the 2009 pandemic, would cause immeasurable suffering to affected individuals and could create significant societal havoc.

What is the relationship between transmissibility in one mammal to that in another?Much of the furor with the GOF H5N1 was experimental work showing that the virus could become transmissible in ferrets (19). However, we do not know the relationship between ferret transmissibility and human transmissibility. Opponents of GOF research worry that ferret transmissibility portends a high likelihood for human transmissibility, while proponents of GOF argue that such data do not exist and minimize any extrapolation from ferrets to humans. Clearly, information about this point would be valuable to estimating the risk associated with these experiments, and this should be a focus of future research.

What is the relationship between transmissibility and virulence in HPAIV?Virulence and transmissibility are different properties of pathogenic microbes that can be related but are also distinguishable. BK virus is highly transmissible among humans but is associated with disease only in transplant recipients. In contrast, Mycobacterium tuberculosis spreads by aerosol during coughing associated with pulmonary disease. Hence, transmissibility from host to host appears to be associated with virulence for some microbes and not others. Are virulence and transmissibility separable for influenza viruses? Knowing the relationship between transmissibility and virulence is important for understanding the basic biology of this virus and could inform the risk-benefit debate.

What is the relationship between laboratory-engineered and naturally selected influenza viruses with regard to pathogenicity?GOF opponents worry about laboratory-engineered viruses, while GOF proponents argue that nature is far more effective in selecting new dangerous variants than any laboratory experiment. However, this point and counterpoint misses important biological questions. Viruses recovered in the laboratory can be evolved in the absence of natural hosts and thus are not constrained by the environment of those hosts. Without host selection, such viruses may be more or less pathogenic, and there is no way of predicting their capacity for pathogenicity unless we understand the parameters that determine virulence. Consequently, efforts to understand the mechanism of virulence pertaining to naturally derived and laboratory-derived viruses could provide valuable insights, with the important caveat that virulence is an emergent property and as such may not be predictable (20).

What are the possible public health benefits of the knowledge gained?This question can probably not be answered prospectively, but at least there should be a discussion of potential benefits in the context of existing public health capabilities. GOF experiments have been justified on the grounds that the information is helpful for surveillance and vaccine design. Opponents have argued, however, that vaccine design can be accomplished without changing transmission properties. In addition, it has been posited that current surveillance strategies are inadequate and cannot readily incorporate knowledge of the exact mutations that may lead to enhanced human virulence or transmission (21, 22). However, even if the information is not useful today, the availability of such information could drive new capabilities, such as the development of more robust surveillance methods.
OTHER DANGERS

Outside the debate on the usual GOF risk-benefit calculations, there are other dangers that need to be considered. First is the possibility that increased scrutiny of experimental science and regulation of influenza virus research will hobble the field. This is already occurring, as influenza virus investigators are forced to respond and adapt to increasing regulation of their field. One must also balance the possible effects on the careers of postdocs and graduate students in the field with increasing oversight due to the desire to protect against possible accidental releases. As the difficulty of carrying out experiments and meeting regulations increases, it may be hard to recruit the best and the brightest to this important field. Second is the danger posed by the absence of work that is simply not done to avoid controversy. Although the importance of work not done is impossible to document, experiments that are not being done could provide major insights simply because they provide more information to inform discussion and debate. Third is the possibility that additional laboratory mishaps will lead to even more draconian regulations that will curtail research more broadly. These dangers are interrelated but have in common a high likelihood that, singly or together, they could pose major disruptions to research on influenza virus and microbiology research in general. Given the importance of the influenza virus research community to preparedness against pandemics, anything interfering with this work is of societal concern, and these dangers need to be incorporated into any discussion of GOF risk-benefit analysis.
AN ASILOMAR-LIKE MOMENT?

