To the hosts of TWiV, We listened to your commentary of our paper ‘Increased memory B cell potency and breadth after a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA boost’ in TWiV episode #896. We were embarrassed for you by the way you misrepresented the contents of the paper and by the numerous factual errors and miss-interpretations. We applaud your critique of scientific papers and acknowledge that no study is perfect. However, it is incumbent on you to accurately represent the papers you discuss and to base your criticisms on facts. In this case you have not done so. Below is a representative, albeit incomplete, list of the many salient errors that were made (in chronological order) during your commentary, with approximate time stamps (TH-cam). We trust that you will correct the record accordingly. Theodora Hatziioannou Paul Bieniasz Michel Nussenzweig The full comments from these authors can be found at twiv.s3.amazonaws.com/TWiV+episode+%23896+author+response.pdf
I appreciate the authors writing in to correct the commentary of their paper, and applaud TWiV for posting it here. I know these authors have been mentioned fairly often on TWiV and I hope to see them and their papers reviewed again.
Links for this episode 04:36 Climate change and viral zoonosis risk (Nature) 41:26 COVID-19 mRNA boost effect on memory B cells (Nature) Letters read on TWiV 896 1:25:47 Christine vertical farming 1:26:47 Ben vaccines and reinfections how severe and how common 1:33:29 Bill They like The Atlantic 1:35:17 Maria paper recycling Audio Timestamps by Jolene Thanks Weekly Picks 1:40:11 Dickson Toots Thilelemans 1:41:47 Amy Largest comet ever identified 1:44:05 Vincent Scientific review articles as antivaccine disinformation disputes McCollough anti mRNA article 1:46:34 Please support this science education channel
Episode title comes from "The Way we were" th-cam.com/users/clipUgkxz2zZXpF973O7oEK7TuG-lPmQ8YaxLEB1 (after watching, hit back arrow on browser to return to TWiV)
Les, could you remind Vincent to pin the study clarification so that it stays on top of the comment section? I believe he also wanted to sort the time stamps.
@@Turtledove2009 Prof Vincent probably assumed his comment would be automatically pinned so thank you for pointing that out. The authors' response is now pinned. Since only 1 post is pinned the timestamps are now unpinned. If you press LIKE on the timestamps, they will be easier to find. No, he has not asked me to work on the timestamps. I am a listener like yourself who volunteers time because science education is important to me and I like making it more accessible. I got a quality free education here. Generally, they are sorted. Sadly, I don't have the time to rearrange them . Anyone is welcome to improve on what I do and post. Turtledove2009, you would be acknowledged for your efforts if you do.
Dickson you are an encyclopedia and I so love listening to you. This podcast amazing as usual. Congratulations Amy on new job and you always deliver so great to watch you and thankyou Vincent you make science interesting and easy to listen to👍🙂
Another fantastic podcast Racaniello! Thank you! Amy~would you minding talking a bit on the topic of adenovirus;specifically regarding the latest cases in children, causing acute liver failure? Thank You! Dixon, I wish you health-feel better! Thank You for such a wonderful talk!
This is good. I really liked Amy's comments at about 32 minute about human movement (air travel). and -- Ecology & Virology -- here we go....but it breaks down on the second paper, which is too bad.
I was exposed to Covid positive person last Monday through Wednesday. My officemate. I started sneezing and coughing on Friday. I have had 2 negative Covid tests since then. I am boosted and got Omicron 3 months ago. Could my immunity from vaxes and previous infection make my viral load so low I would not test positive? My symptoms are sneezing and cough, slight body aches, slight headache, mild malaise...no fever. Could I have Covid and not test positive? Or could this just be my immune response to an exposure? Any knowledgable opinion would be appreciated. I have my smell and taste intact.
