Covid-19 News

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Mutations do not happen in the lab today. You synthesize the virus and add parts from other virus and afterward check whether it works. E.g. some short chains of an aids virus have been added to CoV-19 and other stuff that make it impossible to happen in nature.


    As I said: Once in a universe live time chance this virus (CoV-19) is from an unknown animal.


    And people who are experts say that it is impossible for this to be man made as it should contain much more well known dna sequences. If what you say is true the experts

    should know that, and still they maintain it's not human made and you should find more of the sequences. It's all a conspiracy theory.

    Quote from Deleo

    Interesting to see a real uptick in cases here in the U.S. today. Over 28k new cases and the day isn't over yet.


    The uptick is because of an adjustment. Worldmeters says:


    NOTE: Michigan is now reporting probable COVID-19 cases and deaths. These are added to the confirmed ones in order to form the total, as per CDC guidelines. 4,928 probable cases and 240 probable deaths are being added to the Michigan total today. These will be soon redistributed historically based on Michigan's confirmed trends. "Probable cases include individuals with COVID-19 symptoms and an epidemiologic link to confirmed COVID-19, but no diagnostic test" [source]


    NOTE: Suffolk County (New York State) reports 15,080 "individuals not previously tested for COVID-19 who have tested positive for antibodies." [source] The county had started reporting antibody positives since May 8, so we are adjusting the time series as well. Following CDC guidelines, probable cases are added to confirmed cases to form the total case value. As indicated by other states: "Probable cases are those who test positive by other testing methods such as antibody or antigen, and have recent symptoms consistent with COVID-19, indicating a recent infection." [source] Finally, since a positive antibody test indicates that the person had been infected and later recovered from COVID-19, the same value is being added to the recovered total count for the county.

    Quote from THHuxleynew
    reminds me of the creationists who claimed (some time ago) that the eye could not have evolved without a divine creator because no-one had found evolutionarily viable intermediate steps. In fact, now, we have worked out how eyes have evolved independently more than 50  times in animals.

    Rubbish argument... THH!!!! are you diverting here or what?

    have worked out is not within a bull's roar of "found"

    That old Bulldog THHuxley would bite your ***, if he were still alive.

    The insect eye and the human eye...

    still have not been found to have any common evolutionary steps.

    or found to have any evolutionary steps, for that matter..

    In fact structurally, biochemically they are very different.

    Your eyes ,for instance are bags of fliud that secrete Vitamin C.


    The various just-so phylogeny stories do not constitute 'found ".

    and most overlook 'lability'.

    https://royalsocietypublishing…oi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1819


    50 different vision mechanisms.. by 50 different routes.. does not rule out a Creator

    just as "50 different cameras "does not rule out human designers


    The "creation" of a potent virus by cut and pasting old ones by Frankensteinian design or blooper is entirely possible with modern technology.. and a lot quicker than random selective evolution via mutations

    as Wyttenberg has noted..

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Mutations do not happen in the lab today.

    Not yet possible.. but imaginable ..is the human fl-eye ..which never blinks..or winks..;)

    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/1…dly-viruses-bn/index.html

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023384/

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The uptick is because of an adjustment. Worldmeters says:


    NOTE: Michigan is now reporting probable COVID-19 cases and deaths. These are added to the confirmed ones in order to form the total, as per CDC guidelines. 4,928 probable cases and 240 probable deaths are being added to the Michigan total today. These will be soon redistributed historically based on Michigan's confirmed trends. "Probable cases include individuals with COVID-19 symptoms and an epidemiologic link to confirmed COVID-19, but no diagnostic test" [source]


    Yeah, and it appears that they adjusted the cases back down for the day. So now the uptick is not as much as it previously looked to be.


    Just to comment on this. AZT is expected to do better than NST because of preventing bacterial secondary infections. Nothing to do with COVID.


    This study, again, gives us no evidence for HCQ. (The non-statistically significant tendency is not evidence, obviously).


    Although not strongly against, it adds to the overall picture that HCQ has little effect on the course of COVID. Over time, many studies that show no statistically significant positive affect amount to negative evidence.


    As always, we will get more reliable evidence from RCTs. Perhaps somone would like to post and analyse the preliminary results from the UK RECOVERY trial when they become available properly written up. They have now dropped HCQ based on mildly negative initial results By mildly negative I mean not statically significant and therefore neutral. This is on the basis of 1500 patients treated, a much much larger sample, and randomised, more significant than these tiny studies we keep on hearing about. This is a multi-arm randomised (but not double-blind) study. They are dropping HCQ as an arm of treatment because it appears no better than the usual treatment (which they keep for control purposes).


