Thursday, January 30, 2025

A Lazy Guy's Guide to Fitness

I started doing strength training a few years ago, and I'm proud to say that I've stuck with it. In fact, I generally exercise 5 days a week for about an hour each day. (Not to brag. Well, maybe a little.) The paradox is that I'm a pretty lazy person. I thought I would share how I approach fitness in case it's helpful or motivating for anyone else.

Build Instead of Burn
Part of the spark for starting in the first place was coming to the realization that, although strength training is great for you at any point in life, building muscle becomes more difficult in your 50's and beyond. In fact, as we advance into our senior years, we tend to lose muscle and strength and thereby trade vigor for frailty. Since muscle is much easier to maintain than to build in the first place, I figured I better get at it so that I would have a good foundation when the decline starts. And then there's the fact that I do not enjoy aerobic exercise. So if I was going to exercise at all, strength training was the way to go. Besides, I would rather build muscle than just burn calories. (I do recognize that I should incorporate some cardio. There will be time for that after I'm done building. Also, there are ways to do strength training that really get your heart going, such as minimizing rest between exercises.)

By the way, ladies, strength training is for you too. If you are worried about looking too bulky, trust me: There is a long way between there and where you are now. Significant muscle takes a long time to build, and you can dial back at any point.

Consistency is King
The most important thing to highlight up front is that the biggest key to fitness is establishing consistency. Bursts of activity are nice, but consistency is where the results are. Make consistency your first priority, and the rest will follow.

Tips for Lazy Exercising
1. I workout at home, which means that although I don't have access to all of the equipment that I would like, I actually use what I have and I save the time and hassle of having to go someplace else and wait for someone else to finish with equipment I want to use. I also don't have to worry about what other people think about what I'm doing.

2. I workout in the evening after I get home from work because 1) I hate getting out of bed any earlier than I have to, and 2) exercising in the morning makes me feel tired the rest of the day. I much prefer exercising and then going to bed than the other way around. I know some people prefer the opposite. The key is to do whatever works for you.

3. Since I'm doing strength training rather than cardio, I don't tend to get that sweaty. That means I don't have to take an extra shower.

4. Although I don't get that sweaty, I do change into exercise clothes. Changing clothes doesn't take that much willpower, and once I'm in them it's basically a done deal that I will exercise.

5. I didn't just jump into exercising for an hour 5 days a week. I started with a more modest goal of 15-20 minutes at least three times a week. You can do a lot in that little amount of time, especially when you are just starting out. My mantra was that some is better than none. However, as exercise became part of my weekly routine, my goals began to change and expand. Now I don't approach exercise from a time perspective (unless I'm under a time constraint). Rather, I approach it in terms of which muscle groups I want to work and on which days to acheive the number of sets I want to do in a week. I generally take Saturdays and Sundays off in order to help facilitate recovery (rest is important too!), but sometimes I will sneak in some physical therapy-type exercises.

6. I go for fatigue rather than burn. That's simplifying a little bit, but some people seem to think that strength training is about enduring burning muscles, perhaps because that's what following an exercise video usually makes you do. And since burning muscles are unpleasant, those people naturally grow to dislike lifting weights. There's a place for that kind of thing if endurance is what you after, but building muscle is about moving them under tension. You want to tire them out relatively quickly. I generally try to choose a weight such that I can't do another rep with good form somewhere between 8 and 20 reps. Rest and repeat for as many sets as fits my goal. There's a balance to be struck: Heavier weight and fewer reps is harder on the joints and tendons. Or you can go higher than 20 reps with lighter weight, which is easier on the joints and tendons, but then you are more likely to be in the burn zone and give up before the muscle has actually been fatigued enough to stimulate growth. Striking the right balance will vary by muscle group. On a side note, while you do need to push yourself into some discomfort, you don't have to destroy yourself. A few good quality sets is sufficient.

7. Compound movements give you the best bang for your buck. I do isolation movements as well, but there are a lot of muscles in the human body. It's more efficient if you focus on good compound exercises first, and then fill in with isolation exercises as desired.

8. Don't spend more time on your core than you need to. The biggest determinate of whether you have visible abs is how much fat you are carrying, and working your abs won't get rid of it. So unless weakness in your abdominal muscles is limiting your daily movements, ability to engage in other exercises, or some other goal, you probably don't need to spend much time and energy exercising your core. This may seem counterintuitive, since fitness influencers and exercise videos are always doing planks and crunches and such. A lot of this is fitness theater. If you want to have visible abs you'll need to focus on losing fat, which is best addressed by what you eat. Spend your precious workout time and energy on more productive exercises.

