Covid-19 News

On the argument about is SARS-CoV2 lab-made or not, I note contributions from W, Zeus and RB. This is a review of the dialectic (is that the right use of the word)?

Terminology: pro-lab argument (W, RB), pro-nature argument (Z, THH)

• W claims (pro-lab) that the virus is lab-made, and engineered from HIV and some other viruses (presumably bat coronaviruses).
• Zeus has been presenting the pro-natue arguments, easy to find in the literature because 99% of scientists agree, and also on the face of it pretty obvious.
• I have been asking for the pro-lab arguments, in a proper written form, so I can look up precise rebuttals from experts, rather than summaries from internet illuminati with known unusual views.
• RB has been liking W's posts, and commenting on posts from Zeus or me presenting the pro-nature view. RB's comments are not exactly criticisms of our posts, because they are elliptical and whimsical. RB picks up a little bit of what we say (not the main argument) and elaborates on it in a pro-lab way.

In this, I can't understand W's inability to either post science to justify his claims, or admit they were wrong. I also can't understand the point of RB's interesting points (not any of them). Is he just having fun, laughing at us for arguing a case that is obvious (pro-nature) with somone who will not listen to those arguments? Is he definitely of a pro-lab mind, but too canny to make direct arguments - since he can't find any? Or does he just think the main pro-lab / pro-nature arguments are boring and is trying to enliven the thread with these interesting but totally elliptical comments? Is he, just possibly, strongly on one side of the pro-vax, anti-vax arguments? I know those are entirely separate from pro-lab / anti-lab but there seems to be some kinship between anti-vax and pro-lab - I guess both could be viewed as conspiracy theories. So maybe being of an anti-vax disposition makes support for pro-lab more likely?

For example, RB quotes Felix Bast linking wikipedia on DNA teleportation, liked by Montagnier, and one of several evidences of M's general battiness and then recent interesting work on conductivity along DNA. Now the fact that DNA molecules con be conductive is not entirely surprising. It is a million miles from the idea that such conductivity (or some other mechanism) might mediate radio transmission and exact reception during DNA replication with the information in the transmitted DNA code preserved. Which is so far out as to be well outside the solar system.

PS - if I've misrepresented any part of the dialog here my apologies, just say and I'll edit this post.

THH

Come on Robert, a spool of copper wire is conductive, but it doesn't emit electromagnetic waves. A DNA repair mechanism using conduction is interesting, is hardly evidence of anything only a pre-requisite.

And whilst I've noticed the tendency for people who believe in one conspiracy to believe in every conspiracy under the sun, as if it were some kind of affliction, I'm almost certain that R'just keep your kids away from mine'B ain't an anti-vaxxer.

Quote from Zeus46

"What Montagnier called the “elements” of HIV were short cis-acting elements that scientists had discovered in the genome of coronaviruses in 2005. They are required for genome replication and are shared by many coronaviruses.

Typicall fox new argument. Have been detected ... but the new ones are not present... in all older virus. What is obvious as the new one binds 100x stronger as the old ones....

But we know the LENR forum trolls and their message to divert reality into conspiracy what of course is the only conspiracy.

Quote from Zeus46

Come on Robert, a spool of copper wire is conductive, but it doesn't emit electromagnetic waves. A DNA repair mechanism using conduction is interesting, is hardly evidence of anything only a pre-requisite.

The Montagner experiment uses sound waves that indirectly induce a field in water.

Quote from Zeus46

Among other causes, he has supported anti-vaxxers, homeopathy and a silly claim that DNA emits “electromagnetic waves”."

The only silly person are you that just repeats claims of people that try to divert research. Of course DNA can emit electromagnetic waves if you accept that photons are waves. Such research is cutting edge and only a few labs can do it. ETH Switzerland used this effect to find differences between Biological vegetables and conventional ones. And as expected the photon activity was lower in the conventional ones.

The interest to divert the field is very broad as the ruling mafia always tries to avoid that a new method will drain their income source.

Homeopathy is a very well working domain of medicine. Only the cricket brains of the mafia try to divert the public and at then the same time do believe they can silently develop a homeopatic chemo method to more efficiently fight cancer...Once you can make a big income of a method you first have to fight it to get its ownership.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In this, I can't understand W's inability to either post science to justify his claims, or admit they were wrong.

