..... to anyone typing 'gain of function'....... thanks for showing us you never watched the video!
@nottyseel949 Says:
I see the point of the video, but I think the earthquake/tsunami analogy is inaccurate. It seemed more like if I lived next to a lab that studied some rare animal and I suddenly found a few of those animals in my yard, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess the animals came from the lab. It would be a stretch to assume the lab MADE those animals, but not to assume that the animals were being held in the lab, where they were being studied and could escape.
It's the substantive difference between the categories being studied that make the analogy incompatible.
@periurban Says:
As so many have already pointed out, you got this one horribly wrong.
Even in your first couple of minutes you are making a logically flawed argument. You assume equivalence between natural phenomena (hurricanes and earthquakes) and direct research (what was going on in the research lab), and assert that the lab is only there because the bats are. Probably that is true, but as far as I know hurricane and earthquake study centers aren't experimenting on hurricanes and earthquakes to make them stronger.
Or maybe they are!
@ansparaco Says:
Gain of function in America means "the govment adding evil functions to viruses to make us get the jab"
@ALitleBitSpecial Says:
Your splitting hairs by not considering gain of function research to be engineering; your reasoning is the method which is such a weak argument.
I see his Elon Musk videos and I nod my head in agreement because I get all my information on the topic from the video; but then you put out some misleading bullshit like this (and this is not the only example) and it makes me question all of your content.
@benaiah1960 Says:
Thank God for this! Yet, at a conspiracy theory - the US Dept of Energy had a large stake in the Wuhan lab
@cannibalzombiechrist Says:
..mfer they didn't "create" the virus, they were studying it; the virus already existed in certain animals prone to being trafficked.
Obviously a highly infectious strain leaked and/or infected someone involved in the trafficking of said animals.
@gmonkman Says:
Good to see content that isnt rehashed Mush.
@bvcdi Says:
I tend to disagree you see the problem from a point of view that dose omit existing other points of view. Yeah you are right from your point of view but that is not the only one point of view or only the correct point of view. For example we have viruses that already have the mechanism to be carried without infecting people, so why don't we use that part of the viruses? The thing with evolution yeah that is a though thing to stop, but from a chemist point of view if you make a stable virus that can only interact with one specific protein and then make is as simple as possible so that you can avoid to the max the chance of suffering malformation while it replicates, that might work. True granted it is not easy, but we do not have to reinvent the wheel! Just like in the example above you can use bit and pieces from existing viruses. The thing is man did not have to invent petrol to be able to use it. Man is good when it comes to taking what already exist and make something out of it....and like we said in the video we already have to capacity to smash things together.....and even if the result is not what we want we can keep smashing things till we get what we want. Just like when man discovered that by smashing 2 rocks at the right angle he can make good arrow tips and knifes.
I studied your videos for a while, you are a good naysayer. To keep it simple you are like the guy who invented the parachute after someone else took a leap of faith and invented the airplane. Imagine with what you would have known in the 1900's what would you have said to the Wright brothers proposal to build a flying machine that can create his own portance from the same gas? Or to Einstein when he would have told you that time and space is relative? It is not like you had the knowledge at that time to give him credit, some naive had to believe him and prove him wright, after which the theory was integrated in the know picture of reality!
The thing is big leaps in evolution are made by visionaries that envision things, naives that believe them and try to prove those imagined things. And if proven wright then comes the realists who integrate the new imagined and proven thing in the known picture of reality. From my point of view you are the last of those three!
But hey I might be wrong and you may prove me wrong, who knows!
@ahandlenameismandatory Says:
the strawman is strong with this one
@ahandlenameismandatory Says:
as you say, the virus is most likely collected in nature a few years before 2020 (in 2012 precisely), evolved to infect humans, and leaked accidentally, thus making Stewart's point true enough for a comedian...
@ahandlenameismandatory Says:
I´m surprissed by your lack of logic here... with your logic of "weponizing a virus is self defeating", then atomic bombs would not have been made or shouldn't be feared... ovbiously it's a last resort tool, when you feel you're done or risk being done, you're taking everyone down with you so that they leave you alone, humans most certainly would want such weapon, no need to "engineer it", just as you say, "evolve it" as they do that by themselves, just make this faster... yeah, I watched the whole video...
@LiberalsAreGaywads Says:
Gotta love the armchair biologists in the comments section 😂
@dallassegno Says:
If cancer was a virus it wouldn't be your own blood cells.