When recombinant DNA technology first came into use, scientists and others convened at Asilomar to discuss the risks and benefits and to chart a path forward that would allow this important technology to be used safely (23, 24). The controversy over the HPAIV GOF experiments has led to calls for another Asilomar-like conference. The goal of such a conference would be to bring the parties interested in the issues related to GOF experiments together with the hope of finding common ground and finding a way to allow GOF research to go forward with minimal risk and maximal benefit. We think this is a good idea, and this was our primary intent in signing the CWG document. However, we caution that the times are very different now than in 1975, when the Asilomar meeting took place. Today, communication by e-mail and Twitter is instantaneous, and the information conveyed by these new media is different than the phone conversations and mail correspondence of that time. In fact, to date, much of the discussion between the interested camps on GOF research has been “Twitter-like,” with statements made via general media or e-mail messages to supporters. This type of communication reduces complex issues to terse, often definitive-sounding statements that can be polarizing. Thus, we think that there must be a broad-based, rational, face-to-face discussion. Hence, if such a conference is to be convened, we call on the organizers to assemble groups with wide representation of individuals with a direct stake in this research as well as thoughtful scientists with no skin in the game, to tackle such issues as risk-benefit, ethics, biosafety, biosecurity, etc. Ideally, just like treaty negotiations between countries, much of the work should be done by smaller groups that explore the various issues and identify areas where consensus is possible and those where both sides must agree to disagree. The conference would then function to inform on areas that hopefully have been agreed to, or explored and found to have no common ground, as well as involving all participants in more focused discussions. Interestingly, a similar call for discussion of the risks and benefits was recently raised with respect to the rapidly advancing use of gene drives, a research area ripe with risk-benefit uncertainties similar to those of the influenza virus GOF experiments (25, 26).
THE WAY FORWARD

Irrespective of where one stands on the GOF, it is important to reflect on the issues at stake. Perhaps most important is that there is a need to lower the level of rhetoric and focus on the scientific questions at hand. Proponents of GOF research are not reckless scientists but rather individuals who are driven to answer important scientific questions and hope to make a difference in the human struggle against this deadly virus. Opponents of GOF are not unsophisticated luddites determined to hinder influenza virus research but rather individuals who are primarily concerned about biosafety issues related to the work. A disheartening aspect of the GOF debate is that many participants seem to be focused on only one aspect of the controversy without considering the enormous complexity of the issues involved and the potential dangers associated with taking extreme views. Such dangers include catalyzing further polarization, proliferation of GOF research in laboratories that lack proper safety precautions, creating misinformation, and eliciting overreactions by elected officials and/or government agencies. Each of these dangers has the potential to hinder future research and leave society more vulnerable to influenza and other diseases. In writing this essay, we hoped to dissect the issues involved and provide a broader canvas for discussion.

For the near horizon, a conference sponsored by neutral parties appears to be one mechanism for further communication about which both parties appear agreeable. We are optimistic that most people in the pro- and anti-GOF camps are believers that information, discussion, and reason can lead the way to the best solutions to the intricate problems posed by this research. Despite all the uncertainties about risks and benefits, there must be a risk-benefit calculation, with proponents providing their reasons for benefit and opponents their assessment of risk. Obviously, one way to help achieve a consensus is for benefits of the work to be clearly articulated and for the risks to be minimized. For example, it may be helpful to revisit the biocontainment regulations to ascertain whether existing protocols are adequate or should be modified, keeping in mind that it is impossible to decrease the risk of an accident to zero. However, we must also face the possibility that there will be no consensus in this matter. If an impasse develops, it will be important to channel the debate into different areas of discourse. For example, if pro- and anti-GOF research proponents reach an impasse, perhaps the debate could refocus on identifying the important questions in influenza virus research that both groups feel should be answered and in finding new creative experimental alternatives that satisfy both camps. Looking at the farther horizon, the influenza virus research community should consider making safer laboratory strains that would further mitigate the possibility of harm should lab accidents occur (27). Finally, we note that although this article and much of the debate are focused on HPAIV and PPP research, the issues considered here are relevant to the larger fields of microbiology and infectious diseases and that the outcome of these discussions will echo in other fields. It is possible that the GOF debate represents a historical moment for research in the microbiology community comparable to the advent of recombinant DNA technology in 1975 that led to the Asilomar conference. We note that the decisions made during and after Asilomar resulted in society’s reaping the benefits of the molecular biology revolution, including many new therapies made possible by recombinant DNA technology (11). Given the potential threats posed by PPP and the capacity of this debate to affect the course of microbiological research in the 21st century, we must get this right. We are confident that the scientific community can tackle this problem in a manner that will maximize our ability to continue to generate important knowledge that will protect the public in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the many people in the pro- and anti-GOF camps as well as colleagues who read this paper and provided comments and criticisms that helped us amplify on the issues discussed.

