@self_made_human's banner p

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

15 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.

At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!

Friends:

A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.


				

User ID: 454

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

15 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

					

I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.

At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!

Friends:

A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.


					

User ID: 454

I see that there's research out there where they did use modified adenoviruses to demonstrate pathology seen in Ebola.

But that is not the technique used to make the only FDA approved vaccine, ERVEBO. That was made through recombinant VSV. I will grant that they did try and make a an adenoviral-derived vaccine, which kinda sorta worked okay in monkeys.

Also, I am not claiming that GOF has zero utility, my core contention is that whatever actual and potential utility it might have is more than canceled out by the risks.

These researchers seem to have tried to produce only a single Ebola protein, they didn't try to make super-Ebola spread through sneezing. They didn't select for virulence or transmissibility, which is what people usually complain about when criticizing GOF. At least I do.

Also, I do not think you have supported your original claim. You said that "the" vaccine was made through GOF, which it was not. I would believe that those specific choice of words strongly implies the only vaccine actually being given to people. And making a modified adenovirus is very, very far from "airborne Ebola". Nothing of that sort seems to exist. I would go so far as to say it's misleading, a very large stretch of the facts as far as I can see them.

I am probably not the right person to ask for an authoritative answer here, but since you did:

There is immense selection pressure for any pathogen to become one that spreads through airborne routes. I imagine the typical virus or bacteria would be very happy to not need direct contact or very close proximity.

But the fact that this almost never happens is strongly suggestive of the innate difficulty involved. Millions of people have caught and transmitted HIV for several generations, but it has yet to figure it a way to fly. Fucking is a far poorer alternative, but it's what the virus has. Flying fucks? Can't say.

I suspect that this is mostly because evolution is retarded and doesn't think ahead, and diseases become strongly optimized for whatever mode of transmission they started with. Plus factors like sunlight or heat are not kind to airborne pathogens, UV light reliably kills most of them. The sheer volume of air around dilutes them to the point that they struggle to reach critical mass by the time they reach the respiratory tract of the potential host.

Look at the amount of adaptation that fungal spores require to survive for more than few minutes while floating, it takes a lot of work.

Also, and very importantly, there is a rather artificial distinction made between airborne vs aerosol spread/direct deposition. Aerosol spread disease particles are suspended in air, they just tend to settle or disperse beyond close proximity.

I think the risk of Ebola naturally evolving to the point it spread primarily through air for more than a dozen feet and not very close proximity or contamination is negligible in our lifetime. We'd be so fucking screwed if the average disease could pull that off, so the fact we're still around is insightful in of itself.

(I wrote all of this myself, and later used ChatGPT to check in case I was making some kind of stupid mistake. ChatGPT tells me I'm basically right, though it's scolding me for leaving out some nuance. It can piss off, it's not the boss of me.)

Seemed like good old-fashioned human ranting. I've seen plenty.

Thank you. Even if I'm more pro-LLM than most, I happily encourage you to report any comments where you suspect bad faith use of AI. That includes even mine.

Your patience is commendable, if someone tried to pull that with me I would have had choice words. I still do not know if he was being 100% lazy, relying on an autonomous agent (quite likely) or just manually copying and pasting. His flame out, which I will spare you from reading, does demonstrate proof of humanity somewhere. Just not where I wanted it.

Thank you for the context, you're right, I meant limbo, though I'm not sure what the distinction is. I'll look it up.

But nobody is going to contradict Fathers of the Church so there's still room for 'neither confirmed nor denied'.

You say this, on a forum where I am like 99.999% certain self-described have argued against recent Papal-endorsed changes in doctrine. I wouldn't expect otherwise on the Motte, we'd argue with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates about regressive tax regimes and a DEI policy that unfairly privileges consumptive orphans.

I have not heard of this, but a quick perusal of the literature has not turned up anything that supports your claims.

There's no airborne variant of Ebola, even an artificial one, AFAIK. There were experiments on aerosolizing it, and the VSV vaccine was tested for ability to protect from aerosol exposure in Macaques, as a proxy for protection against bioterrorism.

I do not see a reason to phrase the claim the way you do, there appears to be little to support the claim that GOF helped with the vaccine (beyond the usual need to test the vaccine on the actual pathogen), let alone that GOF was strictly necessary for the purpose of making a vaccine. We make vaccines all the time without GOF, I do not see how it is a requisite. Ebola is not that special as a disease.

I do not want to jump to claiming that you are intentionally lying or being misleading, but I do still think you are factually incorrect, and I must insist on citations.

Edit: To be clear, I am specifically talking about GOF for virulence and lethality.

I agree, but I think it's necessary to consider potential and confirmed upside when doing a cost-benefit analysis. Now, from memory, I can't think of anything good coming out of GOF for virulence or lethality, but I am not a microbiologist nor have I done a comprehensive literature review. But from own adjacent professional knowledge, as well as the criticisms raised by people like Scott and Zvi, I am still strongly negative. It would have to be damn strong positive evidence in favor to outweigh even theoretical deaths or damage, and I have not seen anything nearly as robust. They'd have to demonstrate that the benefits could not be achieved through a route that isn't GOF.

While I am far from 100% certain that Covid was a lab leak, I take the possibility seriously. I share your frustration with GOF research, there is no way in hell that the potential benefits are proportional to the risks.

Unless the lab is working in Antarctica, or at least a highly isolated environment with strict screening and quarantine for all workers (weeks to months) and far from population centers, it is a stupid game played for stupid prizes. If your primary motivation is a well stuffed CV, then I would not object if you were hit by a car. If the people doing it genuinely believe they are acting in the public interest, I am dismayed, and would still seek lawsuits for unconscionable negligence.

The best place to intentionally make hyper virulent and lethal novel pathogens is somewhere in the orbit of the Moon. If you can't do that yet, it's best not to try in the first place.

Amadan is being polite and not naming me, as the person who let this through the filter. I was in a generous mood, and wanted to give even a new poster a shot since they met the low bar of having a submission statement and a proactive AI disclosure.

I'm incredibly annoyed that my charity was abused, especially when a quick perusal of the comments a while later revealed he was clearly using AI to do the substantial heavy lifting, without even the courtesy of saying so. Like, c'mon @Createdabill, I have more tolerance for, and am significantly more positive on the scope for human-AI collaboration than is the norm here, and you've disappointed me greatly. I feel like I've adopted a not particularly attractive elderly dog out of charitable impulse, and then it turned out to be a pit-mix that goes on to maul my small children.

If you are going to use AI, then even from a purely personal stance (one not accounting for the general welfare of the Motte and public opinion, which I do take seriously), copy-pasting raw LLM output without disclosure is beyond the pale, anywhere, anytime, or at least the foreseeable future. Especially after people like @Rov_Scam and others put in significant manual effort in engaging with you. It particularly pisses me off because I try to maintain considerably higher standards myself, while doing something that is somewhat controversial but morally acceptable (IMO).

Crashing out in the mod mail doesn't help his case either.