(12-30-2023 01:48 AM)TylerTiger Wrote: (12-30-2023 12:04 AM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote: (12-29-2023 08:10 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: (12-29-2023 07:33 PM)TylerTiger Wrote: (12-29-2023 06:02 PM)Crazier Wrote: Did that hurt your feelings? This how I know most people are still reading information from 2021 about the shots. There's a reason the federal government back off the shots.
Didn’t hurt my feelings. Just think you’re an imbecile pulling crap out of your hat due to your lack of education. There is a reason - 70%+ are vaccinated and at least 80% have one shot. Herd immunity can handle the rest - like most vaccines tend to do. Now we just deal with updated vaccines like the Flu.
Now, go enjoy the win. I know I shall. Happy New Year!
Despite mountains of evidence that the "vaccine" is ineffective, and even potentially dangerous, people like you still spread fear through your irrational positions. Propagandists love people like you.
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/japane...-man-made/
Two problems:
1: The actual paper (which is linked) does not suggest the virus or any of its variants were synthesized or man-made. So using someone’s half-assed article on an opinion site is not research. (Even the study itself clarifies that is not the paper’s conclusion).
2: The study was also not peer-viewed. Zenodo (where it was published) is an open repository of papers and data.
Also, to TigerBlue4Ever - no one is pushing fear here. I’m telling you that they’re misinformed and trapped in a political bubble incapable of doing basic research because they’re uneducated on how to research (as EarthBoundMisfit performed wonderfully in showing). The vaccine isn’t ineffective. It does what it is intended to do - help spread protection against a novel virus. Anyone who thinks vaccines are meant to be 100% foolproof are not only morons, but devoid of any sense of historical understanding. That includes Democrats who tried to push it as 100%
But you’d rather live in your own personal biases than just deal with reason and reality, then peddle your bias as being rational and other people as irrational. I don’t care if you or anyone gets the vaccine. I do care when people use their political leanings to pinch hit for actual thought processes.
http://https://publichealthcollaborative...-man-made/
the men who put out that paper are well known, and respected in their field. rockstars
Think about the implication for a moment...why would you put a lifetime of work and peer respect on the line to publish something untrue?
Also you proved you did not read the papers when statements like this pervade it...
"
The analysis showed that Omicron variants were formed by an entirely new mechanism that cannot be explained by previous biology, and knowing how the SARS CoV 2 variants were formed prompts a reconsideration of the SARS CoV 2 pandemic."
"Each variant is considered to have arisen through an independent evolutionary pathway from isolates with the D614G mutation in the S protein. Concerning the genetic variation in the S protein of these variants, most of the mutations were non synonymous (Fig. 1). There were no synonymous mutations in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Mu variants, but only one each in the Lambda and Omicron variants. Among these variants, the Omicron variant (BA.1 lineage), which shows the greatest accumulation of mutations in the S protein, is primarily non synonymous in the S protein and has only one synonymous mutation, at c25000u.
The synonymous/non-synonymous ratio is abnormal, considering how human coronaviruses have mutated (See Supplemental Figure 1)"
Surprisingly, we found that Omicron BA.10.1 isolates were detected at all mutation sites except N501Y (Fig. 119
2A). In the BA.1 lineage of the Omicron variant, there are Omicron isolates (BA.1.1) with the R346K mutation seen in the Mu(m) variant (termed B.1.621),
i.e. BA.1_S can be defined as BA.1.1_S:K346R. We also performed a BLAST search for isolates with amino acid sequences of BA.10.1.1_S:OaaXXXWaa, as
described in Methods. As a result, Omicron BA.1.1 subset
0.1 isolates were detected at all mutation sites except S373P (Fig. 2B). Similar to the BA.1 lineage of the Omicron variant, in the BA.2 lineage of the Omicron variant,
isolates of BA.20.1 were found at all mutant sites except T478K and P681H in the S protein (Supplemental Figure 2).
The presence of these isolates refutes the establishment of Omicron strains through a continuous evolutionary process by accumulating mutations. So, we could not determine which mutation occurred first or
last to form the Omicron variants. As shown in Fig. 2B, over half of the BA.1.10.1 isolates have the synonymous mutation c21595u detected in the S protein. However, this does not help explain the order in which the c21595u mutation arose. Curiously, in BA.1 strain isolates, this c21595u mutation was only detected in SARS CoV 2_human_USA_ID CDC LC0481844_2022 (GenBank: OM409228.1) and SARS CoV-
2_human_USA_MI CDC ASC210597972_2022 (GenBank: OM396816.1). These isolates commonly lack the G339D mutation. This synonymous mutation is in a mutation prone hotspot location. Still, if the same mutation occurred independently in different isolates, it is highly unnatural for the proportion of c21595u occurrences to be significantly biased in the Omicron variants BA.1.1 0.1
"
These results suggest that the establishment of BA.10.1 and BA.1.10.1 isolates
occurred independently. On the other hand, if reversion mutations caused each of these isolates with one amino acid different to the Wuhan type, these isolates could be detected by examining an astronomical number of isolates. However, these virus strains were detected in the number of sequenced whole genomes (a limited number), rather than in astronomical numbers examined. The fact that most of these mutations occurred without synonymous mutations (Fig. 2) suggests that none of them arose as a result of trial and error random mutations in nature."
"
Despite the accumulation of many mutations in the S protein of Omicron mutants, most of the mutations are non-synonymous, with only one synonymous mutation of c25000u, which is highly unnatural, leading to the hypothesis that the Omicron mutants were artificially synthesized. The following results presented in this study may support the hypothesis that the Omicron variants were artificially synthesized rather than naturally occurring"
I could post more....but we already know you did not read it...so what would be the point?
Whatever your belief, viruses mutate in a pretty standard way. Virologists can pinpoint the genetic branches of each virus, and see how it differs from an earlier or later variant of said virus. When they say that they cannot tell which variant came first because variants SHOULD have the same genetic structure for the most part...but in this instance they didn't, then you know something isn't right.
When you keep seeing the words 'unnatural' and 'abnormal' pop up in a virology paper, take note...because they don't make many appearances in a truly natural virus study.
When you see the phrase "suggests that none of them arose as a result of trial and error random mutations in nature."...that in itself suggests man-made.
/
Covid strikes again.
![[Image: Man-With-Tin-Foil-Hat-PPT-iStockPhoto1.jpg]](http://www.throughlinegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Man-With-Tin-Foil-Hat-PPT-iStockPhoto1.jpg)