Amy often has good insights, but her Bravado in areas she doesn't seem to understand fully is cringy. I think she was completely missing on the topic of immunodominance hierarchies and repertoire breadth. Her argument about timing makes no sense because you'd expect a more narrow repertoire after waning but they're claiming a broader repertoire. It's just annoying, exacerbated by her condescension
A message from an avid listener: perhaps Amy should note that negative or expected results in studies are just as important to report as positive ones, and that sarcasm at these results should perhaps be replaced with a simple nod. It is tough for a listener to follow the review ; when every comment is negative / dismissive / sarcastic, it becomes hard to understand which of the results are novel and which are expected - but not every listener has Amy's breadth of knowledge on the subject, and even trivial results are instructive for us. I would recommend - modestly - that Amy perhaps reserve sarcasm for results which are actually deserving of sarcasm and not just seemingly trivial.
Amy is great. Her critique of this study is on point, and her contribution is very valuable. You are upset by her style, but style has nothing to do with the facts presented.
@@1ACL I'm not judging the content of her critiques ; but delivery, for a public speaker, is half the job. You may disagree but this is an evident truth when it comes to public speaking. The goal for a podcaster is not to be right, it is to efficiently (and ideally pleasantly) communicate information to the listener.
@@1ACL Yeah, I'm with you on this, Amy should feel free to communicate whichever way she feels fit. Many of us who read journal articles where there are multiple scientific missteps find it hard not to roll our eyes during the process. It's critical peer-review, whatever form that may take. In my field, you'd get yelled at in an open auditorium, for the mistakes made in this paper .. they should be glad they just got sarcasm.
@@Youloush But she isnt a "public speaker" she is a research scientist. I can forgive her. Yes, the podcast is public, but I would rather have a good scientist on this one than a good speaker. sometimes you cant have everything. Again, I forgive the podcasters, as stylke isnt all that important -- at least I dont think so. So we can agree to disagree.
So, you personally don't like Amy's style. Most of us find her honesty refreshing, and many do have the needed background to understand her. I love her sardonic comments, and am more likely to listen because of them. Also, a study, that makes unsupported conclusions, should be panned. Too many researchers are cashing in on this pandemic, and publishing papers of questionable merit. Personally, I find Dickson a waste of time. He tends to blither about inanities, and meander all over a subject, stating facts most people already know, as if he is dropping pearls of wisdom. But, despite how annoying, I find his love of his own voice, I wouldn't venture to tell him what to do. I just click past his speaking. Perhaps, if Amy irks you so much, you should do the same with her.
All of your podcasts has always been interesting & educative….This one is the most informative of all about the actual situation we are for people survival on this planet 🌎. We definitely need more virologists…Your video podcast should be heard by every College and University students of as many countries as possible for them young to realize and decide what should they study for to help improve the situation we’re in and worst the situation they’re going to have to go through in their lifetime…
Great episode! nice explanation Dickson did on ecological terms and how species behave when the environment changes. By the way, Vincent's comment about the madness of a leader of a hot and humid country is very appropriate to understand how idiot people can greedily devastate rain forests without considering the consequences in the future.
Amy was right, AGAIN. I find myself in that position often, it can be a very frustrating position to be in when folks are naively not right, but need to be proven so. But I gotta be careful not to bite the hand that feeds me. Great podcast and I'm updating my vaccination strategy to align with what Amy is saying.
I'd recommend broadening where you get your information. While she was right in many predictable ways, her analysis in this episode was difficult to listent to. At best she was concurring with the assumptions of the field, while mocking the paper for validating these assumptions.
@@FewFishManyWorms It came off different to me, but I guess I can see how one might think that. I probably have to be careful to not come off as mocking as well. I see I won't be able to broaden where I get my information from your profile.
@@FewFishManyWorms Indeed it is youtube. Given a full time job and night school, neither of which is related to the healthcare industry. I hope you will forgive me from keeping up with the cutting edge from podcasts while appreciating various personality traits I see in myself. I'ld gladly listen to your podcast and promise that I wouldn't project any of my adequacies onto it. Or if like me you don't have enough time to do it right, what podcasts do you suggest?