    Personally (as I said ages ago) I like these RECOVERY trials. They provide fast fairly reliable data on a variety of treatments. they can be varied in-flight to add new hopefuls or drops treatments no longer of interest, they provide data while also giving patients noew hopeful treatments.


    THH

    Quote from RobertBryant

    50 different vision mechanisms.. by 50 different routes.. does not rule out a Creator

    just as "50 different cameras "does not rule out human designers


    The "creation" of a potent virus by cut and pasting old ones by Frankensteinian design or blooper is entirely possible with modern technology.. and a lot quicker than random selective evolution via mutations

    as Wyttenberg has noted..


    Indeed. just as there is no evidence this was not a US-created virus released in China for nefarious purposes.


    Once you go down the rabbit hole of entertaining unlikely but in principle possible conspiracy theories you never emerge. So why do it?


    The argument for lab origin, originally, was that sequencing showed this could not be a natural virus. That has never looked likely, links to existing wild viruses are string and crossover from animals to human population is the normal way these deadly new viruses get to us. The one (contentious) claim that "it must be from a lab" has now been refuted.


    Just as with the Intelligent Design arguments for a creator, no-one can ever prove the virus did not come from a lab, artificially created to look like a zoonotic transfer. I don't have much patience for such arguments. In the case of religion I keep out, it is not a scientific question, as long as the fact that an evolutionary origin for eyes is plausible is acknowledged. In the case of whether the virus was lab-designed it is a scientific question and holding onto this idea as plausible, even though in principle it can never be ruled out as impossible, is not sensible.

    That RECOVERY decsiion to stop treating with HCQ.


    https://blogs.sciencemag.org/p…rts-on-hydroxychloroquine


    For those like me nerdy enough to enjoy reading and contrasting all the comments here is another "in the pipeline" story. High quality open-minded comment, with a lot of comments many of which are also high quality and open-minded.


    What (I) get from it is just that political advocacy (for or against) drug treatments is poisonous.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    The insect eye and the human eye...

    still have not been found to have any common evolutionary steps.

    or found to have any evolutionary steps, for that matter..

    In fact structurally, biochemically they are very different.


    So I'd agree here with all your text not bolded, and it makes my point. the Blind Watchmaker is infinitely inventive, as would be expected from the way evolution works. Really the the thing about eyes is that superficially we ask how something so complex could ever emerge incrementally, but then when it is looked at in detail we see that visual sensing is so important for animals at both rough (e.g. is it day or night) and exact (hawk spotting a mouse from 100m), and all stages between, that it gets strong evolutionary selection. The miracle of genes that can be switched on and off at will by other genes allows tools for specific desirable things to be developed finely in one species but then lie dormant to switch on in another when evolutionarily useful in conjunction with other tools.


    As for the bolded text: I wonder you can conclude something so strange? The case for evolution has become enormously stronger, with paths more clearly delineated, since we could add genetic sequencing and look at molecular mechanisms in more detaisl. Because of the genotype -> phenotype transformation - so incredibly complex - we are not exactly at an understand-it-all stage but we have so much better knowledge that we had 20 years ago.


    And it is wonderful. Truly a miracle and I'd expect everyone to look on the process with awe, as so much of the universe shows - the more closely you look at it the more wonderful it becomes.


    But I'd not expect open-minded scientists capable of reading up on the literature to make statements like "still have not been found to have any evolutionary steps".


    https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

    The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd

    Published: 20 October 2017

    Rcophth Eponymous Lecture

    I R Schwab

    Eye volume 32, pages302–313(2018)


    Just one little detail showing how by looking across species now, with genetic understanding and observing genetic diversity, we can see evolution in action:

    The visual photopigments in New World monkeys are not as consistent, and as a result, they illustrate visual photopigment evolution in progress. The Howler monkeys species (Alouatta seniculus and Alouatta caraya) are the only exceptions, although there maybe a second species following a similar path. Each animal has three predictable visual photopigments similar to those of the Old World monkeys and each is a trichromat. As in Old World monkeys, gene duplication at a relatively unstable locus formed the third visual pigment. That means that when New World and Old World monkeys separated, all were dichromats. As the opsins in the Howlers are similar to those in the Old World monkeys, this suggests that the genetic material (called polymorphisms) was present in both Old World and New World monkeys when they separated, but these genetic tools were not active in either group.61,66 At least three other species of New World monkeys are dichromats now but are developing a third active visual photopigment in some of their cones, suggesting that evolution is progressing toward trichromacy in these animals, too. The females of two diurnal lemurs (closely related to the Black and White Ruffed Lemur) have recently been found to have polymorphisms that would permit some individuals to have the visual photopigments required for