9. Don't follow a video. This is more of an issue of efficiency and efficacy than laziness, but I don't follow a workout video. They can be motivating and helpful for learning exercises, but a video does not adjust to your goals. You are under no obligation to do what a person on a video is doing for the amount of time they are doing it. If you are trying to build muscle, then your muscles are done when they are done, not when you reach an arbitrary timepoint dictated by the video. If you like following along with a video and find that it helps to push you, then that's great. Just make sure that your weight and rep range is appropriate for your goal (see #6 above). I would suggest that a better method is to watch videos to get ideas and instruction on proper form, and then go do the workout on your own.

Diet
I will be the first to admit that I benefit from good genetics with respect to metabolism and body size. However, good genetics can only get you so far, and as you become invested in your fitness you eventually have to pay some attention to what you are eating, if for no other reason than to make sure that you are getting enough protein to build muscle. After all, what's the point of doing all the work if your body doesn't have enough energy or protein to build the muscle you want? Thus far I have been too lazy to get very scientific about my diet, but I have some practices and rules of thumb that help.

9. I eat basically the same breakfast every day, and the same lunch every weekday. This is mostly a matter of laziness because I don't want to have to think about what to pack for my lunch each day. A side benefit is that my calories and nutrition for 2 meals a day are pretty much locked in, so then it's just a question of what dinner and snacks are adding to my diet. If I ever do decide to track my diet more closely, I'll have a head start.

10. I don't drink soda on a regular basis. I am not anti-soda by any means, and when I go to a work dinner or something I may suck down several glasses of my favorite soft drink. It's just that I don't want soda baked into my daily life because, over the course of a year, it adds up to a lot of calories. The same principle applies to other high-calorie/low-nutrition foods. I eat them, but I'm cautious about engineering them into my daily life.

11. In line with the points above, I don't count calories. However, I do try to pay at least a little attention to how many calories are in the packaged foods I eat. Years ago my wife and I split a frozen pizza. Afterwards, I looked at the box and was shocked to see that I had just consumed about 1000 calories. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but eating completely blind day after day is like going shopping and never looking at the prices. You may be able to manage your weight (by which I actually mean fat percentage; see below) without counting calories, but it's still a good idea to have a sense of what you are eating. Incidentally, the holidays can be a great time to do a bulk (i.e. eating excess calories to fuel muscle building). Or at least that's my excuse.

12. Rotiserie chicken from Costco is awesome. My wife does the family cooking, but there are still plenty of evenings where I have to make my own dinner. Rotiserie chicken is a great solution for my protein needs. They are cheap and ready for eating. You can clean the meat off of them (even better if, like me, your spouse does it) and freeze it in a re-sealable bag. Then when you need protein, just break off a hunk and re-heat it. You can eat it plain, in a taco, or whatever.

13. Weight isn't everything. Worrying specifically about how much you weigh can be counter-productive because your weight can mask positive changes. For example, if you are gaining muscle and losing fat, your weight may stay about the same--or even increase--but this is a good thing! On the other hand, if your weight is dropping and you are working hard but aren't getting stronger, it may be a sign that you aren't eating enough to build muscle. So it's best to interpret your weight within the context of what else is going on in your life, and whether you are getting stronger. I do keep tabs on my weight, but I don't obsess over it. The point is to detect trends so that I can autoregulate. For example, last summer I returned from a long vacation with an approximately 7 pound gain. I knew that gain didn't come from building muscle! So it was a signal that I needed to be a little more conservative in what I ate for a while.

14. I don't use any dietary supplements. For one thing, aside from protein supplements, they are almost all a complete waste of money. The only non-protein supplement I have considered is creatine. The problem is that you have to use it everyday to keep your body charged with it, so to speak. I'm too lazy (and cheap) for that. Also, it pulls water into muscles making them look bigger. That sounds great until you stop using it for whatever reason. I think it would be deflating (pun intended) to see the pay-off in the mirror partially evaporate simply because I stopped taking creatine. I reserve the right to change my mind on creatine, and may eventually use it to fight muscle loss, but for now I don't bother with it.

So that's how this lazy guy does fitness. I hope you find it useful.

Continue reading...