    Copyright © 2014 Casadevall and Imperiale.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
REFERENCES

    1.↵
        Herfst S, Schrauwen EJ, Linster M, Chutinimitkul S, de Wit E, Munster VJ, Sorrell EM, Bestebroer TM, Burke DF, Smith DJ, Rimmelzwaan GF, Osterhaus AD, Fouchier RA. 2012. Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science 336:1534–1541. doi:10.1126/science.1213362.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    2.↵
        Imai M, Watanabe T, Hatta M, Das SC, Ozawa M, Shinya K, Zhong G, Hanson A, Katsura H, Watanabe S, Li C, Kawakami E, Yamada S, Kiso M, Suzuki Y, Maher EA, Neumann G, Kawaoka Y. 2012. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature 486:420–428. doi:10.1038/nature10831.
    CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    3.↵
        Jaffe HW, Patterson AP, Lurie N. 2013. Avian flu: extra oversight for H7N9 experiments. Nature 500:151. doi:10.1038/500151c.
    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    4.↵
        Patterson AP, Tabak LA, Fauci AS, Collins FS, Howard S. 2013. Research funding. A framework for decisions about research with HPAI H 5N1 viruses. Science 339:1036–1037. doi:10.1126/science.1236194.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    5.↵
        Sutton TC, Finch C, Shao H, Angel M, Chen H, Capua I, Cattoli G, Monne I, Perez DR. 2014. Airborne transmission of highly pathogenic H7N1 influenza virus in ferrets. J. Virol. 88:6623–6635. doi:10.1128/JVI.02765-13.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    6.↵
        Watanabe T, Zhong G, Russell CA, Nakajima N, Hatta M, Hanson A, McBride R, Burke DF, Takahashi K, Fukuyama S, Tomita Y, Maher EA, Watanabe S, Imai M, Neumann G, Hasegawa H, Paulson JC, Smith DJ, Kawaoka Y. 2014. Circulating avian influenza viruses closely related to the 1918 virus have pandemic potential. Cell Host Microbe 15:692–705. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2014.05.006.
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    7.↵
        Zaraket H, Bridges OA, Russell CJ. 2013. The pH of activation of the hemagglutinin protein regulates H5N1 influenza virus replication and pathogenesis in mice. J. Virol. 87:4826–4834. doi:10.1128/JVI.03110-12.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    8.↵
        Dermody TS, Sandri-Goldin RM, Shenk T. 2013. A new determinant of H5N1 influenza virus pathogenesis in mammals. J. Virol. 87:4795–4796. doi:10.1128/JVI.00474-13.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    9.↵
        Dermody TS, Sandri-Goldin RM, Shenk T. 2014. Sequence changes associated with respiratory transmission of H7N1 influenza virus in mammals. J. Virol. 88:6533–6534. doi:10.1128/JVI.00886-14.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    10.↵
        Broekema NM, Imperiale MJ. 2013. miRNA regulation of BK polyomavirus replication during early infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110:8200–8205. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301907110.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    11.↵
        Casadevall A, Dermody TS, Imperiale MJ, Sandri-Goldin RM, Shenk T. 2014. On the need for a national board to assess dual use research of concern. J. Virol. 88:6535–6537. doi:10.1128/JVI.00875-14.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    12.↵
        Lipsitch M, Bloom BR. 2012. Rethinking biosafety in research on potential pandemic pathogens. mBio 3:e00360-12. doi:10.1028/mBio.00360-12.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    13.↵
        Webster RG, Bean WJ, Gorman OT, Chambers TM, Kawaoka Y. 1992. Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol. Rev. 56:152–179.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    14.↵
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Fatal laboratory-acquired infection with an attenuated Yersinia pestis strain—Chicago, Illinois, 2009. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 60:201–205.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.↵
        Traxler RM, Guerra MA, Morrow MG, Haupt T, Morrison J, Saah JR, Smith CG, Williams C, Fleischauer AT, Lee PA, Stanek D, Trevino-Garrison I, Franklin P, Oakes P, Hand S, Shadomy SV, Blaney DD, Lehman MW, Benoit TJ, Stoddard RA, Tiller RV, De BK, Bower W, Smith TL. 2013. Review of brucellosis cases from laboratory exposures in the United States in 2008 to 2011 and improved strategies for disease prevention. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51:3132–3136. doi:10.1128/JCM.00813-13.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    16.↵
        Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2009. Important science. Infect. Immun. 77:4177–4180. doi:10.1128/IAI.00757-09.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    17.↵
        Osterholm MT, Kelley NS. 2012. H5N1 influenza virus seroepidemiological studies: the facts revisited. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109:E1332. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203949109.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    18.↵
        Palese P, Wang TT. 2012. H5N1 influenza viruses: facts, not fear. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109:2211–2213. doi:10.1073/pnas.1121297109.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    19.↵
        Muller V. 2012. A plea for caution: huge risks associated with lab-bred flu. Viruses 4:276–279. doi:10.3390/v4020276.
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.↵
        Casadevall A, Fang FC, Pirofski LA. 2011. Microbial virulence as an emergent property: consequences and opportunities. PLoS Pathog. 7:e1002136. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002136.
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.↵
        Lipsitch M, Galvani AP. 2014. Ethical alternatives to experiments with novel potential pandemic pathogens. PLoS Med. 11:e1001646. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100646.
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.↵
        Mahmoud A. 2013. Gain-of-function research: unproven technique. Science 342:310–311. doi:10.1126/science.342.6156.310-b.00354-12.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    23.↵
        Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer MF. 1975. Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 72:1981–1984. doi:10.1073/pnas.72.6.1981.
    FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    24.↵
        Falkow S. 2012. The lessons of Asilomar and the H5N1 “affair.” mBio 3:e00354-12. doi:10.1128/mBio.00354-12.
    Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    25.↵
        Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM. 2014. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife (Cambridge) 2014:e03401. doi:10.7754/eLife.03401.
    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    26.↵
        Oye KA, Esvelt K, Appleton E, Catteruccia F, Church G, Kuiken T, Lightfoot SB, McNamara J, Smidler A, Collins JP. 2014. Regulating gene drives. Science doi:10.1126/science.1254287.
    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    27.↵
        Langlois RA, Albrecht RA, Kimble B, Sutton T, Shapiro JS, Finch C, Angel M, Chua MA, Gonzalez-Reiche AS, Xu K, Perez D, García-Sastre A, tenOever BR. 2013. MicroRNA-based strategy to mitigate the risk of gain-of-function influenza studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 31:844–847. doi:10.1038/nbt.2666.
    CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorlax
Male

