TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 103 of 122 FirstFirst ... 35358636873788388939899100101102103104105106107108113118 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,575 of 3041

Thread: ☣ Coronavirus ☣

  1. #2551
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    Uh, did you just say that you approve of the DNC killing 400K people with a bioweapon as long as it "hurts the republicans" in some way?

    That is the context here...
    Obamacare is a bioweapon in what deluded fools mind? Yours? It's a badge of honor for any thinking person to have you chime in against them. Thanks. Or were you trying to link anything I said with your looney tunes conspiracy theories? I hadn't said a thing against those. I didn't have to.

  2. #2552
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Obamacare is a bioweapon in what deluded fools mind? Yours? It's a badge of honor for any thinking person to have you chime in against them. Thanks. Or were you trying to link anything I said with your looney tunes conspiracy theories? I hadn't said a thing against those. I didn't have to.
    Obamacare sub-topic was in relation to "why would the DNC try to eliminate (kill 400k) people with pre-existing conditions"?

    Obamacare itself is milquetoast. It is what you get when you have a bunch of "Ronald Reagans" pretend to care about "progressive ideals" but
    then let HMO corporations write your laws for you. It is good in spirit but in execution it is barely more than another form of corporate welfare
    and it was financially insolvent.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...eddie_mac.html

  3. #2553
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    The ACA specifically forbids refusal of insurance to people with preexisting conditions, meaning it would save the 400,000 people you claim it targeted. Are you wrong or lying?

    It's like you are daring the ban-hammer to strike and thus prove the validity of your wettest, wildest fantasies.

  4. #2554
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    It is good in spirit but in execution it is barely more than another form of corporate welfare
    and it was financially insolvent.
    So? If you want capitalism you get capitalism with a sugar veil of "values"
    Problem is: people want capitalism to dream (but ultimately fail) about richness.

    So every solution is not a solution 'cause "wealth" assumes someone is poor as a benchmark and a necessary result of your own success (and if you fail you must have a "culprit" to point to, the classic scapegoat.....and "big corporations" are a of course not "good" but they can be a very good scapegoat).
    Last edited by lowenz; 21st Jun 2020 at 05:05.

  5. #2555
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    The ACA specifically forbids refusal of insurance to people with preexisting conditions, meaning it would save the 400,000 people you claim it targeted. Are you wrong or lying?

    It's like you are daring the ban-hammer to strike and thus prove the validity of your wettest, wildest fantasies.
    First, how is speculating about the motives to the DNC "lying"?

    Second: How much money would the HMO industry save if most of the pre-existing conditions folks were simply "gone".
    They can then simultaneously say they have a "compassionate policy" while still earning billions.

    Just like Nike claims to support social justice causes but simultaneously employs sweatshop workers, this would be pinkwashing on a grand-scale.

    Obviously, the HMO industry would prefer that the populace simply be for free-market solutions but they cannot figure out a way
    to deny coverage to those who can't afford it. Their next best option is to have health insurance be mandatory by the government similar
    to auto-insurance. Their worst nightmare is the "government option" that the progressives extol and that most of the DNC base wants.

    So Obamacare is largely a that type of middle-ground. It makes the HMO industry happy because they are always guaranteed compensation from
    the entire US populace.

    If we had wisdom in the US, there would never be private Health Care businesses and there would never be private profit based Utilities (electricity, water, etc).
    Some things are simply too critical to infrastructure to be left to "free market" forces.
    Allowing free market companies to design policies and make it law that you "must pay for their services" is a next level of foolishness above that.

  6. #2556
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    If we had wisdom in the US, there would never be private Health Care businesses and there would never be private profit based Utilities (electricity, water, etc).
    Some things are simply too critical to infrastructure to be left to "free market" forces.
    Allowing free market companies to design policies and make it law that you "must pay for their services" is a next level of foolishness above that.
    A "non-US" US

    It's simply impossibile, the US "civilisation" *IS* that experiment, by design (oh wait, Army apart )

    The "free market" solution is simple: everyone who cares about his (or others) HC must work his career out in those HC companies and try to make the desidered changes according to the money balance (that's the only hard constraint) and power groups interests. Best wishes
    Don't ask me if I find this (really theoretical) solution ridiculous (I do), but that's the "market" way.
    Last edited by lowenz; 21st Jun 2020 at 10:42.