Saturday, January 25, 2025

Eggs are Expensive Because Producers Won't Vaccinate Because of Trade Agreements

There are a lot of complexities around influenza, but this particular causal relationship of influenza and egg prices is very straightforward:

We have international poultry product trade agreements that stipulate that the chickens will not have been vaccinated for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza [1]. When influenza breaks within a poultry flock, U.S. producers would rather kill all of the chickens and start over than risk losing access to international markets by vaccinating to prevent or minimize disease in the first place. The H5N1 strain of influenza has been hitting U.S. flocks lately (in part spread by migratory birds), and so egg production has gone down. And when supply goes down in the face of strong demand, price goes up.

There's not much Biden could have done about this, and there's not much Trump can do about it either, short of re-negotiating those trade agreements.

So we're all at the mercy of nature and economics. Sorry!

Here's a great article from last year that goes into a little more detail [Link].

By the way, the same strain of influenza got into dairy cattle last year (nobody saw that coming), and even though the same trade agreements don't exist for cattle, jitteriness about international trade has been one factor stopping aggressive action there as well. It's unknown whether this will all eventually impact humans in a significant way (there have only been isolated cases thus far), but money is clearly in the driver's seat.

Notes:
1. This is not because of concerns about vaccination, per se. Chickens already receive a number of vaccinations, and frankly the industry would be destroyed if they didn't vaccinate for some diseases. It is intended to protect the importing country from accidentially introducing a foreign strain of influenza. The approach is basically, "We don't want you to vaccinate because we want total assurance that H5N1 hasn't been in your flock at all." That may not the best approach, but it is what it is.


Continue reading...

Monday, January 20, 2025

Prophecy Fulfilled

Well did Isaiah (36:12) prophesy:

hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Many people have become accustomed to the taste.

Defile not yourself with the portion of the king’s meat.


Continue reading...

Wednesday, November 06, 2024

A Brief Thought on the Election Experiment

This morning my mind reverted to the empirical. This election was an experiment, and the results revealed that Donald Trump is what approximately half of the people in this country want. Even with everything that has happened over the last 8 years, and all the lies, January 6, and so on, like a dog returning to its vomit, they chose him and validated his behavior along with that of the Republican party that stood by him. They set their hearts on him. Oh, people will have their reasons, but I wouldn't take most of them too seriously (more on that in a minute).

Yes, this is disappointing, but also revealing. It's like learning that a romantic interest no longer cares about you. Some of the signals in the past could be interpreted in a more charitable light, but now there is no question and the state of your relationship is bracingly clear. Similarly, we are not in this position due to an unfortunate set of circumstances or flawed strategic decisions. About half of the people in this country know what Trump is and want him. I've already begun to see articles that say things along the lines of, "voters were concerned about the economy," blah blah blah, but I'm not buying it. These are after-the-fact justifications for a decision that was made in their gut. Who Trump is and/or what he was selling appealed to them for whatever subconscious reason. The rest is mostly window dressing to convince others (and perhaps themselves) that they had a good reason to accept his obvious poor character and pathologies [1].

We are in a new era. It is what it is, and now it is plain to see.

Notes:
1. This wasn't simply a choice in the lesser of two evils forced upon a reluctant electorate. Trump overwhelmingly won the primary election [2].
2. I'm proud to say that I have voted against Trump in every primary and general election that he has been on the ballot. I did what I could.


Continue reading...

Sunday, October 27, 2024

It's Time to Accept the Fact that the National Republican Party Isn't What it Used to Be

There are certainly points of continuity between the Republican party of the last several decades and the party today, but it's time to accept the fact that the current national party just isn't what it used to be. The most obvious evidence of this is to consider the standing of Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W. Bush--the last three Republican standard-bearers. Sure, Romney and McCain lost to Obama (and McCain passed away) so it's somewhat understandable that the party has no use for them anymore. But George W. Bush was a two-term president! Remember?! Now he's nothing [1].

I believe that there are a lot of Republican voters soldiering on because they haven't yet come to terms with what has happened to the party. Comforted by Fox News and other Republican propaganda outlets [2], they may even blame Democrats for all the nastiness. It is one thing to believe the garbage that Donald Trump and his allies say, or simply not care. But let's not have this business that somehow Democrats are responsible for the unpleasantness around Trump.

A raft of Republican former and current politicians, as well as many of Trump's first-term staff (including his Vice President!), are trying to wave the country away from him. In some cases they are simply not endorsing him, while in others they are outright endorsing Harris. This is not the fault of Democrats being mean. It is the fault of Donald Trump and his poor character. (In fact, most of Trump's problems can be traced back to his poor character. This ought to be obvious, and failure to accept it is like trying to make the universe revolve around Earth.) Moreover, Trump has ushered a collection of kooks and misfits into the party and given them influence.