@@depleteduraniumcowboy3516 I don't expect you to be an expert (or anyone for that matter). I was just pointing out that there are significantly different perspectives in the field (in which I conduct research). I listen to TWiV for fun (info is a bonus), and so I wouldn't generally recommend podcasts for actual virology/immunology education. Vincent and Brianne's TH-cam classes would be the best alternative outside of reading something like Janeway or principles of virology. Again, don't listen to ME directly, just use my advice to help gain a more well-rounded perspective. There is constant disagreement at the frontier of science
I am giving ocrevus a b cell killer . Stoped ocrevus because b cell not coming back . Nine months and absolute zero b cells . I had j&j and did not equire antibodies. This lead us to check b cells , and found I had zero b cells. Interesting ocrevus is a infusion every six months. I have MS . Sorry I'm not a doctor of virology. But thought this was interesting.
“Don’t Look Up” is a parody/parable about the how science is/was treated during the pandemic and the consequences thereof. It is very unlikable but worth watching.
@@FewFishManyWorms I probably didn’t state that correctly. The movie is not unlikable, unpleasant movies can be likable; a better word, perhaps, is unenjoyable. To me, it sadly laid bare the reality of modern society where the randomly fortunate are elevated to heroes and their meaningless events valued while brilliant, hardworking scientists and their often critical message is ignored or even ridiculed.
@@SteveWille I agree with the sentiment. However, as one of those scientists I felt it was important to highlight this aspect of our modern society. Hopefully by putting it in people's faces they can understand what's it's like from a scientists perspective. The topic is somewhat saddening, but so is WWII, and I love me some saving private Ryan
@@FewFishManyWorms Funny… Saving Private Ryan also came to my mind thinking about good movies with a tragic message. DLU is similar and I agree with the importance of the message. Hopefully it is not lost on most viewers. I was disappointed to see DLU so easily dismissed on TWiV; I think it should be required viewing for TWiVers; the movie *is* about them (and you?) in many ways. Perhaps it will be a viewer pick in the coming weeks.
"Why suffers? The next generation, right?" Yes, but not as much as the animals. (I guess that, technically, that would be the answer to "What suffers?" but I think that's one way in which the language needs to change.
I clicked on this thinking it was a parody. "TWiV explains a study of how 1 degree c is predicted to increase cross-species viral transmission risk", I laughed the whole way through, don't need to be an expert in bodylanguage to know they don't believe their own BS. Feel free to learn "the behavior panel" though common sense should be enough for most people to spot this BS.
To the hosts of TWiV,
We listened to your commentary of our paper ‘Increased memory B cell potency and breadth after a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA boost’ in TWiV episode #896. We were embarrassed for you by the way you misrepresented the contents of the paper and by the numerous factual errors and miss-interpretations. We applaud your critique of scientific papers and acknowledge that no study is perfect. However, it is incumbent on you to accurately represent the papers you discuss and to base your criticisms on facts. In this case you have not done so.
Below is a representative, albeit incomplete, list of the many salient errors that were made (in chronological order) during your commentary, with approximate time stamps (TH-cam). We trust that you will correct the record accordingly.
Theodora Hatziioannou
Paul Bieniasz
Michel Nussenzweig
The full comments from these authors can be found at twiv.s3.amazonaws.com/TWiV+episode+%23896+author+response.pdf
I appreciate the authors writing in to correct the commentary of their paper, and applaud TWiV for posting it here. I know these authors have been mentioned fairly often on TWiV and I hope to see them and their papers reviewed again.
Links for this episode
04:36 Climate change and viral zoonosis risk (Nature)
41:26 COVID-19 mRNA boost effect on memory B cells (Nature)
Letters read on TWiV 896
1:25:47 Christine vertical farming
1:26:47 Ben vaccines and reinfections
how severe and how common
1:33:29 Bill They like The Atlantic
1:35:17 Maria paper recycling
Audio Timestamps by Jolene Thanks
Weekly Picks
1:40:11 Dickson Toots Thilelemans
1:41:47 Amy Largest comet ever identified
1:44:05 Vincent Scientific review articles as antivaccine disinformation
disputes McCollough anti mRNA article
1:46:34 Please support this science education channel
Episode title comes from "The Way we were"
th-cam.com/users/clipUgkxz2zZXpF973O7oEK7TuG-lPmQ8YaxLEB1
(after watching, hit back arrow on browser to return to TWiV)
Les, could you remind Vincent to pin the study clarification so that it stays on top of the comment section? I believe he also wanted to sort the time stamps.
@@Turtledove2009 Prof Vincent probably assumed his comment would be automatically pinned so thank you for pointing that out. The authors' response is now pinned. Since only 1 post is pinned the timestamps are now unpinned. If you press LIKE on the timestamps, they will be easier to find.
No, he has not asked me to work on the timestamps. I am a listener like yourself who volunteers time because science education is important to me and I like making it more accessible. I got a quality free education here. Generally, they are sorted. Sadly, I don't have the time to rearrange them . Anyone is welcome to improve on what I do and post. Turtledove2009, you would be acknowledged for your efforts if you do.
One for the algorithm. Indeed the timestamps are valuable for many different types of followers of the channel.
CONGRATULATIONS AMY!! 🥳🎊✨️ We all knew you would make it. Please stay on TWiV😁
I found it difficult to follow because Amy kept interrupting Vincent. After a while I got confused and had to go off and read the paper on my own.
1:23:40 No, memory B cells for SARS-CoV lasted for 3 to 4 years (not 1 yr), up to 6 yrs if SARS illness was severe.
actually 17 odd years for T cells . they saw this in SARS
Fascinating podcast. Thank you so very much Amy, Dickson and Vincent ♥️
Dickson you are an encyclopedia and I so love listening to you. This podcast amazing as usual. Congratulations Amy on new job and you always deliver so great to watch you and thankyou Vincent you make science interesting and easy to listen to👍🙂
Great seeing Amy laughing! And Dickson, Vincent remembered anadromous
Another fantastic podcast Racaniello! Thank you!
Amy~would you minding talking a bit on the topic of adenovirus;specifically regarding the latest cases in children, causing acute liver failure?
Thank You!
Dixon, I wish you health-feel better!
Thank You for such a wonderful talk!
This is good. I really liked Amy's comments at about 32 minute about human movement (air travel). and -- Ecology & Virology -- here we go....but it breaks down on the second paper, which is too bad.
1:12:40 is where it's said the 3rd dose is unneeded for health individuals
I was exposed to Covid positive person last Monday through Wednesday. My officemate. I started sneezing and coughing on Friday. I have had 2 negative Covid tests since then. I am boosted and got Omicron 3 months ago. Could my immunity from vaxes and previous infection make my viral load so low I would not test positive? My symptoms are sneezing and cough, slight body aches, slight headache, mild malaise...no fever. Could I have Covid and not test positive? Or could this just be my immune response to an exposure? Any knowledgable opinion would be appreciated. I have my smell and taste intact.
Amy: “The bat went to the lab and then there was this leak.” 😆
Always love when Dickson participates. 💗🤗 I am so embarrassed that I have been spelling his name incorrectly all this time. 😯
Amy often has good insights, but her Bravado in areas she doesn't seem to understand fully is cringy. I think she was completely missing on the topic of immunodominance hierarchies and repertoire breadth. Her argument about timing makes no sense because you'd expect a more narrow repertoire after waning but they're claiming a broader repertoire. It's just annoying, exacerbated by her condescension
A message from an avid listener: perhaps Amy should note that negative or expected results in studies are just as important to report as positive ones, and that sarcasm at these results should perhaps be replaced with a simple nod. It is tough for a listener to follow the review ; when every comment is negative / dismissive / sarcastic, it becomes hard to understand which of the results are novel and which are expected - but not every listener has Amy's breadth of knowledge on the subject, and even trivial results are instructive for us. I would recommend - modestly - that Amy perhaps reserve sarcasm for results which are actually deserving of sarcasm and not just seemingly trivial.
