@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: Oh look, half the people have a dangly thing between their legs and the other half are way less weird looking. I wonder if this division is important?
RW: Nah, I don’t think so.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: But look, the majority of the little people seem to be associated with two big people, one of each type, and the really little people spend a lot of time inside then fixed via their mouth to just one type of big person.
RW: I don’t see it.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: If you look at all the other life around these parts, they also seem to be divided into two main groups of body type. This seems pretty universal, now I look deeper. Are you sure this isn’t important?
RW: Ignore it.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: I really think I should consider whether I’ve discovered something fundamental here. Someone might give me a prize.
RW: I think we should group people not according to whether they *have* dangly or undangly bits, but whether they *want* dangly or undangly bits.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: <doubtful look>
RW: Yes, that makes a lot more sense as a categorisation.
Scientist: OK, but I’m going to carry on studying the Danglies and Undanglies. <gets labcoat on and runs after passing Dangly>
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon RW: <calling> Hang on, how do you know that person is a Dangly?
Scientist: <points to dangly bits>
RW: That’s a bit presumptuous though.
Scientist: <bats dangly bits>
RW: What if this person is really an Undangly?
Scientist: <eyes dart between RW and gently swaying dangly bits>
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon Scientist: I’ve discovered something cool about Danglies. Wanna hear?
RW: You can’t call them that.
Scientist: W..what? Do you remember back there when I swatted one of them?
RW: That wasn’t a Dangly.
Scientist: It dangled.
@JaneSpeakman1@HJJoyceEcon RW: That’s not how we recognise Danglies. We recognise them by their internal sense of Dangliness.
Scientist: I can’t see inside their heads.
RW: They don’t have Dangly brains.
Scientists: <backing away slowly> But you clearly have a lot of dangle going on in your head. I’m off.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He was the first author on a paper led by Peter Goodfellow, and they published side-by-side with a paper led by Robin Lovell-Badge.
This pair of papers showed that the “mysterious make male mammals molecule” was the product of the SRY gene.
Unequivocally.
Their joint discovery was hailed, including by Sinclair himself, as the answer to one of the most fundamental questions about human life: what makes us male or female?
This is, IMO, an entirely reasonable lauding of the impact.
Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome is a DSD that occurs in 46,XY males with normal testes and normal virilisation, who also retain Müllerian structures (uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, upper vagina) that should have degenerated in utero.
How does it happen?
Early in development, every fetus has two duct systems: the paramesonephric/Müllerian (female) and mesonephric/Wolffian (male).
(The formal names will become relevant later).
In XY babies, carrying the “make male” SRY gene, testes are made on schedule.
These testes make testosterone that promotes development of the Wolffian ducts, because testes will need an epididymis, vas deferens and seminal glands to do their fathering job.
I think the Andes hantavirus data is being misread right now.
Claims are circulating that the evidence doesn’t seem to support.
I want to walk through them carefully.
The 40% fatality figure: an artefact of who gets counted.
The 40% case fatality rate (CFR) figure comes specifically from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), an outcome in a subset of hanta infections.
This is the severe cardiopulmonary presentation. It excludes subclinical infections that resolved without anyone noticing more than “a touch of flu”.
In Jujuy Province, Argentina, the seroprevalence (rate at which people have antibodies due to hanta infection) is 6.5%. Hospitalised HPS cases had a CFR of 13.3%, but most patients were described as having a mild clinical course.
Disclaimer: although an Argentine outbreak, this has not been confirmed as ANDV.
The 40% is the fatality rate among people sick enough to be diagnosed and hospitalised.
It is not the infection fatality rate.
These are not the same thing, and conflating them is causing significant confusion.
The true attack rate: barely any data.
The Boat had approximately 180 exposed individuals, and around ten cases have been detected. Three - soon to be four, I predict - have died.
Without antibody analysis of the full cohort, we don’t know how many mild or subclinical infections were missed entirely.
Disclaimer: I am a biology PhD, but not virology/epidemiology. Husbandman is a virology PhD. But I’m told I’m good at communicating science, so here’s my take.
#Hantavirus
Humans get hantavirus from rodents who carry it.
Some people went to Argentina birdwatching in a landfill, and were exposed to hantavirus because rodents like landfills.
Looks like one - if not two - people brought the virus onto their cruise boat.
So now we have an isolated boat with an index case: someone who is infected.
That’s not good for the index case. Hantavirus has a high fatality rate, and that’s scary.