    trichromacy. This suggests that lemurs are ready to develop three visual photopigments and hence trichromacy, but this has not happened. This helps confirm that the different lineages of primates were dichromats when they diverged. Furthermore, the lack of trichromacy among lemurs suggests that competition has not yet demanded it. Trichromacy requires more than the necessary visual photopigments in the cones and cone concentration; the neurologic mechanisms to interpret and compare these signals must be in place as well. This adds further evidence to the principle that the eye (and other sensory mechanisms) drives the brain and not the reverse. Either the two must evolve in tandem, or the sensory mechanism evolves first and co-opts other neurologic machinery.6


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    expect open-minded scientists capable of reading up

    Palaeo origins 'science' is very suggestive

    because evolutionists have not found evidence of evolutionary steps with any confidence..

    " this suggests that the genetic material ...

    "suggesting that evolution is progressing "

    "this suggests that lemurs are ready to develop "

    "the lack of trichromacy among lemurs suggests that competition


    This passage is very typical of such suggestive science which cannot assign any statistical confidence number to its 'suggestivity"


    On the other hand using dated genetic sequences, the evolutionary steps of Covid 19 can be tracked by the day.

    and numerical confidence can be placed on the evolutionary step timing and nature.. This tracking is not suggestive,


    Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory about the mammalian eye..

    similar genetic sequences cannot be found since the main evolution of the eye is suggested

    to have occurred in the suggested Ordovician

    well before the suggested Jurassic period..

    Althought Mary Schweitzer has found some evidence of Jurassic dinosaur blood it is doubtful if ever these Ordovician sequences will ever be found

    because of the lability of DNA.... and proteins... because the Ordovician period is suggested to predate the suggested Jurassic by 100's of miilions. of years..


    The problem is not just with opsins but will all proteins. the proteome of the human eye amounts to over 11,000 proteins.


    Perhaps one may find some Ordovician DNA or RNA or opsin in the deceased estate of Michael Chrichton?

    This is only a suggestion.. If found the data sequence could be submitted to nextstrain.org..

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The one (contentious) claim that "it must be from a lab" has now been refuted.


    Nobody did say "must"! But you seem to believe your teacher since primary school as it looks like...


    During the last 10 years all bat virus have been extracted thanks to a large world wide project that resulted in 300'000 new virus found. Of course there are far less Pangoline virus as almost all Pangolines been eaten by our Chines friends.


    Unless you can show a clear evolutionary path for CoV-19 not just multiple opinions then please do stop your conspiracy meme.

    An advanced lab, today can reconstruct CoV-19 - thanks to crisper - in a few days starting with a similar virus.


    People should be aware what we can do today: Labs can synthesize any virus they like! And we have to enforce laws and even more important severe punishment (live long prison!) if these laws are violated.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    50 different vision mechanisms.. by 50 different routes.. does not rule out a Creator

    just as "50 different cameras "does not rule out human designers


    It is the comedy of the modern scientific mind. Imagine an alien comes to the earth and sees 50 different brands of cars, and says they all use similar but not the same layouts and systems (genetics). I can see there is a physical similarity in layout and structure, these cars must not imply there are human designers. I also believe they evolved from one to another or nature favors the creation of car layouts inherently.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That RECOVERY decsiion to stop treating with HCQ.


    For those like me nerdy enough to enjoy reading and contrasting all the comments here is another "in the pipeline" story. High quality open-minded comment,


    The Oxford RECOVERY trial apparently did not have the right protocol.. 11000 volunteers .. wow.(thanks to the Gates)

    At >>$50 per patient.. that's a lot of funding.


    From Jeanne Pierre K..

    " I have seen so much nonsense over the years, so that yes, I dare challenging scientists,

    even if they are from Oxford – a place where I thoroughly enjoyed studying

    but which is by no means always right, even if it’s often ranked as the #1 university in the world.'


    "We covered over 2 months ago how flawed the design of this research was.

    Yes it’s testing hydroxychloroquine, but not at an early stage, and not in combination with azithromycin and/or zinc.


    "How many deaths would have been avoided in this RECOVERY Oxford trial if they had adopted the right treatment protocol?

    We will never know for sure, but it’s easy to make an estimate on the basis of the differential in the above fatality rates among patients, and it’s pretty devastating.


    http://covexit.com/uk-recovery…atment-predictably-fails/

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.