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,697
Last seen: 4 days, 3 hours
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Gorlax]
    #26852787 - 07/29/20 11:19 PM (3 years, 6 months ago)

My stances is it wasn't intentioanlly released from the lab. It has killed plenty of them. Their negligence, denial, isolation, and to continue as nothing is going on has crippled the world economically.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblebodhisattaMDiscordReddit
Smurf real estate agent
 User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/30/13
Posts: 61,890
Loc: Milky way
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Gorlax] * 1
    #26852951 - 07/30/20 04:28 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

He's going to come back and say something dumb about how covid isn't the flu. Influenza is different and therefore what you posted is garbage.
Mark my words


--------------------
:whyyy:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,458
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Gorlax] * 1
    #26853009 - 07/30/20 06:25 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Gorlax said:
My stances is it wasn't intentioanlly released from the lab. It has killed plenty of them.




At least going by the official numbers, it has not killed plenty of them. 4,634 out of a population of 1.44 billion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 10 days, 23 hours
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: bodhisatta]
    #26853010 - 07/30/20 06:26 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

My stance is still that it doesnt matter unless you have a time machine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemorrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,378
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 10 days, 23 hours
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: morrowasted]
    #26853013 - 07/30/20 06:32 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)



Cooking the books on covid data


Important to watch


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsi
TOAST N' JAM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,458
Loc: 613 Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: morrowasted] * 1
    #26853019 - 07/30/20 06:36 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Or unless they had already devised a vaccine or cure ahead of time. Though that becomes moot if new vaccines prove effective.