  7. #2557
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    "First, how is speculating about the motives to the DNC "lying"?
    When you stated it as a fact and then used that "fact" to strawman another person on this forum. You can assert it was just a speculation but that is asking me to both read and parse everything you post, combing it for nits of nuance. That is a colossal imposition which, owing to my advanced years, I decline to accept.

  8. #2558
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    Obamacare sub-topic was in relation to "why would the DNC try to eliminate (kill 400k) people with pre-existing conditions"?

    Obamacare itself is milquetoast. It is what you get when you have a bunch of "Ronald Reagans" pretend to care about "progressive ideals" but
    then let HMO corporations write your laws for you. It is good in spirit but in execution it is barely more than another form of corporate welfare
    and it was financially insolvent.
    How is it that you don't understand that just stating things willy nilly does not make them so? The DNC ISN'T trying to eleminate pre-existing conditions. Obamacare DOES work well and I told you from first hand bill paying experience. Obamacare ISN'T financially insolvent (despite attempts by Republicans to make it so) and corporate welfare is a BS term for corporations to shirk their fair share of taxes at least in how you used it. Just saying the moon is made of cheese does not make it so. WTF dude? Do you just say things because you think they sound cool? Well they don't even do that.

  9. #2559
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    Did you forget about CRISPR?

    We currently can:

    1) Identify a cancer causing gene.
    2) Use CRISPR to modify a virus to remove this gene from infected humans
    3) Use CRISPR to modify the virus to die once these tasks are complete

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virotherapy
    I used to work in actual gene engineering and understand this topic in great depth.
    CRISPR is mostly good for knock-out (inactivation / attenuation of an existing gene) by introducing indels (insertion / deletions) in the middle of gene's coding sequences by breaking the strand with CRISPR, and then relying on a DNA repair mechanism called non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which is not very precise and hence results in either insertion or deletion of a few nucleotides. It is possible to do knock-ins (introduction of a new gene, or alteration of an existing one) with CRISPR, but it is very difficult and gets increasingly more difficult with the length or insertion difficulty of the sequence you want to insert at. Most notably, if you want to genetically engineer something in a stable and predictable way (you know, to be useful for ANYTHING AT ALL), then you need to typically use positive and negative selection cassettes (cassette in this context is basically a sequence of DNA which contains several components for performing a function - in this case, expressing a protein).

    What are these? Positive selection uses cDNA (gene with intronic sequences removed - just has the coding regions) of a gene which allows survival when a toxic agent is incubated with your material of interest (usually an antibiotic of some kind). A typical example is a Neo cassette , which confers resistance to neomycin. Add neomycin to the medium and boom! Only units with your transgene inserted are able to survive. This brings to negative selection. Here you have a cassette which is in your vector (sequence being used to knock the gene in) but outside of your transgene, hence it will only be in the final unit's DNA if the transgene didn't insert correctly. An example of this would be a TK (thymidine kinase from herpes simplex) cassette. This means that you can add something like gancyclovir to the medium and anything which survived the Neomycin due to having the transgene, but with a random insertion containing the TK cassette, will die. Leaving you (ideally) with just the material which has your transgene of interest, correctly inserted. These cassettes are usually flanked with sites like LoxP or FRT so that they can be excised later by incubation with Cre (excises sequence between LoxP) or FLP (excises sequences between FRT). Obviously none of this applies to an RNA virus, but the techniques remain the same, as it is the only way we know how to do it.

    But so what?

    What this means is that genetic manipulation leaves a fuck tonne of exogenous sequences littered throughout the final material. This is why we can be so sure that COVID-19 is not engineered - there is zero evidence of any engineering sequences in the virus. There are only sequences from existing strains of coronaviruses, plus some mutations in the known mutation-susceptible regions of coronaviruses. The best current theory is that from a very sustained repository of coronaviruses in the bat population, it transferred to pangolins in wildlife markets, and then to humans, where it most likely mutated again to confer it's current hyper-virulence. This is something viruses do.

    The idea that it's engineered because "wow it's so spicy" is intellectually empty, and is a basic argument from incredulity.
    I hope that was interesting to some of you, but I assume that it won't land anywhere with nbohr, as I'm obviously an agent of the deep state.

    I'm off to go and claim my fancy website as payment now.
    Last edited by faetal; 21st Jun 2020 at 22:32.

