2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 362.32

-1.8%

Nov 4 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

Pogeu Mahone

To: TobagoJack who wrote (152940)	2/3/2020 8:51:14 AM
From: Horgad	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 217542

All in IMHO: Some of the points of the paper are still valid even though they went overboard on the speculation. What they did was compare 2019-nCoV with its closest relatives, identify the differences, and then search a DB of viruses for those differences. Some of what they theorized was: 1. The differences were isolated to the virus spikes (this is the part of the virus that determines which cells the virus can stick too and infect and would be key part of a change needed for a cross specify jump and/or an increased infection rate) 2. The virus is too dissimilar genetically to its closest know relatives to have directly mutated into its current form from them (at least it would be a very, very low probability event). In other, words if not man-made there is a missing link or links in 2019-nCoV's evolutionary chain that have not been discovered yet. 3. This is where they go overboard in their speculation. The matches with the genetic differences that came up in the DB were mostly HIV-1. However there were others matches not mentioned in their article. And also not mentioned was the length of the RNA sequences being searched for (aka the differences) were fairly short making the probability of a coincidently match fairly high... That didn't go as far to say that 2019-nCoV was manmade. However they did insinuate strongly that given the above that this was the most likely origin. FWIW: I read the full paper, reviewed the database search results, and considered some counter arguments. The DB is publicly available here: blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Also worth considering, the paper was published by "legit" scientists willing to put their reputations and likely their careers on the line....

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next