If it was a biological attack intended to cripple the US and other Western countries, it would be important to know that because it could be a preamble to war when the US is at its most vulnerable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSrirachi
Mold Hand
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/18/05
Posts: 11,411
Loc: Fare Thee Well.
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: HamHead]
    #26853038 - 07/30/20 06:51 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

The National Science Foundation, Science Board is meeting again today. The Youtube Livestream starts at 11 AM and is at


Once again, it will be incredibly boring for the most part, but this is a good chance for you to see the inner workings of how National policy is set. Every one of the members you will see today was Congresionally confirmed, and swore an Oath of Service to the Constitution of the United States. These are the country's most brilliant minds, and for the most part they have bipartisan approval and are classy enough to keep their political feelings out of their presentations.

Yesterday was an interesting day at parts. During the session dealing with how NSF intends to address historic racial inequities, a black female PhD spoke about her experience entering the building, passing through the security checkpoint, seemed different than her white colleagues' experiences. She said she was patted down while white workers were not. The Director of the NSF stopped the conference and said this is intolerable, and requested that the Head of Security for the NSF begin an investigation, right then, on the spot.

They discussed ways to fund Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) differently and more thoroughly, to promote greater opportunities for black Americans to enter STEM careers. NSF has addressed its history which included some pretty racist bullshit, and hopes to set a better course in the future, while acknowledging that the people who were overlooked because of racial issues can never be made whole again. They can only commit to not doing it again.

But this is a Covid thread, and Covid was the big deal in yesterday's session. You can see it on Youtube by visiting https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkrHRzuGSrPp2haQs0T_Pww and looking for Meeting 468 session one.

They reported on the way Covid resources are being distributed, what is left to do, and what they expect to need to do in the future. What was refreshing is the total lack of politics in the meeting. No one made a single mention of any political trend or person - which is what you would want from a scientist, utter objectivity.

When you watch the news, it seems like shit is out of control. When you watch the proceedings, you see that there is a great deal of consensus among scientists. If not about what will come next with Covid, they at least agree on what steps to take going forward. It's all pretty clear to them.

Also worth noting is that I'm a far right libertarian, and I expected to be offended the entire time I worked this meeting, but as it turns out, when you leave your "orange man bad" comments at the curb, it wasn't hard at all to convince me that our government was still screwing black scientists in the ass as recently as my lifetime. In the absence of being told what you think I should think, I probably arrive at the same conclusions you do.

A lot of people don't understand that when you present bias, people reject the bias, often along with whatever factual details you were trying to communicate. The Science Board of the NSF is made up of people who do understand that. They're incredible professionals, and a wealth of information was distributed yesterday. Much of it will never be reported on the news, much less understood by newspeople.

Discouragingly, we had a maximum of 200 viewers on the public Youtube feed (which cost a half million dollars to accomplish btw). This is one of the purest, most intellectually-grounded conversations on Covid available in the world today, made by people who rival any scientist in the world... and 200 people watched. :nonono:

I hope you all might tune in today at 11, or watch parts of yesterday's proceedings. When it's over, I'm making a highlight reel and will post it. In the meantime though, drink from the tap, and watch the NSF Science Board meeting today!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male

Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: Srirachi] * 1
    #26853071 - 07/30/20 07:13 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Two new studies from Germany paint a sobering picture of the toll that Covid-19 takes on the heart, raising the specter of long-term damage after people recover, even if their illness was not severe enough to require hospitalization.

One study examined the cardiac MRIs of 100 people who had recovered from Covid-19 and compared them to heart images from 100 people who were similar but not infected with the virus. Their average age was 49 and two-thirds of the patients had recovered at home. More than two months later, infected patients were more likely to have troubling cardiac signs than people in the control group: 78 patients showed structural changes to their hearts, 76 had evidence of a biomarker signaling cardiac injury typically found after a heart attack, and 60 had signs of inflammation.

