woah holy shit a bio?

  • 6 Posts
  • 979 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle










  • Yes, it cannot be created naturally.

    The concern is that if one of the mirror proteins is able to be cloned naturally, then we would have a problem on our hands.

    However, those mirror cells would need a supply of “mirror food” such as “mirror sugar” in order to survive their natural lifespan. And then they would need to break apart into the mirror proteins that can be cloned. Racemic drugs like Thalidomide do not behave the way they are talking about in the article.

    I have my doubts that this is an actual concern. It’s not even similar to prions - prions are misfolded proteins that have the same chemical make up, but the natural enzymes end up cloning those over the natural ones because they are easier to make.



  • I know I just responded, but I read the article, and the drug page, and discovered the thing we’re talking about. Racemic organic molecules are not the same thing here.

    These are specifically proteins used for cellular life. These are significantly more complex, as there are no natural bindings between the two. To note this from Wikipedia:

    Examples include thalidomide, ibuprofen, cetirizine and salbutamol. A well known drug that has different effects depending on its ratio of enantiomers is amphetamine. Adderall is an unequal mixture of both amphetamine enantiomers. A single Adderall dose combines the neutral sulfate salts of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, with the dextro isomer of amphetamine saccharate and D/L-amphetamine aspartate monohydrate. The original Benzedrine was a racemic mixture, and isolated dextroamphetamine was later introduced to the market as Dexedrine. The prescription analgesic tramadol is also a racemate.

    We know that those drugs aren’t great in pregnancy, but Adderall specifically does not cause birth defects. Again, these molecules are significantly less complex than any protein they would talk about here.







  • “forcing leaders to ask themselves uncomfortable questions about their own preparedness for a threat landscape that appears far more serious than many realized just a week ago.”

    It’s probably even more serious than they think it is right now too.

    In fact, all I see are talks of securing these executives. And as the article points out, security is a sunk cost. There is no financial gain. That means as security gets more expensive, they will have to weigh how to afford it versus the problems they cause.

    Fear isn’t the word I think we want though, fear seems too normal. Terror sounds closer to what they likely need to feel before things get better.