A bombshell that wasn’t

Yesterday, a friend sent me the following

” Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV

Contrary to the narrative that is being pushed by the mainstream that the COVID 19 virus was the result of a natural mutation and that it was transmitted to humans from bats via pangolins, Dr Luc Montagnier the man who discovered the HIV virus back in 1983 disagrees and is saying that the virus was man made.”

Pretty impressive isn’t it?  Montagnier says that in the 30,000 nucleotide sequence of the new coronovirus SARS-CoV-2 he found sequences of the AIDS virus (HIV1).  Worse, the biolab in Wuhan was working both on HIV1 and coronaviruses.  It seems remote that a human could have been simultaneously infected with both, but these things happen all the time in the lab, intentionally or not.

It really wouldn’t take much to prove Montagnier’s point.  Matching 20 straight nucleotides from HIV1 to the Wuhan coronavirus is duck soup now that we have the sequences of both.  HIV1 has a genome with around 10,000 nucleotides, and the Wuhan coronavirus has a genome of around 30,000.  Recall that each nucleotide can be one of 4 things: A, U, G, C.  In the genome the nucleotides are ordered, and differences in the order mean different things — consider the two words united and untied.

Suppose Montagnier found a 20 nucleotide sequence from HIV1 in the new coronavirus genome. How many possibilities are there for such a sequence?  Well for a 2 nucleotide sequence there are 4 x 4 == 4^2 = 16,  for a 3 nucleotide sequence 4 x 4 x 4 == 4^3 = 64.  So for 20 nucleotides there are 4^20 possible sequences == 1,099,511,622,776 different possibilities.  So out of the HIV1 genome there are 10,000 – 20 such sequences, and in the coronavirus sequence there are 30,000 -20  such sequences so there are 10,000 times 30,000 ways for a 20 nucleotide sequence to match up between the two genomes.  That 300,000,000 ways for a match to occur by chance — or less than .1%.  If you’re unsatisfied with those odds than make the match larger.  25 nucleotides should satisfy the most skeptical.

But there’s a rub — as Carl Sagan has said  “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”  Apparently Montagnier hasn’t published the sequence of HIV1 he claims to have found in the coronavirus.   If anyone knows what it is please write a comment.

Then there’s the fact that Montagnier appears to have gone off his rocker. In 2009 he published a  paper (in a journal he apparently built) which concludes that diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves” and that “these radio waves [are] associated with ‘nanostructures’ in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen”.

Sad.  Just as one of the greatest chemists of the 20th century will be remembered for his crackpot ideas about vitamin C (Linus Pauling), Montagnier may be remembered for this.

On second thought, there is no reason to need Montagnier and his putative sequence at all. The sequences of both genomes are known.     Matching any 20 nucleotide sequence from HIV1 to any of the 30,000 – 20 20 nucleotide sequences from the Wuhan flu is a problem right out of Programming 101.  It’s a matter of a few loops, if thens and go to’s.  . If you’re ambitious  you could start with smaller sequences say 5 – 10 nucleotides, find a match, move to the next largest size sequence and repeat until you find the largest contiguous sequence of nucleotides in HIV1 to be found in the coronavirus.

You can read about the Wuhan lab in an article from Nature in 2017 — https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487

Back from band camp for grownups

While at band camp, we heard a fabulously intense performance of a piece which must be witnessed rather than listened to on the radio or on a CD while you’re doing something else.  It was Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time. You couldn’t ask for a better audience — 150+ raptly attentive amateur musicians with all cell phones off and no program notes.  The piece takes an hour to play and is full of long silences.  In some parts just one instrument plays while the other players sit stock still staring ahead, so the piece really is part theater.

You can always tell when a string player or a pianist starts to play as something moves and your mind expects a sound.  No so with the many long silences of the clarinet solo.  Parts begin so softly that you can’t even be sure the clarinet is playing, as there is no motion to clue you in.  Then, suddenly you realize you’ve been hearing a sound for a while.   The piece ends with a violinist ascending slowly into the tonal stratosphere while producing a prolonged decrescendo.  She was in tears at the end.

The players (correctly) decided on no descriptive program notes (which were read aloud at the beginning) as they didn’t want to break up the intensity with rustling paper (or the spoken word).  Probably it’s better to hear the piece not knowing the background, but there’s a Wiki page for it which is pretty good if you already know its provenance.

Pianists don’t have to count.  When we get stuck we just stop and then start over.  Even with chamber music we have the score so we always know what the other players should be doing, so we can pretty much fake what we can’t play and keep things going.  Our only problems are the incessant page turns, sometimes with all the other instruments cutting out leaving us alone playing with both hands, turning the page and trying not to miss a beat.  All this was true until I got to play a piece with bassoon, clarinet, oboe, violin and cello by Martinu — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_revue_de_cuisine, which had only the piano part, and long 9 and 10 measure rests which I was supposed to count.  I thought it would be a total disaster, but the coach conducted it, and shouted out numbers when I was supposed to play. I bought him a beer later that week.  An interesting piece with a tango, and a Charleston in it.

Participants at the camp decided that there would be no talk of politics, just music, and the world did manage to spin on its axis for a week without our help.

I spent 300 miles or so of the 1,100 mile drive back on backroads through the verdant midwest countryside.  I made it a point to pace off a mile or so every now and then in a particularly beautiful stretch of country and then get out and walk it.  Typical of the midwest, each time I did, someone would stop and ask if I needed help.

The many miles of the country I went through on the way back look very good.  The stores and  restaurants and malls were full, the campgrounds crowded, and help wanted signs were everywhere. Much better than the previous trips of the past 5 years.

So then I get back to Massachusetts and the alternate universe of the New York Times.  When the Times talks about the longest bull market in history, they note in the same breath that it is only for rich people, ignoring the fact that all pension plans, IRAs and 401k’s have been beneficiaries.  Also on the front page was a story about a payoff to a porn star, something of minimal consequence to the daily lives of those outside the bubble.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in economics, appears on the opinion page, despite having declared election night the stock market would never recover, and a few years ago informing us that we were at peak oil production.  At least no articles by Larry Summers (smartest guy in the room and former president of Harvard) about secular stagnation and the impossibility of 3% economic growth.

Linus Pauling was one of the great chemists of the 20th Century — electronegativity, the nature of the chemical bond, the alpha helix etc. etc.  Yet when he said vitamin C could cure colds and cancer, he was proved wrong and his pronouncements on the subject roundly ignored.  No so with political and economic pundits.

The disconnect between the bicoastal mainstream media and the center of the country is profound.  The November elections should be fascinating.  Help stamp our minority employment — vote Democratic.