Consider the following changes:

Once the Republican party aspired to be the party of smart ideas and good governance. Now it is the party of justifying whatever Donald Trump does or says.

Once the Republican party stood against Soviet Russia. Now it embraces "useful idiots" who repeat propaganda put out by Russia designed to weaken the U.S.

Once the Republican party stood against authoritarian regimes and valued alliances with other free countries. Now it sees those relationships through the lens of short-term political or financial benefit.

Once the Republican party sought to govern compassionately. Now it foments hatred against broad groups of people (citizens and non-citizens) for political gain.

Once the Republican party upheld the rule of law and personal accountability. Now obstruction of justice and breaking the law are fine if it's in the service of Trump or other favored goals.
I don't mean to whitewash the sins of the Republican party of the past or glorify its history. Nor am I saying that the Democratic party (which has undergone its own changes) is without flaw. I'm simply saying that as long as the Republican party's main purpose is to exalt Donald Trump (or any one person) and receives the validation of voters, it will never return to the values of its best aspirations.

It's time to see the party for what it is and not cling to an idealized past.

Notes:
1. To the extent that Bush's status is a reflection of Republicans souring on the Iraq war and a belief that the Bush administration misled them, it is deeply ironic that their instinct has been to set their hearts on someone even more dishonest.
2. If you think that my application of the term propaganda to Fox News is exaggerated and inflammatory, then we can have a discussion after you have familiarized yourself with the internal communications that the Dominion lawsuit brought to light.


Continue reading...

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Project 2025 Drags Vaccines into the Abortion Wars

Just for fun (of a sorts), I decided to see what the infamous Project 2025 document has to say about abortion. My curiousity was piqued by a news article wherein someone from the Heritage Foundation said that the claim of Democrats that Project 2025 calls for banning abortion nationwide is a lie. Sometimes I like to do spot checks to see who is telling the truth.

The first thing I will say is that if you download a copy and do a word search on the word "abortion," there are a LOT of hits. In fact, if all you did is click through each hit, you could be forgiven for thinking that abortion is the main topic addressed in the document. Anyway, right up front on page 6 the document says this:

But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.
I'll let you decide if that sounds like a call for a national ban. In spite of the many references to abortion, I was unable to find any position on what limits there should be or whether there should be any exceptions to abortion bans [1]. Just this follow-up sentence:
Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the heroism of every choice to become a mother.
Sounds a bit like empty "thoughts and prayers" to me [2], but maybe I'm being too cynical.

As I browsed further, I was disheartened to see this kind of inflammatory language about vaccines.
The CDC oversaw and funded the development and testing of the COVID-19 vaccines with aborted fetal cell lines, insensitive to the consciences of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people who objected to taking a vaccine with such a link to abortion....There is never any justification for ending a child’s life as part of research, and the research benefits from splicing or growing aborted fetal cells and aborted baby body parts can easily be provided by alternative sources.
And later, this:
Thousands of Americans of faith and conscience wish to receive various childhood vaccinations for themselves and their families but are not allowed to receive vaccines that are derived through or tested on aborted fetal cells. For example, the chickenpox, Hepatitis, and MMR vaccines in the U.S. are all linked to abortion in this way. There are ethically derived alternatives abroad that have been used safely there for decades, but the FDA makes it exceedingly difficult for Americans to import them....To avoid future moral coercion of the sort experienced with the COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA and NIH should require the development of drugs and biologics that are free from moral taint and switch to cell lines that are not derived from aborted fetal cell lines or aborted baby body parts.
There is a lot to say about this, but I will try to be brief.

1. It is true that a handful of cell lines (like, four) in vaccine production and research were originally derived from aborted fetuses in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Importantly, these fetuses were not aborted for the purpose of obtaining cells. Rather, the abortions were happening anyway and the fetal tissues were donated to medical use. The cells derived from these fetuses were useful because they were unlikely to be contaminated with any other undetectable viruses, they were human-derived and supported the growth of the vaccine strains of virus well, and they could be propagated and expanded to meet production needs for the foreseeable future. Two of those cell lines were further genetically modified to better support virus growth and transformed such that they can propagate indefinitely--at this point you could think of them as cancer cells. One of them is ubquitous in biomedical research.

2. There is no need for new human fetal cells for the production of these vaccines. We are talking about cell lines that have been in use for decades. And the references to "ending a child's life for research" and "aborted baby body parts" are just prejudical inflammatory language.

3. The vaccines produced from these cell lines have benefited millions of children by saving them from death and disability resulting from these diseases. Moreover, since rubella (the "R" in MMR) can cross the placenta and damage a fetus, we can also say that a great many fetuses have been protected as well.

4. The Catholic Church is famously conservative on reproductive issues (even more so than our Church), and even the Vatican has considered this history and repeatedly affirmed that these vaccines are acceptable for use. Obviously we don't all take our marching orders from the Vatican, but it shows that Project 2025 is not entitled to the presumption of moral superiority on this issue.

5. The most popular COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna) were not produced using these cell lines. So the complaint that conscientious objectors to the COVID-19 vaccines, on the grounds of abortion, were morally coerced is weak at best. (Too bad rightwingers stirred up prejudice and distrust against mRNA vaccines [3]. Nothing seems to make them happy.)

6. Switching cell lines for mass production of vaccines, especially vaccines that have decades of safety and efficacy data behind them, is not a casual decision. It would be a lengthy and costly process. For the adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines, in fact there are no other options that I am aware of. And while it's nice and easy to blame FDA for making it difficult, if FDA were to relax their process I have a feeling that the Heritage Foundation would be right there to criticize them on the other side for lowering standards and approving insufficently tested vaccines.

7. I get the feeling that Project 2025 is not the work of serious, responsible thought.

Like I've said previously, people generally view the donation of bodies, organs, and tissues to medical science favorably, but for some reason the word "fetus" gives people the vapors and conjures up all kinds of lurid imagry. We need not celebrate the abortions that made these vaccines possible, but we can be greatful for the immeasurable good that has come from the cells they produced. Attempts to taint vaccines in the eyes of people will only end up multiplying harm.

Notes:
1. To their credit, they do not consider removing an ectopic pregnancy to be an abortion. On the other hand, emergency contraception gets sort of lumped in with abortion. The reasons are not air tight, but it's the same contradiction that plagues those who want to declare a fertilized egg to be fully human and somehow avoid the problematic ramifications that flow from that.
2. Maybe we could honor them at football games or something.
3. You can sense a trace of this in a different section of the document where it refers to the COVID-19 "vaccine", complete with quotes as if the fact that it is a vaccine is questionable.


Continue reading...

Saturday, January 13, 2024

A Brief Retrospective on the Global Warming Debate

You may have seen news reports that 2023 was the warmest year on record. The same thing is said every few years, so there's a risk that we just become numb to it. As I thought about this new record, it occured to me that a whole generation has grown up almost in the amount of time since I have been paying attention to the issue. They may not realize how little the political debate has changed in comparision to what has developed in the data. Even for those of us who have been around for a while, it's easy to lose track. I think it's worth taking a brief look back.

The graphic above is the latest temperature data from NASA with my addition of a few semi-arbitrary landmarks. The first is from 1988 when NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified to Congress that the signal of global warming due to greenhouse gases had been detected, and forecasted additional warming with an effect on extreme climate events, like summer heatwaves. This testimony put the public on notice that global warming was real.

The second is the 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, in which then-recent democratic Vice President Al Gore sought to educate and warn the public about global warming and climate change. Naturally, the political right was stirred to indignation and launched a campaign to savage him. A flood of commentary picked apart alleged flaws and hyperbole, and blamed Gore for making climate change a political issue (as the political right began cementing it into a tribal identity marker).

Finally, I've indicated the "Climategate" controversy of 2009, in which hackers obtained emails and documents from climate researchers. The contents were then leaked in an attempt to discredit climate scientists. Emails were taken out of context to make it seem that climate scientists were manipulating the data in order to mislead the public. These claims were picked up in the national press and amplified on blogs, etc. However, it didn't take that much effort to figure out that the scientists had been misrepresented. After a variety of official investigations, none of the scientists were found to have been dishonest. But the damage to the public perception of climate science was done.

I stopped at 2009 because the terms of the debate about global warming really haven't changed much since then. Year after year, the warming trend continues, and year after year, the political right offers up the same basic set of excuses for refusing to believe that there is a problem or that anything can (or should) be done about it. Just a few months ago an article was brought to my attention by that annoying feature Microsoft added to the Windows task bar that pops us with suggested content. It was essentially another right-wing diatribe about how scientists who don't believe in global warming are excluded, and blah blah blah. It could have been written in 2009 because it was just another recycling of the same old talking points without any recognition of the temperature data since then. But I guess it makes for evergreen right-wing content.


Fox News and other right-wing content providers will continue to huff and harumph about this issue, and assure their watchers/readers/listeners that THEY are the wise ones in a world gone mad. But eventually it will be clear to all but the most daft who was right about what was happening. Unfortunately, by then the deceivers will have made their money and lived their lives. Nobody will be accountable [1]. In the meantime, keep pointing to the data.

Notes:
1. I mean, what good does it do to rail against, say, Rush Limbaugh now? He's dead. And with each year that goes by, fewer people will even remember him. But the attitudes he helped foster live on.


Continue reading...

Sunday, October 30, 2022

COVID: The Latest Evidence for a Lab Leak Isn't Great

Ever since COVID-19 burst upon the world in early 2020, there have been people who really want to blame its origin on a Chinese research lab--either as an intentional weapon or an inadvertent leak. For some it's a sincere inquiry into what happened. For others it's an opportunity to score political points or to monetize the issue. And some people are just conspiracy/contrarian-minded or want someone to blame for their frustrations. Even just a few days ago the staff of the Republican minority of the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions released an interim report asserting that the COVID virus most likely originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [1]. I may have more to say about the report later, but for now I want to focus on a recent pre-print paper (not peer reviewed) that caused a stir a couple of weeks ago. I don't have the energy to give an in-depth explanation, but I thought it might be worth making some notes for myself and register my opinion for any who might care.

The paper claims to find evidence that SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) was manipulated in a lab based on the distribution of recognition sites of two restriction enzymes that the authors (none of whom are virologists) claim would be useful in piecing the genome of SC2 together to manipulate in a lab. The paper further claims that the distribution of the sites is statistically unlikely, and that by comparison to other coronavirus genomes it appears that the Wuhan scientists removed several recognition sites that would have interfered with the hypothesized strategy of piecing the genome together. At first glance it is a clever approach and I initially thought I would need to revise my opinion about lab manipulation. But there are problems.

1. The two enzymes can be used in a way that does not require their recognition sequence to be in the genome sequence at all, and while the authors of the paper point to prior work of the Wuhan lab to justify focusing on these two particular enzymes, that work used the enzymes in a way that did not incorporate them into the final sequence. Moreover, the first group to publish work piecing the genome together in a lab (at the University of Texas Medical Branch) used these same enzymes, but also in a way that did not require them to be in the actual viral sequence. In other words, even if the Wuhan scientists were tinkering with the original SC2 virus, there is no reason to think they would use the strategy described by this paper.

2. In the prior Wuhan work with a related coronavirus, they adjusted the way they split up the genome sequence such that the spike protein was a single fragment. The paper under discussion here has the spike split between two fragments. If the intent of the Wuhan lab was to tinker with the spike protein, then the stragety of their prior work makes more sense than that proposed in this paper.

3. Two of the enzyme sites that were allegedly eliminated by mutation in order to faciliate the proposed cut-and-paste strategy are also not found in the genome of a bat virus that was not included in the analysis--known as RpYN06--with the same mutations causing the loss. Moreover, the surrounding sequence is also closely related to RpYN06 (something the authors were apparently told several months ago, but ignored). In other words, it's not suspicious at all that SC2 does not have those recognition sites, and it can be explained by the extensive recombination history of the genome.

4. Since large fragments of the genome would be less ideal for cutting and pasting DNA together, the authors did some computer analysis to see how long the longest fragment would be (as a percentage of the genome) when a variety of cornaviruses are cut with different randomly chosen enzymes. They found that SC2 is at the lower end of the distribution, as are other coronaviruses that have been engineered (i.e. altered to allow cutting and pasting of the genome together in the lab), suggesting that SC2's longest fragment in this proposed strategy is statistically unlikely. But their own analysis shows that some known natural viruses are even MORE unlikely. That's kind of like accusing a person of using steroids just because they are strong, when they aren't even the strongest person in the room.

5. The alleged strategy outlined by the paper would involve splitting the genome into 6 fragments, most of which would be several thousand nucleotides long. But one of them would only be 643 nucleotides long, for no apparent reason.

In summary, the strategy hypothesized by the paper doesn't make sense in the face of known alternatives, the existence of RpYN06 undercuts the allegation that Wuhan scientists altered the genome sequence to remove problematic recognition sites, and the statistical analysis is far from any kind of slam-dunk detection of engineering. In the end, it seems this is just another case of anomaly hunting.

Here is a useful Twitter thread the covers a lot of this: LINK

Notes:
1. I've skimmed the report. Reception among prominent virologists is pretty poor thus far. Also, some of the report's allegations of poor facility management are apparently based on incorrect translation of Chinese documents.


Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP