|
reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 10:42 PM by Peter Brake
|
reply to post by retroviralsounds
Okay I read about this, the virus is mutating at about the maximum that it can. If the virus has a range of genes to choose from and an increased
ability to collect these genes then it has a increased range of mutations with which to successfully survive our immune system.
A greater range of mutated viruses means more survive and we have a greater chance for them to become more lethal.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 08:59 AM by jcrash
|
I can understand your frustration, Retroviral. After having invested so much of your time and money in "science" and more importantly, a degree,
you refuse to look at this issue from any other perspective.
I am not attacking "science" when I say that this whole swine flu vaccine business is for the purpose of a genocide. I could give a rat's butt
about squalene and mercury and autism in kids (although I'm sure there probably is a link). It is NOT about questioning science (but why shouldn't
I question science - isn't that what good science is, to question the assumptions of the day for the "betterment of mankind and line one's pockets
all at the same time?), it IS about political and economic issues and controlling the population.
Resorting to "appeals to authority" are not good logic. I don't trust the CDC one bit. If they were the military, I don't think anyone would
think it strange to question them...
Anyway, to answer your ?
"What if, swine flu was engineered to wipe out all who do not get the vaccination?
All of you gov't conspirators, ignorant, conservative americans who refuse the vaccine are completely and totally wiped out basically because of your
own ignorance and disregard for scientific fact."
According to govt surveys (sorry don't have the link), the hardcore antivaccine population is around 15%. This would not be enough for them.
But more importantly, it doesn't attack the right population demographic to lead to a drastic, "sustainable" population level. To reduce the
population to their desired levels, the reproductive and kids would have to be targeted to fix their "neo-malthusian" problems.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:10 PM by marg6043
|
reply to post by Peter Brake
Interesting concept, I guess that with the squalene in the vaccine destroying the body autoimmune system things can be possible, but we are humans and
our genetic makeover while similar as humans we tend to have groups in the population that could be more susceptible to gene mutations than others.
Like is people that are immune to some things and others are not.
Something happening like you said will be like a lotto no everybody is a winner.
Is more losers than winners so I don't think that mass depopulation is what the government wants, but creating more virus that can mutate every year
to keep the profits coming from new vaccine year around is more productive for them.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:24 PM by bonzye
|
Your a scientist. Shouldn't you let people have there own Opinion/theory? Great work Bill Nye.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:25 PM by Peter Brake
|
reply to post by marg6043
Just to be clear the mutation I am talking about is to the makeup of the flu virus. Our immune system is attacking the virus which is mutating itself
trying to keep ahead of our defences.
You are right though that an increase in virus mutations will kill many and continue to do so. Biotech scientists have created themselves a job
continuously fighting mutations that they themselves are causing. While the rest of us pay for the medicines, get sick and die.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:00 PM by retroviralsounds
|
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by marg6043
Just to be clear the mutation I am talking about is to the makeup of the flu virus. Our immune system is attacking the virus which is mutating itself
trying to keep ahead of our defences.
You are right though that an increase in virus mutations will kill many and continue to do so. Biotech scientists have created themselves a job
continuously fighting mutations that they themselves are causing. While the rest of us pay for the medicines, get sick and die.
Not quite. We aren't creating the mutations any faster than the virus can create them itself. Everytime it infects someone, its going to change.
Period. We as biotech scientist, aim to model and study these viruses in an attempt to understand and possibly predict these mutations but we are not
causing them by any means. You can safely say an RNA virus 'has a mind of its own'.
And I don't have any problem with anyone not getting the vaccine, I'm not going to get it myself... I don't feel the need to. But the logic behind
why you are not getting the vaccine is completely flawed. Gov't conspiracies? I think not. I think the govt has far better things to be spending
billions of dollars on right now in a time of economic peril than creating a vast conspiracy regarding a potentially lethal virus.
Mark my words, star this thread, because come January/ February you will see that we scientists are in fact right, and that yes, you probably
should've gotten the vaccine.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:40 PM by SoLittleTimeToRead
|
Wait, Wait!!
You said this:
We are dealing with a virus, an RNA virus which basically means it follows absolutely no pattern for genetic mutations of anytype...
Every time the bug infects someone, its going to mutate. This is shown through serial passages of the flu into animals over and over and over and over
and over again... you can actually watch the virus become stronger and stronger each time it is passed through another animal.
Then you said this:
That is why I care if you guys get the vaccine, because it only takes a handfull of people, to pass the bug around, giving it time in vivo to
accumulate genetic changes, and possibly spawn a super flu, which there would be absolutely no vaccine for.