  10. #2560
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I used to work in actual gene engineering and understand this topic in great depth.
    CRISPR is mostly good for knock-out (inactivation / attenuation of an existing gene) by introducing indels (insertion / deletions) in the middle of gene's coding sequences by breaking the strand with CRISPR, and then relying on a DNA repair mechanism called non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which is not very precise and hence results in either insertion or deletion of a few nucleotides. It is possible to do knock-ins (introduction of a new gene, or alteration of an existing one) with CRISPR, but it is very difficult and gets increasingly more difficult with the length or insertion difficulty of the sequence you want to insert at. Most notably, if you want to genetically engineer something in a stable and predictable way (you know, to be useful for ANYTHING AT ALL), then you need to typically use positive and negative selection cassettes (cassette in this context is basically a sequence of DNA which contains several components for performing a function - in this case, expressing a protein).

    What are these? Positive selection uses cDNA (gene with intronic sequences removed - just has the coding regions) of a gene which allows survival when a toxic agent is incubated with your material of interest (usually an antibiotic of some kind). A typical example is a Neo cassette , which confers resistance to neomycin. Add neomycin to the medium and boom! Only units with your transgene inserted are able to survive. This brings to negative selection. Here you have a cassette which is in your vector (sequence being used to knock the gene in) but outside of your transgene, hence it will only be in the final unit's DNA if the transgene didn't insert correctly. An example of this would be a TK (thymidine kinase from herpes simplex) cassette. This means that you can add something like gancyclovir to the medium and anything which survived the Neomycin due to having the transgene, but with a random insertion containing the TK cassette, will die. Leaving you (ideally) with just the material which has your transgene of interest, correctly inserted. These cassettes are usually flanked with sites like LoxP or FRT so that they can be excised later by incubation with Cre (excises sequence between LoxP) or FLP (excises sequences between FRT). Obviously none of this applies to an RNA virus, but the techniques remain the same, as it is the only way we know how to do it.

    But so what?

    What this means is that genetic manipulation leaves a fuck tonne of exogenous sequences littered throughout the final material. This is why we can be so sure that COVID-19 is not engineered - there is zero evidence of any engineering sequences in the virus. There are only sequences from existing strains of coronaviruses, plus some mutations in the known mutation-susceptible regions of coronaviruses. The best current theory is that from a very sustained repository of coronaviruses in the bat population, it transferred to pangolins in wildlife markets, and then to humans, where it most likely mutated again to confer it's current hyper-virulence. This is something viruses do.

    The idea that it's engineered because "wow it's so spicy" is intellectually empty, and is a basic argument from incredulity.
    I hope that was interesting to some of you, but I assume that it won't land anywhere with nbohr, as I'm obviously an agent of the deep state.

    I'm off to go and claim my fancy website as payment now.
    To begin, I rather liked your technical dissection of what using CRISPR to engineer looks like. Thank you.

    That said, all this tells me is that you know the ways that a bio-engineer would look for signs of CRISPR engineering in a sample.

    If you were in a clandestine state-sponsored bioweapon program, you would know that other countries and the outside scientific community would
    use these measures to identify your work so you would do your best to minimize or avoid the detection.

    For example, you might release many different strains of the infection:

    https://www.foxnews.com/science/coro...ns-study-finds

    so that there is plausible deniability if any engineered versions are found:

    "Why is your lab the only one who found these manipulations? I think you are cranks or have ulterior motives."

  11. #2561
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    So there we have it: the most productive thing in this thread's recent history is faetal's breakdown of how gene editing works with CRISPR. Thanks for that, it made for an educational read.

  12. #2562
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    To begin, I rather liked your technical dissection of what using CRISPR to engineer looks like. Thank you.

    That said, all this tells me is that you know the ways that a bio-engineer would look for signs of CRISPR engineering in a sample.

    If you were in a clandestine state-sponsored bioweapon program, you would know that other countries and the outside scientific community would
    use these measures to identify your work so you would do your best to minimize or avoid the detection.

    For example, you might release many different strains of the infection:

    https://www.foxnews.com/science/coro...ns-study-finds

    so that there is plausible deniability if any engineered versions are found:

    "Why is your lab the only one who found these manipulations? I think you are cranks or have ulterior motives."
    So you're saying they

    1. Discovered SARS-CoV-2
    2. Decided to bio-engineer additional viruses just like it to be able to gaslight certain researchers at random
    3. Infected the entire goddamn world to somehow benefit their own country
    4. ???
    5. Profit