Amy is great. Her critique of this study is on point, and her contribution is very valuable.
You are upset by her style, but style has nothing to do with the facts presented.
@@1ACL I'm not judging the content of her critiques ; but delivery, for a public speaker, is half the job. You may disagree but this is an evident truth when it comes to public speaking. The goal for a podcaster is not to be right, it is to efficiently (and ideally pleasantly) communicate information to the listener.
@@1ACL Yeah, I'm with you on this, Amy should feel free to communicate whichever way she feels fit.
Many of us who read journal articles where there are multiple scientific missteps find it hard not to roll our eyes during the process.
It's critical peer-review, whatever form that may take.
In my field, you'd get yelled at in an open auditorium, for the mistakes made in this paper .. they should be glad they just got sarcasm.
@@Youloush But she isnt a "public speaker" she is a research scientist. I can forgive her. Yes, the podcast is public, but I would rather have a good scientist on this one than a good speaker. sometimes you cant have everything. Again, I forgive the podcasters, as stylke isnt all that important -- at least I dont think so. So we can agree to disagree.
So, you personally don't like Amy's style. Most of us find her honesty refreshing, and many do have the needed background to understand her. I love her sardonic comments, and am more likely to listen because of them. Also, a study, that makes unsupported conclusions, should be panned. Too many researchers are cashing in on this pandemic, and publishing papers of questionable merit. Personally, I find Dickson a waste of time. He tends to blither about inanities, and meander all over a subject, stating facts most people already know, as if he is dropping pearls of wisdom. But, despite how annoying, I find his love of his own voice, I wouldn't venture to tell him what to do. I just click past his speaking. Perhaps, if Amy irks you so much, you should do the same with her.
For balance, I would like to hear the authors' considered response to Amy's points, after she gleefully tap-danced on the *Nature*-paper's grave.
That response is available now.
More great info from TWiV!
Love you all! You have great chemistry together. Thanks for another great pod
All of your podcasts has always been interesting & educative….This one is the most informative of all about the
actual situation we are for people survival on this planet 🌎. We definitely need more virologists…Your
video podcast should be heard by every College and University students of as many countries as possible
for them young to realize and decide what should they study for to help improve the situation we’re in
and worst the situation they’re going to have to go through in their lifetime…
Great episode! nice explanation Dickson did on ecological terms and how species behave when the environment changes. By the way, Vincent's comment about the madness of a leader of a hot and humid country is very appropriate to understand how idiot people can greedily devastate rain forests without considering the consequences in the future.
Incubator looks great! Love the portrait views. 👤II&E🍄🔜TWIX!👍🏼
Amy was right, AGAIN. I find myself in that position often, it can be a very frustrating position to be in when folks are naively not right, but need to be proven so. But I gotta be careful not to bite the hand that feeds me. Great podcast and I'm updating my vaccination strategy to align with what Amy is saying.
I'd recommend broadening where you get your information. While she was right in many predictable ways, her analysis in this episode was difficult to listent to. At best she was concurring with the assumptions of the field, while mocking the paper for validating these assumptions.
@@FewFishManyWorms It came off different to me, but I guess I can see how one might think that. I probably have to be careful to not come off as mocking as well. I see I won't be able to broaden where I get my information from your profile.
@@depleteduraniumcowboy3516 well it's TH-cam, I hope this isn't your go-to source for scientific literature...
@@FewFishManyWorms Indeed it is youtube. Given a full time job and night school, neither of which is related to the healthcare industry. I hope you will forgive me from keeping up with the cutting edge from podcasts while appreciating various personality traits I see in myself. I'ld gladly listen to your podcast and promise that I wouldn't project any of my adequacies onto it. Or if like me you don't have enough time to do it right, what podcasts do you suggest?