Then you said this:
And I don't have any problem with anyone not getting the vaccine, I'm not going to get it myself... I don't feel the need to.
Why don't you feel the need to get the shot if you think it's going to possibly mutate into a "super flu"? Why aren't you, being a scientist who
has spent his college and career life, one of the first in line to receive this shot? Aren't you a responsible representative of the very industry
you get your paycheck from?
Especially since you say this:
Mark my words, star this thread, because come January/ February you will see that we scientists are in fact right, and that yes, you probably
should've gotten the vaccine.
Will you be one of US who will be wishing that you should have gotten the vaccine?
Please explain your position here a little better. I don't understand where you are coming from.
[edit on 28-10-2009 by SoLittleTimeToRead]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:48 PM by Peter Brake
|
Originally posted by retroviralsounds
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by marg6043
Not quite. We aren't creating the mutations any faster than the virus can create them itself. Everytime it infects someone, its going to change.
Period. We as biotech scientist, aim to model and study these viruses in an attempt to understand and possibly predict these mutations but we are not
causing them by any means. You can safely say an RNA virus 'has a mind of its own'.
Mercury is included in the vaccine for swine flu. This is a heavy metal are you saying that you know that this type of heavy metal does not increase
gene transfer? For a mutated virus to survive it must have an advantage as it is effectively competing with the existing swine flu and must survive
long enough to be spread to the next victum.
So the virus is their with a variety of opportunities to mutate in differant directions, has the boost from the heavy metals increased, the possible
variants?
Biotech scientists use antibiotics to lower the species barrier in their attempts to insert foreign genes for genetically modified organisms. The
transgene in the organism has been shown to be more available for a virus to mutate from. Are you saying that a more available gene is of no use to a
mutating virus?
Do you agree that antibiotics help organisms to mutate? Do you know of any that have been banned from human use? I haven't I think these same
antibiotics are being given to people with the swine flu & complications. Whose responsibility is it to inform the health authorities of this?
My thought on this is that yes you have increased the speed of the virus mutating, in that you have increased it's survival chances by offering
antibiotics which increases gene availability,
GMO's for the same reason
and injected mercury into our bodies again giving the virus more chances of finding a gene which it can use to mutate.
If the virus is working on three differant mutations, it has three times as many chances of succeeding the strongest being the one that is passed on.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 06:57 PM by retroviralsounds
|
Because I live an organic lifestyle, which is far harder to try to convince people to adopt than a shot.
I dont take antibiotics, I dont take vaccines (unless necessary for work)... I don't even take tylenol.
How many times have I been legitimately sick in my lifetime? Twice. And I'm pretty sure I've already had a mild case of H1N1, since I'm here
talking to you today, I have more immunity built up to the virus than the vaccine can convey, hence, no need for me to get the vaccine.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:02 PM by retroviralsounds
|
Originally posted by Peter Brake
Originally posted by retroviralsounds
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by marg6043
Not quite. We aren't creating the mutations any faster than the virus can create them itself. Everytime it infects someone, its going to change.
Period. We as biotech scientist, aim to model and study these viruses in an attempt to understand and possibly predict these mutations but we are not
causing them by any means. You can safely say an RNA virus 'has a mind of its own'.
Mercury is included in the vaccine for swine flu. This is a heavy metal are you saying that you know that this type of heavy metal does not increase
gene transfer? For a mutated virus to survive it must have an advantage as it is effectively competing with the existing swine flu and must survive
long enough to be spread to the next victum.
So the virus is their with a variety of opportunities to mutate in differant directions, has the boost from the heavy metals increased, the possible
variants?
Biotech scientists use antibiotics to lower the species barrier in their attempts to insert foreign genes for genetically modified organisms. The
transgene in the organism has been shown to be more available for a virus to mutate from. Are you saying that a more available gene is of no use to a
mutating virus?
Do you agree that antibiotics help organisms to mutate? Do you know of any that have been banned from human use? I haven't I think these same
antibiotics are being given to people with the swine flu & complications. Whose responsibility is it to inform the health authorities of this?
My thought on this is that yes you have increased the speed of the virus mutating, in that you have increased it's survival chances by offering
antibiotics which increases gene availability,
GMO's for the same reason
and injected mercury into our bodies again giving the virus more chances of finding a gene which it can use to mutate.
If the virus is working on three differant mutations, it has three times as many chances of succeeding the strongest being the one that is passed on.
First off, this is a bunch of absolute gibberish, clean it up to some decent english and I might be able to answer some of your questions. No heavy
metals do not increase the rate of mutations in an RNA virus. No antibiotics do not increase the rate of mutation in an RNA virus. Secondly,
antibiotics aren't prescribed for viral infections, only bacterial infections... antiviral medications are prescribed, but I am not a believer.
Viruses infect your very own cells, hijack them, and reprogram them to create more virus. This means the opportunity for intervention with a virus
are slim and none. Data shows Tamiflu works, so I guess it does, but again, I am not a believer.
IMO i'd much rather have the vaccine than tamiflu in my body.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 10:15 PM by Peter Brake
|
reply to post by retroviralsounds
First off, this is a bunch of absolute gibberish, clean it up to some decent english and I might be able to answer some of your questions. No heavy
metals do not increase the rate of mutations in an RNA virus. No antibiotics do not increase the rate of mutation in an RNA virus. Secondly,
antibiotics aren't prescribed for viral infections, only bacterial infections... antiviral medications are prescribed, but I am not a believer.
Viruses infect your very own cells, hijack them, and reprogram them to create more virus. This means the opportunity for intervention with a virus are
slim and none. Data shows Tamiflu works, so I guess it does, but again, I am not a believer.
Yes I know antibiotics are not used to fight the swine flu, which is why I mentioned they have complications for which they are receiving antibiotics.
Do you think it is a good idea to use antibiotics as a medicine to fight bacteria when it is known to increase gene transfer? Or do you debate
this?
I understand the normal process of virus reproduction, we are discussing it's mutation however. To mutate it requires further genes. Agreed? a
mutation is a change of it's genetic code.
What is the source of this new gene?, any organism it comes in contact with? If so then I can see why you haven't disagreed with my concern of
transgenes being a 30 times greater source of genes than any other.
Surely a virus (which is not singular) is going flat out infecting cells reproducing & grabbing genes to mutate, has hits and misses. Meaning some of
the genes that it grabs are useful and some aren't. If it grabs 30 times as many genes it has 30 times as many chances of it being useful and getting
a successful mutation.(meaning it survives our immune response & gets passed to the next victum)
As for the antibiotic having no increase in the rate (clever) of mutation attempts in a virus - maybe but, as it lowers the species barrier
effectively it makes genes more available and therefore a wider range of genetic material is available to it which increases it's chances of a
successful mutation.
I have heard that viruses are mutating about as fast as it can. However the mutations generally do not do any better than the last version. A wider
range of more readily available genes gives the virus a better chance of survival. Antibiotics and heavy metals makes genes more available, more genes
= more chances of success.
online.sfsu.edu...
www.organicconsumers.org...
I would appreciate any links you can send
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:44 PM by retroviralsounds
|
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by retroviralsounds
First off, this is a bunch of absolute gibberish, clean it up to some decent english and I might be able to answer some of your questions. No heavy
metals do not increase the rate of mutations in an RNA virus. No antibiotics do not increase the rate of mutation in an RNA virus. Secondly,
antibiotics aren't prescribed for viral infections, only bacterial infections... antiviral medications are prescribed, but I am not a believer.
Viruses infect your very own cells, hijack them, and reprogram them to create more virus. This means the opportunity for intervention with a virus are
slim and none. Data shows Tamiflu works, so I guess it does, but again, I am not a believer.
Yes I know antibiotics are not used to fight the swine flu, which is why I mentioned they have complications for which they are receiving antibiotics.
Do you think it is a good idea to use antibiotics as a medicine to fight bacteria when it is known to increase gene transfer? Or do you debate
this?
-Nothing increases the gene transfer of RNA viruses (or everything increases transfer, either way you look at it, it means the same thing). RNA virus
SNPs, transfers and mutations are nearly completely unknown.
I understand the normal process of virus reproduction, we are discussing it's mutation however. To mutate it requires further genes. Agreed? a
mutation is a change of it's genetic code.
-No. The mutations happen spontaneously.
What is the source of this new gene?, any organism it comes in contact with? If so then I can see why you haven't disagreed with my concern of
transgenes being a 30 times greater source of genes than any other.
-RNA viruses can only gene transfer with other RNA viruses. Everytime the virus infects a cell, its probably going to mutate a bit. These mutations
are usually just point mutations, meaning only one base pair of the RNA strand is changed. Over time though, these singular changes can amount to a
changing of the protein the RNA codes for.
