The high-dollar journals are the real predatory journals as far as I’m concerned.

...an industry that is expected to generate $167 billion in revenue in 2025. All because of basic scientific research that seems to now be unimportant to certain politicians.

Nobel Prize for Kohler and Milstein
www.nature.com/articles/256...

…and produce large quantities of monoclonal antibodies. The work on these “hybridomas” was one of basic research that used sheep red blood cells as the immunogen. Today, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are used to treat dozens of disease and has led to...

Glad it went well and wish I could have been there.

It's notable that @zey.bsky.social is reading people who think our article is too dangerous to even link to, so here it is: academic.oup.com/mbe/article/...

Moving forward, there are already other - and better and, hey, transparent - initiatives as it comes to sharing critical data: NCBI, of course, which should be used by _all_ tax-payer funded research, but also @pathoplexus.org, which should become the replacement for GISAID - and I'm sure it will.

I suspect that recombination is why we’ll never find an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 in nature. It’s already gone. Yet the lab leakers will continue to insist that finding it is a requirement for natural emergence.

This highlights the central problem with so many of those who want to believe the lab leak narrative: they latch on to the big picture - there's a lab in Wuhan working on bat viruses - but don't grasp the details which show that a lab leak is far less likely than a zoonotic event. Detail is key.

This is one of the biggest challenges of the modern information environment: learning to distinguish between bad faith criticism designed to destroy things and good faith criticism meant to make things better.