@@depleteduraniumcowboy3516 I don't expect you to be an expert (or anyone for that matter). I was just pointing out that there are significantly different perspectives in the field (in which I conduct research). I listen to TWiV for fun (info is a bonus), and so I wouldn't generally recommend podcasts for actual virology/immunology education. Vincent and Brianne's TH-cam classes would be the best alternative outside of reading something like Janeway or principles of virology. Again, don't listen to ME directly, just use my advice to help gain a more well-rounded perspective. There is constant disagreement at the frontier of science
The worst spam is the junk mail that is paper coated with plastic. Can't be recycled at all.
I am giving ocrevus a b cell killer . Stoped ocrevus because b cell not coming back . Nine months and absolute zero b cells . I had j&j and did not equire antibodies. This lead us to check b cells , and found I had zero b cells. Interesting ocrevus is a infusion every six months. I have MS . Sorry I'm not a doctor of virology. But thought this was interesting.
👍👍👍👍👍Great episode!! Love the articles and the discussion!!! Amy is on fire!!! Once again keeping it real with the Science!!! Love it!!! ❤❤❤❤❤🥰🥰🥰
Great epitope!
Thanks for sharing
Amy is brilliant !
I think Amy is correct. Good points. And I like her style!
“Don’t Look Up” is a parody/parable about the how science is/was treated during the pandemic and the consequences thereof. It is very unlikable but worth watching.
I actually really liked it. It had the spoof movie feel and was based in science. What's not to like?
@@FewFishManyWorms I probably didn’t state that correctly. The movie is not unlikable, unpleasant movies can be likable; a better word, perhaps, is unenjoyable. To me, it sadly laid bare the reality of modern society where the randomly fortunate are elevated to heroes and their meaningless events valued while brilliant, hardworking scientists and their often critical message is ignored or even ridiculed.
@@SteveWille I agree with the sentiment. However, as one of those scientists I felt it was important to highlight this aspect of our modern society. Hopefully by putting it in people's faces they can understand what's it's like from a scientists perspective. The topic is somewhat saddening, but so is WWII, and I love me some saving private Ryan
@@FewFishManyWorms Funny… Saving Private Ryan also came to my mind thinking about good movies with a tragic message. DLU is similar and I agree with the importance of the message. Hopefully it is not lost on most viewers. I was disappointed to see DLU so easily dismissed on TWiV; I think it should be required viewing for TWiVers; the movie *is* about them (and you?) in many ways. Perhaps it will be a viewer pick in the coming weeks.
@@SteveWille I think Brianne already picked it before, but I could be wrong
Agree with Amy I don’t think we need a third dose and fourth dose and fifth dose!
"Why suffers? The next generation, right?" Yes, but not as much as the animals. (I guess that, technically, that would be the answer to "What suffers?" but I think that's one way in which the language needs to change.
If that fishing %animals would not increase they would die out with their own cells.
Amy is not afraid of telling the truth ..,,,,,,,
She was wrong.
Thanks
IN A HIVE , NOT ALL BEES PRODUCE EGG AND SPERM
very few do. Only a queen lays eggs. Drones are sperm specialists.
WHO - highly vaccinated countries had 14% of excess deaths. Poorer less vaccinated countries 4%.
Gee, I wonder what the confounding factors there might be? Think about it.
I clicked on this thinking it was a parody. "TWiV explains a study of how 1 degree c is predicted to increase cross-species viral transmission risk", I laughed the whole way through, don't need to be an expert in bodylanguage to know they don't believe their own BS. Feel free to learn "the behavior panel" though common sense should be enough for most people to spot this BS.
First it is not their study. Second you draw conclusions base on "body language"? Talk about bullshit.
Body language is pseudoscience and your take is nonsense.