Surely a virus (which is not singular) is going flat out infecting cells reproducing & grabbing genes to mutate, has hits and misses. Meaning some of
the genes that it grabs are useful and some aren't. If it grabs 30 times as many genes it has 30 times as many chances of it being useful and getting
a successful mutation.(meaning it survives our immune response & gets passed to the next victum)
-Again, it does not grab genes. I'll try to explain this. The virus infects the cell, and inserts its genome into the host cell's DNA. When the
DNA is replicated (cell division) it creates more identical RNA viruses. Since RNA has no proof reading function, and polymerases are not perfect,
there are going to be a few mistakes in the new RNA strand... these are the mutations.
As for the antibiotic having no increase in the rate (clever) of mutation attempts in a virus - maybe but, as it lowers the species barrier
effectively it makes genes more available and therefore a wider range of genetic material is available to it which increases it's chances of a
successful mutation.
-Again, mutation rates are independant of other organisms, unless H1N1 happens to infect the same cell as say H3N2 (this year's seasonal flu, I
think).
I have heard that viruses are mutating about as fast as it can. However the mutations generally do not do any better than the last version. A wider
range of more readily available genes gives the virus a better chance of survival. Antibiotics and heavy metals makes genes more available, more genes
= more chances of success.
-Yes, this is true, but evolution teaches us the mutated viruses that aquire a 'better' gene will overcome those who do not get it.
online.sfsu.edu...
www.organicconsumers.org...
I would appreciate any links you can send
-This is all from personal knowledge. As a scientist I am more than happy to talk science at anytime, if you have questions, keep them coming either
in this thread or by U2U and I'll reply 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-11-2009 @ 04:42 PM by Peter Brake
|
reply to post by retroviralsounds
-Nothing increases the gene transfer of RNA viruses (or everything increases transfer, either way you look at it, it means the same thing). RNA virus
SNPs, transfers and mutations are nearly completely unknown.
en.wikipedia.org...
Single nucleotide polymorphisms may fall within coding sequences of genes, non-coding regions of genes, or in the intergenic regions between genes.
SNPs within a coding sequence will not necessarily change the amino acid sequence of the protein that is produced, due to degeneracy of the genetic
code. A SNP in which both forms lead to the same polypeptide sequence is termed synonymous (sometimes called a silent mutation) — if a different
polypeptide sequence is produced they are nonsynonymous. A nonsynonymous change may either be missense or nonsense, where a missense change results in
a different amino acid, while a nonsense change results in a premature stop codon. SNPs that are not in protein-coding regions may still have
consequences for gene splicing, transcription factor binding, or the sequence of non-coding RNA.
They are talking about different ways in which SNP’s mutate.
-Again, it does not grab genes. I'll try to explain this. The virus infects the cell, and inserts its genome into the host cell's DNA. When the DNA
is replicated (cell division) it creates more identical RNA viruses. Since RNA has no proof reading function, and polymerases are not perfect, there
are going to be a few mistakes in the new RNA strand... these are the mutations.
Yes but where are the mistakes coming from? The virus is not creating the genes that it itself is made up of.
The cell has some RNA genes and has a variety of processes happening in regards to protein transfers of nutrients. Plenty of scope for a transgene to
have an impact in the viral swarms mutations.
-Again, mutation rates are independant of other organisms, unless H1N1 happens to infect the same cell as say H3N2 (this year's seasonal flu, I
think).
I think you are not talking about rates here but about a new mutated disease.
My concerns over bacterial horizontal gene transfer is about in increase in the rate of gene transfer. Perhaps viral swarms do not change speed, but
none the less if the end result is a mutated virus being transferred to somebody else more often then in this way the mutation rate has been
increased.
(If have a list of new mutated viruses)
The viable quasispecies generation rate maybe impacted, RBV does increase the error rate so definitely we can change virus mutation activity.
I have heard that viruses are mutating about as fast as it can. However the mutations generally do not do any better than the last version. A wider
range of more readily available genes gives the virus a better chance of survival. Antibiotics and heavy metals makes genes more available, more genes
= more chances of success.
-Yes, this is true, but evolution teaches us the mutated viruses that aquire a 'better' gene will overcome those who do not get it.
Exactly – so a viral swarm that receives a better gene becomes the disease that is passed on.
Look I very much want you to be correct but I do think that our actions are causing an increase in viral mutations and horizontal gene transfer and
frankly consider this to be the biggest risk facing the human species.
Perhaps if we turn this around what are your concerns? frankly you have not replied to my questions regarding GMO’s their in a whole insertion
package that is available to as mutating virus including promoters, bacteria and further viruses all inserted with the assistance of an antibiotic
still used in human health.
bacteria are aware of external conditions, so definitely we can impact mutations. It is dumb to think a GMO is irrelevant to a bacteria whose eats by
inserting genes into organisms
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 >>
|
|
|