  13. #2563
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    So there we have it: the most productive thing in this thread's recent history is faetal's breakdown of how gene editing works with CRISPR. Thanks for that, it made for an educational read.
    Just to clarify, this is how you validate proper insertion of a knock-in, which CRISPR is not very good at. Usually you'd use homologous recombination (HR) instead (insertion of a sequence with regions complementary to an endogenous sequence, such that it integrates into the DNA during normal replication & repair). CRISPR is being touted as the most amazing thing since sliced bread, but it has major limitations. The aforementioned reliance on NHEJ mediated repair after DNA strand breaks makes it incredibly technically challenging to do any kind of knock-in, with an absolute ceiling on what is practical which is way lower than with HR, plus CRISPR sequence specificity is determined by short guide RNA molecules which can usually bind at numerous different sequences with a host's DNA, meaning you tend to get a lot of off-target indels, as well as the ones you intended. This can be mitigated by using mutant variants of CRISPR such as nickases (only break one DNA strand rather than 2, meaning you can use 2 guide RNAs for your site of interest, dramatically reducing the chance of off-targets), but nickases may not function as efficiently and you can still get off-target effects, just in lower numbers. Still not great when ANY off-target effects can break your experiment, and the only way to determine if you have them is sequencing the entire genome (costly, time-consuming, not guaranteed to give a definitive answer).

    nbohr's post is not worth the keystrokes honestly. A ham-fisted god of the gaps deflection and a fox news link?


  14. #2564
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Okay, let's assume for a moment that the virus really is a bioweapon -- you'd have to wonder who's all in on this. Who has been downplaying the threat? Who has mocked the idea of wearing masks and made it a political issue? Who has pushed for reopening as soon as possible and letting the virus do its work? Who has tried to pack in-door arenas full of shouting unprotected people in what seems like an attempt almost engineered to spread the virus as best as possible?
    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Jun 2020 at 04:47.

  15. #2565
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Also, it's pretty weird that whoever engineered this virus is engineering it in exactly the way that coronaviruses were expected to mutate back in 2007 following investigation of the SARS outbreak.

    "Quick guys, if we don't double time it to engineer these coronaviruses to be hyper-virulent, nature might beat us to it!"

  16. #2566
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Just to clarify, this is how you validate proper insertion of a knock-in, which CRISPR is not very good at. Usually you'd use homologous recombination (HR) instead (insertion of a sequence with regions complementary to an endogenous sequence, such that it integrates into the DNA during normal replication & repair). CRISPR is being touted as the most amazing thing since sliced bread, but it has major limitations. The aforementioned reliance on NHEJ mediated repair after DNA strand breaks makes it incredibly technically challenging to do any kind of knock-in, with an absolute ceiling on what is practical which is way lower than with HR, plus CRISPR sequence specificity is determined by short guide RNA molecules which can usually bind at numerous different sequences with a host's DNA, meaning you tend to get a lot of off-target indels, as well as the ones you intended. This can be mitigated by using mutant variants of CRISPR such as nickases (only break one DNA strand rather than 2, meaning you can use 2 guide RNAs for your site of interest, dramatically reducing the chance of off-targets), but nickases may not function as efficiently and you can still get off-target effects, just in lower numbers. Still not great when ANY off-target effects can break your experiment, and the only way to determine if you have them is sequencing the entire genome (costly, time-consuming, not guaranteed to give a definitive answer).
    Thank you. So I get that you'd really want to use CRISPR mostly for knock-outs because of these limitations, and if you want to try inserting something instead, there's a more effective way to do it - I assume those ways also end up with identifiers like this (first google hit, sorry if this is invalid) that for example make use of statistical modelling to identify incongruence in the phylogenetic trees.

    And yeah, don't waste your keystrokes. I mean, it's bad enough having to really explain CRISPR to someone who then proceeds to ignore the majority of it, let alone dealing with them waving around mutation as evidence of bioengineered strains.

  17. #2567
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Also, it's pretty weird that whoever engineered this virus is engineering it in exactly the way that coronaviruses were expected to mutate back in 2007 following investigation of the SARS outbreak.

    "Quick guys, if we don't double time it to engineer these coronaviruses to be hyper-virulent, nature might beat us to it!"
    That Deep Nature asshole ruining our Deep Loved State fearmongering plans!

  18. #2568
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeshibu View Post
    So you're saying they

    1. Discovered SARS-CoV-2
    2. Decided to bio-engineer additional viruses just like it to be able to gaslight certain researchers at random
    3. Infected the entire goddamn world to somehow benefit their own country
    4. ???
    5. Profit
    2) They only need to engineer 1 bioweapon. Labs have old stock of SARS variants available for deployment.