Why should I feed a troll identity ? A person that does just believe LENR is not real a person that strictly follows the codex of the (F,R,J,B) mafia? Do you also just believe that the paper of A Norwegian company now is less believable because the mafia forced a general to retract from the authors list?

Such games are the best confirmation that the science is showing the truth. The cricket brains of the (F,R,J,B) mafia are obviously not aware that in the age of information science their book of strategy has become open because we exactly know which people at what position are members of the mafia.

Quote from Zeus46

Come on Robert, a spool of copper wire is conductive, but it doesn't emit electromagnetic waves.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For example, RB links wikipedia on DNA teleportation,

Actually Felix Bast links teleportation..not me ... please correct that THH

. the idea that DNA emits em waves is not silly. what is needed is alternating current

whether the em waves are present.. and if present , what rang eof frequencies, weak or strong ...noise or signal.... is a matter of experiment

Zeus " but it doesn't emit electromagnetic waves." is a belief statement

there was a time when scientists believed that DNA didn't carry information genetic... because it was too simple...!!!!!!!

Never underestimate the complexity of the biologic...

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is a review of the dialectic

Re: dialectic There is no dialectic .. there is THH creating a dialectic.. the jury has not decided on Montagnier... its a preprint so far

but Zeus quoting Felix Bast on viral genetic is the blind being led by the the blind..

there are science writers like Bast... and....I think Jed's favourite...the guy who spoke to Ed Storm....

and then there are actual scientists who understand their field..

as I have said read the actual stuff

and then comment after reading it

https://osf.io/tgw2d/

I have read it.. and I can't find a simple statement on the probabilty of the natural mutation versus copy and paste.

only something on relative mutation rates.. so for me copy and paste its an interesting idea.. but its not convincing at the 95% LOC.

Re: THH's analytic ..I am dubious ever since his finding of Ascolian statistic as 'convincing' inter alia..

RB - I do appreciate your replies above. I've corrected the mistake in my post. We must agree to disagree over whether DNA teleportation is a silly idea or no. It helps if you have some idea of radio SNR, or common sense. The post re dialectic I asked for since I do not really know what dialectic means so may have used it wrong. LOL. But it is a good example of what I'm talking about RB's posts on this topic. Interesting, sort of consistent in critiquing me and Z, agreeing with W, but difficult to understand and not addressing the main points.

One thing that does make sense needs more comment:

Quote from RobertBryant

I have read it.. and I can't find a simple statement on the probabilty of the natural mutation versus copy and paste.

only something on relative mutation rates.. so for me copy and paste its an interesting idea.. but its not convincing at the 95% LOC.

The problem here is that copy and paste does not differentiate pro-lab vs pro-nature. Nature is good at copy and paste. It is called insertion (small bits) or recombination (large bits). People in labs are also good at it.

So discussion of probability of this while interesting is irrelevant to the pro-lab vs pro-nature debate.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why should I feed a troll identity ?

It is a good idea not feeding trolls. There may be a few here joining you in thinking I'm a troll. But not many, I'd bet, nor the moderators.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why should I feed a troll identity ? A person that does just believe LENR is not real a person that strictly follows the codex of the (F,R,J,B) mafia? Do you also just believe that the paper of A Norwegian company now is less believable because the mafia forced a general to retract from the authors list?

Such games are the best confirmation that the science is showing the truth. The cricket brains of the (F,R,J,B) mafia are obviously not aware that in the age of information science their book of strategy has become open because we exactly know which people at what position are members of the mafia.

I hear you W. This thread has become lame. Interest from good people is inversely correlated with lameness. Every time some legitimate data is posted, a pseudo-troll whips up some article from the fake-news media or attacks the other person.

The personal attacks are are the usual means of ending debate, both here and in the fake-news media. For example in this example, Montagnier is now painted as a controversial figure - because he supports discussions about vaccination, or electromagnetics applied to DNA.

How can any human being be involved in these sick topics! They should be attacked! It is sorcery, witchcraft! This is as old as time, and the people involved in this argumentation are no different than those who wanted Galileo imprisoned. Just because it is digital, just because you perceive yourself as "modern" does not make your actions anymore vile. There are some lemmings who take on the cause to charge others of heresy because they are indoctrinated and somewhat afraid of the unknown.  These are the intellectual middle managers. However, the top owners class wants to ridicule those involved in heresey not because of truth but because of their business model. The Catholic Church is also a business (it took them 1992-1616=376 years to pardon Galileo!). Vaccines, alternative health therapies and LENR are controversial (whatever you believe, about them which is another matter), because they challenge big business models. Hopefully, 376 years don't go by while we keep using heresy as a way to stop discussion and inquiry on things about LENR. That is why the forum owners need to be educated on bigger picture issues - and this forum is ripe to be driven into the ground by paid and unpaid intellectual middle managers.

In the real world, if someone started a discussion about electromagnetics and DNA - it would be a great conversation that would last days, without any name calling - we don't know everything about E&M - even an electron is up for grabs - how are we going to know everything about the how E&M applies to quantum chemistry? If that conversation happened in real life, it is hard for me to believe that NORMAL people would stop talking to a human being face to face midway through a conversation and say "let me check Google before we continue. " And then do a Google search to discredit the other person. Then say to the other person "this is not a valid line of thinking, Montagnier is a controversial figure as per Google, you believe in conspiracy theories, I must end this conversation.'

But online this is what people do. Paid or unpaid, these tactics by middle managers work - they manage the conversation and usually that means driving it into the ditch. It works. You will see the posts by good people become less and less. Unless there is a plausible serious intent for conversation and not management of the conversation, the value in posting will be less and less. Luckily, there are a few thought leaders here who I still come to listen to.

Heads up

D614G mutation.

Mutation Allows Coronavirus to Infect More Cells, Study Finds. Scientists Urge Caution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…ation-genetics-spike.html

Mutated coronavirus shows significant boost in infectivity

https://www.scripps.edu/news-a…virus-spike-mutation.html

Quote from oldguy

Mutated coronavirus shows significant boost in infectivity

Has been discussed in the Ebola case too and shown to have no overall inpact. But Ebola kills 30-50% of the people anyway.

In my view this (now most wide spread version of CoV-19) is very helpfull as only 1/10 of the virus amount will cause a deep immune reaction without initially overloading the immune system. This could be one reason why we here believe that already about 60% of the people are immune. (old classic corona + soft immune trigger with new).

We here - after end of lockdown - have passed three weeks with almost no safety among people and no more raise in cases. Should be impossible without immunity.

see first line with data scroll down: https://github.com/openZH/covi…ahlen_Kanton_ZH_total.csv

Quote from Navid

we don't know everything about E&M

Electromagnetism - at the level needed to understand and prove or disprove DNA teleportation - and at most other levels - is very very well understood and precise theory. Used everywhere in electronics, telecommunication, and many other areas. the theory and results exactly coincide.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Electromagnetism - at the level needed to understand and prove or disprove DNA teleportation - and at most other levels - is very very well understood and precise theory.

Such posts only do show that you did not watch the Montagner documentation and as usual do act as a troll. May be you just read/listen to Foxnews interpretations...

Montagner did not show any DNA teleportation. What has been transferred ( teleportation .... ) is the sound signal that induces the DAN structure. The method only demonstrates that the structure of water is able to transport basic signals that are "caused" by DNA. The induced = transported DNA was not perfect (what I remember its about 97%) but many many sigmas above random what it in fact should be!

This just points to possible interactions between DNA in a cell caused by external signals. And that is exactly what some folks would like to hide.

The mother of all experiments was to place some DNA into two adjoined probe glass cases where one contained real DNA the other case only the basic acids. After some time the acids started to reorganize and mirror the DNA. (Published in some lower grade conference journal.)

Quote from Alan Smith

Part of Beijing locked down again after a cluster of 50 Covid-19 cases were reported among staff and customers at a 'wet' market.

The source is apparently tracked down to imported salmon.

This will give real life to the new international Trump / Johnson move to increase trade barriers. China will do it too. Expect major restrictions on imports...

Quote from THHuxleynew

The source is apparently tracked down to imported salmon

This opens a complete new space!!

Under water virus propagation from Salmon to salmon....

China did lie since day 1! The north (110'000'000 people) has been locked down 3 week ago. It was only a matter of time when they could no longer cover Peking cases.

To make it short: They (the cricket brain party leaders) deserve no better! I hoped they will be grilled soon. Will Trump manage it to learn a new Chinese name?

Quote from THHuxleynew

So discussion of probability of this while interesting is irrelevant to the pro-lab vs pro-nature debate.

Probability is at the heart of the matter..THH..

just as it is with the Ascolian statisitcs you found so convincing.

Ascoli .. alleged Mizunoian insertion with unclear probabilty.... however the probablity of Rothwelllian truncation cooresponded with the actual mutation rate of the data.

Numbers ended that Ascolian -THH wordy foolishness.

You are implying without evidence thatt these two scenarios have comparablr probablities... this may be true.. or not.

Please power up your assertion with numbers rather than words.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is called insertion (small bits) or recombination (large bits).

Inesrtion? Recombination?

Rather than repeating defintions that I learned 50 years ago ....You might read the preprint... and look into mutation rates... whether these are likely to explain the Covid-19 code vairiations.

https://osf.io/tgw2d/

as welll as some more light reading.

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcent…es/10.1186/1471-2148-4-21

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0042682209007806

https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pbio.2006459

https://jvi.asm.org/content/84/19/9733

BTW Actually Felix Bast links teleportation..not me ...

I say..please edit that THH as you say here

"PS - if I've misrepresented any part of the dialog here my apologies, just say and I'll edit this post."

Some fairly recent items that should shake our confidence in Fauci/WHO/The"News"Media/NIH/CDC/FDA/AMA...

Firstly, a paper in Nature, usually quite pro-Establishment, on a subject normally derided as "conspiracy theory"

by pseudo-sophisticates --

"Continuous Exposure to 1.7GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence"

Excerpt: Due to the rapid development of mobile phone technology, we are continuously exposed to 1.7GHz LTE

radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), but their biological effects have not been clarified.

Here, we investigated the non-thermal cellular effects of these RF-EMFs on human cells ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65732-4.pdf

Secondly, might a simple exposure to some common cold viruses be superior to expensive, potentially hazardous vaccines?

"Some Forms of Common Cold May Give COVID-19 Immunity Lasting up to 17 Years, New Research Suggests"

https://www.sciencetimes.com/a…y-lasting-up-17-years.htm

"VIRUS BOOST This Morning’s Dr Philippa reveals common cold could give you immunity from coronavirus"

https://www.the-sun.com/news/9…old-immunity-coronavirus/

Third, a number of inexpensive, relatively safe drugs (and nutraceuticals) appear to be effective against Covid-19.

Why do Fauci and Establishment Medical Journals continually favor only high priced options?

For example, will Lancet or NEJM ever publish that a common veterinary drug (niclosamide) may be potently anti-Covid-19?

"Niclosamide Shows Efficacy Against COVID-19 In Animal Tests According To South Korean Pharmaceutical Giant Daewoong"

https://www.thailandmedical.ne…maceutical-giant-daewoong

"Identification of antiviral drug candidates against SARS-CoV-2 from FDA-approved drugs"

"... niclosamide, an anthelminthic drug, exhibited very potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 (IC50 = 0.28 µM)..."

https://aac.asm.org/content/early/2020/04/28/AAC.00819-20

Lastly, Big Medicine appears to quite subservient to Big Money --

"Big Pharma "Criminal" Influence On Research Exposed In Secret Recording Of Lancet And NEJM Editors-In-Chief"

https://www.zerohedge.com/mark…g-lancet-and-nejm-editors

Quote from RobertBryant

BTW Actually Felix Bast links teleportation..not me ...

I say..please edit that THH as you say here

"PS - if I've misrepresented any part of the dialog here my apologies, just say and I'll edit this post."

RB - can I suggest that you actually read the other posts in this thread, before repeating requests?

I acted on your original request to change my post.

Quote from RobertBryant

Probability is at the heart of the matter..THH..

RB - I try to give you credit for the ability to appraise other work. In this case I am struggling here to believe this, unless your posts here are rhetorical, designed to evoke a response rather than elucidate.

The context was this:

RB: I have read it.. and I can't find a simple statement on the probabilty of the natural mutation versus copy and paste.

THH: So discussion of probability of this while interesting is irrelevant to the pro-lab vs pro-nature debate.

You have omitted the context and mis-quoted me. How about we have a clear discussion of your argument?