These were relatively young, healthy patients who fell ill in the spring, Valentina Puntmann, who led the MRI study, pointed out in an interview. Many of them had just returned from ski vacations. None of them thought they had anything wrong with their hearts.

“The fact that 78% of ‘recovered’ [patients] had evidence of ongoing heart involvement means that the heart is involved in a majority of patients, even if Covid-19 illness does not scream out with the classical heart symptoms, such as anginal chest pain,” she told STAT. She is a cardiologist at University Hospital Frankfurt. “In my view, the relatively clear onset of Covid-19 illness provides an opportunity to take proactive action and to look for heart involvement early.”




https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/?utm_source=digg


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,958
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: feevers]
    #26853077 - 07/30/20 07:16 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)



--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,330
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 minute, 34 seconds
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: bodhisatta] * 1
    #26853109 - 07/30/20 07:57 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

I thought the mods were supposed to keep all this conspiracy crap out of this thread


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeucedbi9
Stranger

Registered: 10/24/06
Posts: 4,598
Loc: UK
Re: Viral outbreak in China - Coronavirus Pandemic 2020 [Re: morrowasted]
    #26853138 - 07/30/20 08:39 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

morrowasted said:


Cooking the books on covid data


Important to watch





And, for his next trick...Trump to put HHC in charge of counting election votes by November...


--------------------
whether low pressure sucks or high pressure blows...
it's a bugger to cycle in.

even though I'm feeling good
Something tells me I'd better activate my prayer capsule


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevinsue
Grand Old Fart
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 17,953
Loc: The Garden State(NJ) Flag
Re: Viral outbreak in China [Re: deucedbi9] * 3
    #26853161 - 07/30/20 09:02 AM (3 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

koods said: ( on 07/02/20 )
Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain attended the Trump rally in Tulsa 12 days ago. Today he was admitted to the hospital with covid. 12 days is the sweet spot for time from infection to hospitalization...





"Herman Cain, a former Republican presidential candidate, died at age 74 from COVID-19 complications, a spokesperson confirmed on Thursday..."https://thehill.com/homenews/news/509761-herman-cain-dies-at-74-from-covid-19-complications
:haha: Dumbass should have just worn a mask. :shrug:
I wonder how many other people he poisoned with his Covid breath.
:reaper: . . . :peace:


--------------------

"All mushrooms are edible; but some only once." Croatian proverb. BTW ...
  Have You Rated Ythans Mom Yet ?? ... :taser:  ... HERE'S HOW ... (be nice) .  :mod: ... :peace:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 699 | 700 | 701 | 702 | 703 | 704 | 705 | 706 | 707 | 708 | 709 | 710 | 711 | 712 | 713 | 714 | 715 | 716 | 717 | 718 | 719 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* COVID-19 aka. SARS-CoV-2 - Main Thread on the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic PART 2 (Second Wave 2020-2021 season)
( 1 2 3 4 ... 180 181 )
Asante 68,872 3,602 08/11/21 05:48 AM
by Asante
* Stupid Covid Restrictions, and Greedy Stores trying to get away selling what they can gopher 333 8 05/06/21 09:29 PM
by tyrannicalrex
* By 2020 all 50 states will have medical marijuana and gay marriage!!!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Coaster 6,158 110 03/07/20 12:35 PM
by Citizen X
* What happens in 2020?
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 3,224 32 05/14/21 03:57 PM
by pineninja
* South Park Season 14 Episode 6 - "201" aka WHO IS ERIC CARTMAN'S FATHER?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Irishdrunk 11,851 97 04/27/10 01:09 AM
by LogicaL Chaos
* New Discovery Not even sure if it's a Fungi .dot dot dot AKA God's Shroom.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
tallset 8,454 67 10/08/09 01:19 AM
by just me
* Meet my thumb vagina, AKA why I need more Vicodin today :(
( 1 2 3 4 all )
st1llnox 5,138 62 07/28/13 03:15 PM
by st1llnox
* Finding Drugs You Never Knew You Had (AKA I Relapsed Tonight)
( 1 2 3 all )
Crystal G 4,431 55 05/05/13 11:47 PM
by underfliptown

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
241,221 topic views. 6 members, 43 guests and 34 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 14 queries.