Reply With Quote
Because this is what the red team actually tries to push.
Read my very first statement again.
Republicans will just end up murdering more Asian Americans.
Good job, Darrin, TSA, Snacks.
Because this is what the red team actually tries to push.
Read my very first statement again.
People think this means altered specifically by adding RNA sequences intended to produce a deadly virus. The RNA sequences say this did NOT happen.
Read on. The back and forth. I specifically stated this and this is what your brethren push.
Altered by what?
The current viruses are altered by random mutations.
They are NOT the same as the original(s).
So the different forms of the virus we see now are NOT natural?
I dont get the hands off on Russia and the Chinese are the real bad guys.
Its like Putin actively helping Trump in the US to get him elected gives Russia a pass.
Ukraine is just not important apparently. And I definitely think the Chinese need to come clean on their labs and lab work.
We still need info on the virus. There is a lot to learn with their help.
I dont know enough on the diplomacy that goes with the virus issue. They should be helping the world to understand the virus.
I guess with other issues going sour they just play keep away. Or maybe we are pushing the issue of YOU made this thing and set it loose...
We had very good cooperation with their scientists very early in this thing as we were sponsoring a lab working with the virus.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-05-2023 at 02:06 PM.
lol trying to move the goalposts... why don't you link all those things you claimed I said? You won't find them.
What I mentioned back then, when we didn't have neither a working vaccine nor a working treatment is that all those things were absolutely valid ways to reduce spread, and factually, they were and saved millions of lives. I know plenty of people that still never got COVID as well, though it wouldn't matter as much now that we have effective vaccines and treatments.
And you jumped into your soapboax replying to a post about 'XI doing a great job on COVID'. Do you need me to quote it? Damn, Joe did a number on you.
This is the favorite ploy of the red team.lol trying to move the goalposts... why don't you link all those things you claimed I said? You won't find them.
What I mentioned back then, when we didn't have neither a working vaccine nor a working treatment is that all those things were absolutely valid ways to reduce spread, and factually, they were and saved millions of lives. I know plenty of people that still never got COVID as well, though it wouldn't matter as much now that we have effective vaccines and treatments.
And you jumped into your soapboax replying to a post about 'XI doing a great job on COVID'. Do you need me to quote it? Damn, Joe did a number on you.
Make sure to use anachronistic maneuvers to basically lie.
The correlation of COVID infection with post infection heart attacks, strokes and blood clots has been multiply replicated, controlling for vaccination.
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/hea...kes-late-after
Isn't that just the definition of a novel coronavirus?
But is nothing like what a molecular biologist would insert you fkn idiot.
And yes novel does not mean made by humans.
It got this coronavirus put in a different category. Yet it is still a CORONAVIRUS because of its SIMILAR genetic sequence. This happens all the time NATURALLY VIA MUTATIONS, even with things like insects and even mammals. This is part of how we make family trees now, genetic sequences. Look for similarities with differences. Again. Where is the evidence that Chinese scientist inserted new RNA sequences to make this virus so nasty? Thats what your red team is implying planet pizza boy. Its the same over and over with your kind.
In theory the Chinese just should have started from scratch and invent an entirely new working virulent viral RNA sequence. Poof, a brand new virus. "out of nowhere" but clearly with human known features that make genes work.
Which is why it was labeled NOVEL.
Mutations are considered a Natural process of creating genetic diversity. This is at the very heart of the whole theory of evolution. This is how genetic VARIATION is created in every organism on the face of the earth and then a population of genetic diversity is Naturally selected. This is the base of the whole theory of replication and evolution. If every population of organisms had exactly the same genetic program then natural selection would have no variation to work on. These authors are not considering it Novel because it was genetically engineered by humans. And if an author is, like you, you will make a huge splash in molecular evolution. Maybe you can even use this as evidence for a creator.
Maybe they should have use the word standard instead of natural. But you still would not get it.
Why do you keep insisting on arguing something in which you know little about?
You are completely ignoring the idea of random mutations vs. genetic engineering by humans (which your group is purposely making you believe by mixing it with lab culturing of viruses.)
You are getting in water way too deep for your knowledge. Stick to what you do... No dont do that either.
btw I must thank you because now I understand more about the deep misunderstandings of red team conspira s.
We here describe how the two main SARS‐CoV‐2 features, (1) the presence of a furin cleavage site missing in other CoVs of the same group and (2) an receptor binding domain (RBD) optimized to bind to human cells[ 2 ] might be the result of lab manipulation techniques such as site‐directed mutagenesis. The acquisition of both unique features by SARS‐CoV‐2 more or less simultaneously is less likely to be natural or caused only by cell/animal serial passage.
Before the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak, pangolins were the only mammals other than bats do ented to carry and be infected by SARS‐CoV‐2 related CoV.[ 12 ] Recombination events between the RBD of CoV from pangolins and RaTG13‐like backbone could have produced SARS‐CoV‐2 as chimeric strain. For such recombination to occur naturally, the two viruses must have infected the same cell in the same organism simultaneously, a rather improbable event considering the low population density of pangolins and the scarce presence of CoVs in their natural populations.x Moreover, receptor binding studies of recons uted RaTG13 showed that it does not bind to pangolin ACE2.xi
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744920/
We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...10.18.512756v1
Big caveat from the article
*bioRxiv posts many COVID19-related papers. A reminder: they have not been formally peer-reviewed and should not guide health-related behavior or be reported in the press as conclusive.
We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...10.18.512756v1
Calling bull .
This is absolutely NOT what the majority of people studying the virus say.
If you look hard enough you can find more BS on this. Outweighed heavily by molecular biologists calling bull .
And of course we know where you stand on climate change as well. With the gadflies.
Ahhh the Republican party so badly wants bad science. Amazing. Just like the failed Russian wheat program. Totally ignoring genetics.
I admire your dedication to the CCP.
I'm open to either possibility, but no one has yet discovered the 'natural' source of Sars-Cov2, unlike how they did with SARS and MERS.
so, is COVID a big deal or not?
Dr. Darrin keeps going back and forth on this.
The do nothing because it's just a cold crew apparently still has an axe to grind.
For some vulnerable people it is. The elderly and chronically diseased.
Probably a bad idea to have BSL-2 lab doing gain of function research within a city the size of NYC.
Is it a big deal to you, Darrin?
You used to use that line to minimize COVID
"Those old and chronically diseased people are economic dead weight and were going to die of something anyway, probably sooner than later."
What caused your concern for old people and sick people to revive?
Besides, the jury is still out on the evidence -- so far not conclusive. Seems a bit early to accuse people you disagree with of simping for red China.
did someone in your zip code or who you know personally die? or is your reversal purely abstract?
There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)
Posting Permissions