My argument is that the specific copy and paste here was not likely lab invention, because it appears to come from two natural sources - Pangolin (RBD) bat (rest of genome). Of course there is so much natural copy and paste that there may be other matches. once a DNA sequence is out there, in a virus in one species, it can transfer to others in many ways as humans know to their cost.

No-one knew - until now - that the Pangolin RBD worked so well attacking human ACE cells.

Whereas many times in the past viruses have zipped from animals to humans. HIV itself, which seems to obsess W, is one such example.

The argument that "it could not have happened in nature - it is too unlikely and I can't see the precise mechanism" is a long-standing one. You will remember that the so-called creationists, now rebranded as intelligent design, who fought tooth and nail claiming that this or that link in evolution was impossibly unlikely. Only for future research to uncover links between mechanisms, species, mechanisms whereby phenotypic expression of traits could be switched on and off, all of which changes the apparently impossible into the very possible.

Were I to believe in a divine creator this, the marvel of evolution, would enhance my belief, with awe and wonder, not diminish it.

Anyway, the point on topic here is about probability. We humans suffer from a failure of imagination. We cannot imagine how a spoon-bender could do it, or that a pandemic could come like flu but such that elimination, rather than containment, is the most viable strategy to meet it, or how 100s of millions of years of evolution could develop the wonderful mammalian eye, or the equally wonderful but completely different insect compound eye. Intuition serves us poorly when reasoning about these unquantifiable probabilities.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

My argument is that the specific copy and paste here was not likely lab invention, because it appears to come from two natural sources - Pangolin (RBD) bat (rest of genome). Of course there is so much natural copy and paste that there may be other matches. once a DNA sequence is out there, in a virus in one species, it can transfer to others in many ways as humans know to their cost.

No-one : <only THH did not know!!> knew - until now - that the Pangolin RBD worked so well attacking human ACE cells.

The argument that "it could not have happened in nature - it is too unlikely and I can't see the precise mechanism" is a long-standing one. You will remember that the so-called creationists, now rebranded as intelligent design, who fought tooth and nail claiming that this or that link in evolution was impossibly unlikely. Only for future research to uncover links between mechanisms, species, mechanisms whereby phenotypic expression of traits could be switched on and off, all of which changes the apparently impossible into the very possible.

Here I just repeat the most obviously paid messages by the people hiding behind THH.

Quote from RobertBryant

Probability is at the heart of the matter..THH..

Nobody denies that mutations do happen naturally! But if they do happen then you should also see the intermediate steps - not all, but at least a few. If you don't see the intermediates then these mutations are lethal and the chain does stop. A good rule of estimate is that 1 out of 10 is a good mutation = enhanced fitness and 1 out of 10 is neutral. In average 8 mutations are lethal.

The average virus mutation rate is 1 a week. This means one acid changes what is tiny change only. Now we have a best match of 93%. A corona virus has about 30'000 base pairs https://books.google.ch/books?…22viral%20size%22&f=false thus 3% is 900 changes what takes 20 years if all changes just by luck happen at the expected places and are positive ones.

It is more than obvious that either the people behind the entity THH miss higher education or more likely they intentionally spread paid FUD to divert the forum readers.

As I said three times before: It's a chance once in the live time of the universe that this virus evolved naturally - but this can't be excluded ...

And one tip for Chinese CoV-19 "retrofitters": Don't forget to show the intermediate steps !

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Secondly, might a simple exposure to some common cold viruses be superior to expensive, potentially hazardous vaccines?

"Some Forms of Common Cold May Give COVID-19 Immunity Lasting up to 17 Years, New Research Suggests"

https://www.sciencetimes.com/a…y-lasting-up-17-years.htm

"VIRUS BOOST This Morning’s Dr Philippa reveals common cold could give you immunity from coronavirus"

https://www.the-sun.com/news/9…old-immunity-coronavirus/

Lou Pagnucco ! Thanks for doing the research! As a handicapped I highly estimate your help.

We here in Germany/Switzerland seem to be in a state close to herd immunity. Swiss children in average bring home one cold/week and now we are thankful we got all these small coughs that also, sometimes must have been of corona origin.

Most people I did talk with reported they had a strange cold that year, what we expect from a not perfectly matching immune response. This also explains why older people with less contact to our young spreaders see far more failures to CoV-19.

But this must be just Swiss/German luck as other countries do not have the same viral background load. I hope they understand and start to spread a soft version of classic corona!