OT: China's Satan Bug *is* man-made, says HIV discoverer

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 11:16:52 PM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 11:21:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:04:34 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 6:48:45 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:48:24 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

To put this in perspective, the research labs have been attempting HIV
DNA vaccines for at least 20 years that I know of. The DNA vaccine
inserts an HIV DNA sequence into a vector virus, like adenovirus seems
to be popular, and then uses the adenovirus to insert the DNA into the
vaccinated person's host cells. The host cells then express proteins
from the HIV DNA sequence the immune system can use to develop
antibodies and other responses. So this whole Chinese thing is a
non-story, stone age stuff.

So to cut a long story short, you agree it's man-made then, as per the
subject header. Glad we got there in the end!

No I don't agree it's manmade. The most likely scenario is they created the novel corona virus accidentally through recombination by injecting an impure lab animal with their vaccine corona virus.

An even more likely scenario is that the relevant Coid-19 sequence is merely coincidentally similar to the relevant HIV sequence, but that wouldn't suit Fred's daft conspiracy hypotheis that Covid-19 came from the Wuhan virus lab rather random genome drift.

I think they can rule that out as highly improbable based on the complexity of the sequence, its dissimilarity to any corona sequences, and its frequency of occurrence in the gene pool.

If you want to do that, you have tell us how long the sequence is, and how frequently it does show up elsewhere in the gene pool.

You should be able to post the sequence, or a least a link to a web-site where it can be inspected.

Anything short of that is idle pontification, and you should know it.

Right, right, right. I have an email into Luc Montagnier requesting that information. This way I can increase the number of people wasting their time on satisfying your compulsion for time wasting arguments.

snip

Here's a similar circumstantial finding as to why the novel virus probably did not originate in a lab, but it does make certain assumptions about the competence of the Chinese researchers.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

And what do you think they are?

I think it was bunch of unsupervised grad students fucking off in the lab.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 12:54:44 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 11:16:52 PM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 11:21:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 10:04:34 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 6:48:45 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:48:24 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

<snip>

I think they can rule that out as highly improbable based on the complexity of the sequence, its dissimilarity to any corona sequences, and its frequency of occurrence in the gene pool.

If you want to do that, you have tell us how long the sequence is, and how frequently it does show up elsewhere in the gene pool.

You should be able to post the sequence, or a least a link to a web-site where it can be inspected.

Anything short of that is idle pontification, and you should know it.

Right, right, right. I have an email into Luc Montagnier requesting that information. This way I can increase the number of people wasting their time on satisfying your compulsion for time wasting arguments.

Getting a persuasive and properly documented argument together does take time.

If you can get a direct line to divine inspiration - or think you can - you might want to skip that process, but the people who think they are divinely inspired are mostly out of their minds.

<snip>

Here's a similar circumstantial finding as to why the novel virus probably did not originate in a lab, but it does make certain assumptions about the competence of the Chinese researchers.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

And what do you think they are?

I think it was bunch of unsupervised grad students fucking off in the lab.

That isn't the kind of competence talked about in the paper.

Back when I was a graduate student, that kind of irresponsible idiocy was pretty thin on the ground, and would have been career-wrecking if it had got noticed.

Every graduate student has a supervisor (though it isn't always easy to get their attention).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 07:54:39 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

Right, right, right. I have an email into Luc Montagnier requesting that
information. This way I can increase the number of people wasting their
time on satisfying your compulsion for time wasting arguments.

Neither you nor anyone else will *ever* satisfy his compulsion for time-
wasting arguments.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 6:05:48 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 07:54:39 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

Right, right, right. I have an email into Luc Montagnier requesting that
information. This way I can increase the number of people wasting their
time on satisfying your compulsion for time wasting arguments.

Neither you nor anyone else will *ever* satisfy his compulsion for time-
wasting arguments.

Cursitor Doom doesn't have clue what might constitute a persuasive argument, and wouldn't pay any attention to one if he was exposed to it.

Anything that doesn't get him - and his right-wing lunacies - the attention that he feels they deserve is a waste of time from his point of view.

Putting a persuasive and properly documented argument together does take time.

Our soap-box orators can't see the point, any more than they could follow the arguments if they were obliged to take them seriously (for which they lack the attention span).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney