I worked with researchers in this space - virology + combatting future pandemics - in the decade before the pandemic. The one fact that the last 5 years never readily disclosed is that the core ideology of this community of researchers was fundamentally divided. About half of the researchers, including many leading virologists whose names appeared in the news, believed and argued passionately for the lab-based creation of super-viruses and super-bacteria. They believed that the only way to save humanity from a catastrophic pandemic was to engineer absolute nightmare bugs in the lab so that they could develop cures and vaccines. The other half of us, myself included, thought that this was pure hubris and infinitely too dangerous because humans and labs are fallible and leaks happen with surprisingly regularity. The moment that this pandemic become broad public knowledge, the portion of the community that advocated for creating these super-viruses became shockingly quiet and everyone just started to cover-their-asses and their funding.
In about 5 years it will become common knowledge that longCOVID is simply the persistance of the SARS-CoV2 virus within the human body and that there are both symptomatic versions of this disease (aka "longhaulers") and asymptomatic versions of this disease (aka, many of the so called "fully recovered"). Note that we have zero direct evidence that the virus ever leaves the body; it is just assumed because nasal swabs test negative and, for some, symptoms go away. It is a good time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that have already developed antivirals.
This is partially why I think the whole "they're conspiratorially lying to us and it was for sure a lab leak!" is a huge distraction. First, we have literally hundreds of pages of emails of scientists saying they believed (correctly or incorrectly) it was not a leak. Second, there is approximately zero chance we will ever know that it came from a lab. Third, it doesn't actually give us any more information: it could have come from any one of countless labs doing work on viruses like this.
Dangerous GoF research should be outright banned regardless!
Insofar as there is huge ambiguity in what we did or didn't know at the time, I can fault scientists for covering their own asses and their preferred research directions (which I agree are dangerous), but I can't fault them for biasing themselves against statements that leaned on the side of ambiguous that might have, at the time, literally sparked a war.
For anyone who believes that the pandemic was a "natural zoonotic spillover," please read the following sections of the DEFUSE proposal, highlight copied below:
"Synthesis of Chimeric NovelSARS-CoVQS: We will commercially synthesize SARSr-
Cov glycoprotein genes, designed for insertion into SHCO14 or WIV16 molecular clone backbones (88% and 97% S-protein identity to epidemic SARS-Urbani. These are BSL-3, not select agents or subject to P3CO (they use bat SARS-CoV backbones which are exempt) and are pathogenic to hACE2 transgenic mice. Different backbone strains increase recovery of viable:viruses identification of barriers for RNA recombination-mediated gene transfer between strains™. Recombinant viruses will be recovered in Vero cels, or in mouse cells over-expressing human, bat or civet ACE2 receptors to support cultivation ofviruses with a weaker RBD-human ACE2 interface. "
In vitro testing of chimeric viruses: All chimeric viruses will be sequence verified and evaluated for. i) ACE2 receptor usage across species in vitro, ii) growth in primary HAE, iii) sensitivity to broadly cross neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that recognize unique epitopes in the RBD. Should some isolates prove highly resistant to our mAB panel we will evaluate cross neutalzation against a cited number of human SARS-CoV serum samples from the Toronto outbreak. Chimeric viruses that encode novel genes with slower potential will be used to identify SARSr-CoV strains for recovery as full genome length viable viruses.
In vivo pathogenesis: Groups of 10 animals will be infected intranasally with 1.0 x 106 PFU of each vSARSr-CoV, clinical signs (weight loss, respiratory function, mortality, et) followed for 6 days..."
S2 Proteolytic Cleavage and Glycosylation Sites:
... We will analyze all SARS-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites".... Where clear mismatches occur, WE WILL INTRODUCE APPROPRIATE HUMAN SPECIF CLEAVAGE SITES AND EVALUATE GROWTH POTENTIAL IN VERO CELL AND HAE CULTURES."
I apologize as the copy and paste from a PDF is not ideal. If anyone ever wanted a smoking gun, this is it. The WIV proposed to build SARS-COV2 in 2018/2019. The key point is that when someone proposes this type of research, they often have already done the work and the funding will be used to generate the next result needed for future funding.
Also, one item that the world conveniently forgot was that half of the specialists in this field believed passionately that the only way to prevent the next Pandemic was to create super viruses in the lab (this is in the public record). Given the extensive history of lab leaks and suspected lab leaks, this path is absolute and complete hubris and folly. The same folks who were pushing this agenda (and the DEFUSE proposal is filled with little notes as to how certain rules could be skirted) were the folks who immediately claimed that it was absolutely impossible for this to be a lab leak.
This proposal was shopped to a number of different US agencies in 2019. This means that there were likely dozens of individuals in multiple agencies who reviewed this proposal and said absolutely nothing when the pandemic broke.
For anyone who believes that the pandemic was a "natural zoonotic spillover," please read the following sections of the DEFUSE proposal, highlight copied below:
"Synthesis of Chimeric NovelSARS-CoVQS: We will commercially synthesize SARSr-
Cov glycoprotein genes, designed for insertion into SHCO14 or WIV16 molecular clone
backbones (88% and 97% S-protein identity to epidemic SARS-Urbani. These are BSL-3, not
select agents or subject to P3CO (they use bat SARS-CoV backbones which are exempt) and are pathogenic to hACE2 transgenic mice. Different backbone strains increase recovery of viable:viruses identification of barriers for RNA recombination-mediated gene transfer between strains™. Recombinant viruses will be recovered in Vero cels, or in mouse cells over-expressing human, bat or civet ACE2 receptors to support cultivation ofviruses with a weaker RBD-human ACE2 interface. "
In vitro testing of chimeric viruses: All chimeric viruses will be sequence verified and evaluated for. i) ACE2 receptor usage across species in vitro, ii) growth in primary HAE, iii) sensitivity to broadly cross neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that recognize unique epitopes in the RBD. Should some isolates prove highly resistant to our mAB panel we will evaluate cross neutalzation against a cited number of human SARS-CoV serum samples from the Toronto outbreak. Chimeric viruses that encode novel genes with slower potential will be used to identify SARSr-CoV strains for recovery as full genome length viable viruses.
In vivo pathogenesis: Groups of 10 animals will be infected intranasally with 1.0 x 106 PFU of each
vSARSr-CoV, clinical signs (weight loss, respiratory function, mortality, et) followed for 6 days..."
S2 Proteolytic Cleavage and Glycosylation Sites:
... We will analyze all SARS-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites".... Where clear mismatches occur, WE WILL INTRODUCE APPROPRIATE HUMAN SPECIF CLEAVAGE SITES AND EVALUATE GROWTH POTENTIAL IN VERO CELL AND HAE CULTURES."
I apologize as the copy and paste from a PDF is not ideal. If anyone ever wanted a smoking gun, this is it. The WIV proposed to build SARS-COV2 in 2018/2019. The key point is that when someone proposes this type of research, they often have already done the work and the funding will be used to generate the next result needed for future funding.
Also, one item that the world conveniently forgot was that half of the specialists in this field believed passionately that the only way to prevent the next Pandemic was to create super viruses in the lab (this is in the public record). Given the extensive history of lab leaks and suspected lab leaks, this path is absolute and complete hubris and folly. The same folks who were pushing this agenda (and the DEFUSE proposal is filled with little notes as to how certain rules could be skirted) were the folks who immediately claimed that it was absolutely impossible for this to be a lab leak.
This proposal was shopped to a number of different US agencies in 2019. This means that there were likely dozens of individuals in multiple agencies who reviewed this proposal and said absolutely nothing when the pandemic broke.
The new article cited states that in the 1432 people who took part of the trial the folks that took ivermectin recovered one day faster than the folks who did not (11 vs 12 days).
Thus there is a small effect seen that is indeed suggestive that ivermectin helped. However there are a number of things to call into question including why didn't they just take the medicine for longer than 6 days and most antivirals will not show that significant of an impact in this type of study.
Another study showed that ivermectin synergized with remdesivir making each drug approximately 4 to 6 times more effective. As with most viruses I would expect a cocktail or combo antiviral to be much more effective than monotherapy. Is therefore not that surprising that many of these ivermectin trials do not seem to discover much of an effect against COVID
This piece leverages a very arrogant and dismissive tone and does not cast the journal that it represents in a very positive light.
Regardless of your point of view on this topic, this piece fails to highlight the implicit bias that has been hiding in plain sight since the pandemic started. A lab leak would likely result in decreased funding for researchers in this field and definitely produce far more rules and regulations governing allowable research (or simply stronger enforcement of existing rules). Thus, "experts" who do not want increased regulation and/or decreased potential funding categorically deny the possibility that SARS-CoV2 was any type of lab leak.
The disappointing thing that no one talks about is that all of the vaccines target the spike, which is the part of the virus that evolves most quickly (the spike is also an immunotoxin). Alternatively, vaccines could have targeted the nucleocapsid protein. This would have had the dual benefit of not being as immunogenic/immunotoxin and also likely being a one and done shot with long term effective immunity. Why do you think the folks at Big pharma decided to choose a vaccine against the spike protein? Can anyone say "recurring revenue?"
Vaccines designed at a genomic level target the spike because that's the protein at the surface of the virus, and thus believed to be the most effective target for your immune system. That belief seems to have been correct (at least as to infection), since mRNA vaccines against the spike had the highest efficacy. The spike is unfortunately also under heavy selective pressure for that same reason, leading to the rapid evolution that you note; but that's the inherent and unavoidable tradeoff.
Inactivated virus vaccines (like Sinovac) don't target the spike, since they don't target anything. They do induce anti-nucleocapsid immunity, but there's no evidence that corresponds to any clinical benefit.
I don't think the word "immunogenic" means what you think it does. Vaccines are supposed to be immunogenic (i.e., to generate an immune response); if they weren't then they wouldn't do anything. I've seen papers proposing that the spike protein is toxic in certain cases, but no evidence that the exposure from the vaccine minus the exposure from averted infections is net harmful.
This comment appears to be an ad hominem attack. Is there anything written in the article that is incorrect or problematic?
It would seem that the Centers for Disease Control literally and very publicly failed to perform its core mission (control disease) at the very moment it was needed to perform. Sadly it has been feeling to do its mission for the last 4 years under administrations from both sides of the aisle. Thus, questioning why we spend $9B a year seems reasonable.
These 'long' illnesses are simply persistent infections where the virus in question has evaded the immune system and taken up residence in one or more tissues. Clear the virus and the individual recovers.
As our diagnostic capabilities grow beyond their current primitive state, we will discover that the vast majority of these cases are persistent infections either directly or indirectly causing symptoms.
This article does not cast itself in a strong light by immediately calling the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory. The lab leak hypothesis is another valid and plausible theory that could explain the origins of the pandemic. One must question the motives and obvious bias of anyone who feels compelled to call a scientific theory or hypothesis a conspiracy theory.
Longcovid is a persistent infection of the SARS-Cov2 virus. It is not psychosomatic. Most of the symptoms can be explained by vascular inflammation and vascular damage in the various affected tissues throughout the body.
SARS and MERs survivors Longhauled as well. If you need more convincing, Feline infectious peritonitis is a coronavirus extremely similar to SARS-Cov2 and is persistent and can be cured with the same set of antivirals that help with COVID.
In about 5 years it will become common knowledge that longCOVID is simply the persistance of the SARS-CoV2 virus within the human body and that there are both symptomatic versions of this disease (aka "longhaulers") and asymptomatic versions of this disease (aka, many of the so called "fully recovered"). Note that we have zero direct evidence that the virus ever leaves the body; it is just assumed because nasal swabs test negative and, for some, symptoms go away. It is a good time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that have already developed antivirals.