@dallassegno Says:
Conflating adaptations with evolution.
@justinbailey6515 Says:
@14:20 it was already demonstrated in multiple papers (which yt prevents me linking, thanks for that btw) that most mitigation efforts of the last pandemic were ineffective. Secondly, the point was missed entirety. A high lethality is exactly what you want in a bioengineered virus. Something that can kill quickly and infect a target area killing the local population before burning itself out. Its not about area denial which can be achieved through nuclear or chemical means. Anthrax being an example.
@Caponapo Says:
Sounds like this chanels’ creator believe man can be women and if you date a trans you’re not gay 🤡 and prob got 50 covid vaccines 😅
@1mlister Says:
I thought the argument was about whether the virus leaked from the lab or not? Not that it was engineered. Isn't it possible the lab stored a sample badly?
@andybrowne2117 Says:
As a footnote to my previos note , on the evolution of viruses , how about the common cold ! Isn't that a replicating virus !!
@andybrowne2117 Says:
How very good , it really mares you think . !!!!
@thepolarphantasm2319 Says:
Lot of Trump University grads in the comments 😂
@adamvictor9124 Says:
A couple years ago Boston University created a hybrid omicron covid strain that killed 80% of mice and stirred controversy. "Engineering" viruses, usually by combining or changing small parts is something that is happening now all the time. You create this ridiculous argument, in a field you know nothing about, and implicitly endorse this narrative that it randomly came from a pangolin or bat. Despite all the best evidence we have suggesting otherwise.
@JoeBob189 Says:
gain of function research is a very real thing. This video seems to be made up of straw manning and arguing semantics. Very disappointed.
@dennisthompson7857 Says:
Virus are not alive.
@doodlePimp Says:
The owner of this channel cannot figure out that a laboratory publicly known for the bad practice of selling lab animals could had sold a lab animal infected with the disease they research:
"Hur. Just like hurricane research institutes don't cause hurricanes..." No.
@Thunderf00t lol
@ethanstyant9704 Says:
I don't believe that it was made to be a bioweapon but Jesus man this was a terrible video trying to explain that. We CAN edit virus genomes but its extraordinarily difficult to do as genetics are complicated.
And no curing cancer would not be easy even if we could as cancer is a result of many possible mutations and expressions interacting.
In fact we routinely modify viruses to change how they affect infection though most common done with ones that infect bacteria
@petersmythe6462 Says:
The way you design a bioweapon is to start with something that kills the target organism pretty fast most of the time, apply some artificial selection to make it kill very fast every time, and reduce any symptoms that encourage easy person to person transmission all by trial and error. Then deploy it by oversaturating an area with the disease-causing agent vastly beyond what would naturally occur to guarantee infection, such that any target organism which goes into the area until the stuff is inactivated dies, and any target organism which does not go into that area or sleep next to the infected survives.
@petersmythe6462 Says:
Most real bioweapons are artificially selected for maximum lethality and speed of infection and minimum human to human transmission. They're meant to be dispersed via a vector or a dormant form of the disease causing agent that can get into the body, but then not be able to spread to new hosts very easily. Maybe just someone sleeping in the same tent sort of thing. Weaponized viruses and bacteria are definitely real, and they are not set up for causing epidemics, but rather for saturation bombing an area with the disease-causing agent, and having it kill almost every susceptible organism in that area without getting out of control and killing every susceptible organism in the world. This is why Japan and the US used air-dropped plague fleas (no selective breeding in this case, these were more primitive) during WWII and the war in Korea. They kill everyone who touches them and doesn't have penicillin, but outside of practically medieval conditions, does not cause an epidemic.
@petersmythe6462 Says:
Keep in mind you won't need to engineer something to improve it for a particular goal. We couldn't design a dog for a specific purpose either, and yet we bred dogs for specific purposes pretty effectively.
@nickelchlorine2753 Says:
Take the primary sequence of the spike. It has been said by a lot of bio-informaticians that just the way positive residues are distributed over the chain doesn’t make sense. It’s as if the tropisms were meant to survive but still be buried beneath an almost aspecific yet very high Kd ability to stick to just about anything remotely negatively charged…. Which means not specific at all. This is not a normal viral strategy to adapt. Normally you can do some stochastics to calculate how likely it is that a certain virus will evolve an ability to bind a a particular receptor and it’s not accurate but it still helps to model
spread and to guess in educated ways which vaccines are more likely to be necessary, etc. You know, a map with city names but not street names. More interesting to us is that those models assume some sort of random walk in the space of all possible mutations given the current one. And it’s precisely such models that have shown that the accumulated mutations are just freakishly unlikely to have ever occurred naturally, let alone be incubated in bats without causing them harm. Add to that the published articles and deposited sequences from the Wuhan lab in public databases and it almost matched completely. My guess is that if (and it’s a big if) someone altered the primary sequence, that person was trying to see how viral tropism and load influenced cytokine storm elicited ARDS. Because the awkward placement of the residues is just too crude to be done by nature. It’s as if someday we woke up and saw the Mona Lisa was painted blue from the bottom to just below her eyes and we’re discussing wether it was done deliberately or due to some unlikely but natural aging process. But I really don’t believe it was released on purpose.
@giantslug6969 Says:
>makes a strawman
>argues against that strawman
what kind of marbled-brained idiots subscribe to this shit?
@kokosagina Says:
Quick question: how does this relate to CRISPR technology? Isn't that exactly what it is? Just modifying viruses to do what we want?
@Alaron251 Says:
This is just semantics. We can't call it a lab leak because the virus wasn't specifically engineered by humans? I guess we can close shop and not worry about it then...
@bkylecannon Says:
The comments on thus video are very strange but i was happy to see potholer. Didn't know you two were familiar
@cwx8 Says:
Oh wow. People still don't get it.
@stevevitka7442 Says:
I couldn't follow the dismissal of scientists being exposed in the lab to viruses they had collected at the end. I couldn't hear the sentence you said.
@jenskmigselv Says:
Hearing TF talk about something he actually knows a lot about is immensely more useful than has weekly Musk rant of which his conclusions are about as credible as anyone elses.
@tombombadillo1 Says:
Well, after watching this video I know just how big a grain of salt I need to take with all of your videos... those hurricane/earthquake analogies were the weakest analogies I've heard in a good while.
If a powerful mutant form of malaria suddenly appeared a few km from a malaria research lab, idc that you only find malaria labs near malaria hotspots, I'm still raising my eyes at the lab.
Those earthquake and hurricane centers don't actually contain earthquakes and hurricanes within them nor have the capacity to modify and engineer them...
@callisoncaffrey Says:
So are you for the CCP Virus "vaccines"?
@martinhold1662 Says:
I disagree with your notion: Tsunamis, hurricanes etc. are not contagious, are they? So, the idea of a virus escaping a lab is not so far-fetched as you suggested. Add documented (now deleted) instances of researchers in Wuhan getting sick to the well established and generally accepted notion of the 2020 pandemic actually originating in Wuhan, all of the sudden the idea of the virus having escaped the Corona Virus Research Lab in Wuhan, China is very much possible.
@SarahStarmer Says:
The Telegraph had an article. "How British experiments risked making the Covid Pandemic ‘more lethal’." It was about a virus research lab in London combining the Delta variant and the Omicron variant into one virus. Did this happen and how was it done?
@SarahStarmer Says:
Making a computer that can translate one language into another in real time was thought to be impossible. What is impossible and what is possible is changing fast. Any government not doing research into biological warfare is falling behind and leaving its population vulnerable.
@JamesFaction Says:
that's great, but that's a very specific argument that it was "created" out of nothing. Viruses can be selectively bred in a lab, tho. You don't have to be a crazy antivax conspiracy theorist to appreciate this. You don't really answer this question, whether it was selectively bred (which could be termed "created" or "engineered"). As a result this is a subpar video and well below your usual standard. Bit of a shame.
@ryangoyizzlebjj7725 Says:
Great video! I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on Gain of Function. Do you have any other videos on the subject?
@mikeyerian2562 Says:
Coronaviruses have been around as long as man has been around.
@ashleymoore9063 Says:
Bioweapons have been used in war for 100 years wtf is this guy talking about .America invaded Iraq over bio weapons that they supplied .
@ashleymoore9063 Says:
Thunderfoot is sounding more like Elon musk 😅😅😅
@RunningOnAutopilot Says:
The much more reasonable conspiracy is not designer viruses it is that they applied pressures to the virus which resulted in a more powerful virus
Still unfounded though
@Wtfinc Says:
Wtf? If u don’t think the Biden administration had anything to do with it, ur gullible.
U can absolutely engineer a virus. Maybe u can’t build it like we build chemicals but we can absolutely influence biology.
LATEST COMMENTS