    3) The entire world is coordinating to get the TPP and other multi-national "treaties" enacted so that "multi-national" corporations can be the penultimate
    power brokers. Trump (and whoever is backing him) are standing against this process. Lots of MONEY and POWER shift when the TPP happens.

  19. #2569
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Thank you. So I get that you'd really want to use CRISPR mostly for knock-outs because of these limitations, and if you want to try inserting something instead, there's a more effective way to do it - I assume those ways also end up with identifiers like this (first google hit, sorry if this is invalid) that for example make use of statistical modelling to identify incongruence in the phylogenetic trees.

    And yeah, don't waste your keystrokes. I mean, it's bad enough having to really explain CRISPR to someone who then proceeds to ignore the majority of it, let alone dealing with them waving around mutation as evidence of bioengineered strains.
    That's how you'd ID HR arising from non-engineered sources. For engineered, it's much easier. You design PCR primers which straddle the intersection between the endogenous DNA and your insert at both ends of your insert, then look for the amplification of fragments at molecular weight you would expect, based on whatever enzymes you've chopped your DNA up with. You can also do some primers in the middle of the sequence to to see if you've lost any of your sequence during recombination, but these days, it's getting cheap and quick enough just to sequence the transgene plus several hundred base pairs of the host DNA either side to confirm the correct insertion and lack of spontaneous mutation. The positive and negative selection steps are mostly just to filter out non-useful material.

  20. #2570
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    2) They only need to engineer 1 bioweapon. Labs have old stock of SARS variants available for deployment.

    3) The entire world is coordinating to get the TPP and other multi-national "treaties" enacted so that "multi-national" corporations can be the penultimate
    power brokers. Trump (and whoever is backing him) are standing against this process. Lots of MONEY and POWER shift when the TPP happens.
    Why engineer anything then, if they had a dangerous natural variant ready to go?

    And what cover does coronavirus give the new TPP? News media hasn't shut down, the internet hasn't shut down.

  21. #2571
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Firsti thing first, why use a virus when you have anthrax.

  22. #2572
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeshibu View Post
    Why engineer anything then, if they had a dangerous natural variant ready to go?

    And what cover does coronavirus give the new TPP? News media hasn't shut down, the internet hasn't shut down.
    The objective is clear:

    1) Destroy Trump's economic influence
    2) Find ways to blame Trump for the spread of Covid
    3) Blame Trump for "Racism in the USA"

    Once they carry out all these objectives and have swayed enough of the USA to agree on these points, the when Biden brings the TPP
    back anyone who apposes the TPP will be a "racist Trump supporter".

    The engineered variant will be the dangerous variant. The other SARS releases will be less threatening. This is a controlled burn.

  23. #2573
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    Firsti thing first, why use a virus when you have anthrax.
    The attack must look natural at all costs and must be controlled.

    They need to use the news media to constantly criticize the Trump administration for it's response to Covid.

    An anthrax attack would clue people in on the fact that this was planned and would bolster Trump because people gravitate toward right-wing figures in the face of terrorism.

  24. #2574
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by nbohr1more View Post
    The attack must look natural at all costs and must be controlled.
    Yeah, ALL this with the nut heads (forgive me nbohr ) on Reddit, 4chan, and others conspiracy coves screaming H24 "It's a weapon, it's a weapon!!1111 There's a plan behind this!!111" since the first infected.

    You know that the city most hit in Europe was Bergamo and its mayor is a "libtard leftist" hated by our local Alt-Right activists (together with "cultural marxist" Milan mayor) ?
    So why attack Trump in US and those "damn libtard leftists" here?

    IT's A MORE COMPLICATED PLAN!!1111 (jack of all trades answer)
    Last edited by lowenz; 22nd Jun 2020 at 13:41.

  25. #2575
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    Yeah, ALL this with the nut heads (forgive me nbohr ) on Reddit, 4chan, and others conspiracy coves screaming H24 "It's a weapon, it's a weapon!!1111 There's a plan behind this!!111" since the first infected.

    You know that the city most hit in Europe was Bergamo and its mayor is a "libtard leftist" hated by our local Alt-Right activists (together with "cultural marxist" Milan mayor) ?
    So why attack Trump in US and those "damn libtard leftists" here?

    IT's A MORE COMPLICATED PLAN!!1111 (jack of all trades answer)
    Bergamo == G7 Summit:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jqYfQhH3Y

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_G7_summit

    G7 leaders are almost all aligned to TPP...

Page 103 of 122 FirstFirst ... 35358636873788388939899100101102103104105106107108113118 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •