If this is Armageddon why are Chinese stocks only 12% off this year's highs?

Neil deGrasse Tyson had a good point the other day. When the day comes that a CV -19 vaccine becomes available ... what will the nutey anti-vaxers decide to do?
 
nooby_mcnoob said:
Thank you. Nice to have someone who knows what they're talking about on here for once. I attempted to read this article and I may or may not have succeeded.

This article seems to refer primarily to the spike protein which is unusually effective in humans (right?) There is still supposedly the question of its reproductive effectiveness which is said to be from another virus. This article did not address those claims though it did mention that if it were purposefully engineered it would use a different backbone. This is surprising since that is where most people are getting this info. Now I don't normally listen to crackpot (and this guy looks like one) but he seems to be a polymath who knows what he is talking about. It would be incredibly helpful if you could refute his points. The main points are in the first 15 minutes.
More...

To follow up on this, it seems the main points he's making are:
1) Weak binding to multiple receptors signify multiple coming waves as the virus mutates ("pinballing").
2) Insertions from HIV indicate engineering
3) Splicing of the spike protein from SARS with the replicase from bat SARS-like coronavirus.

Let me know if I missed any.

Regarding point 1, it's very common for a protein to show weak affinity for multiple other proteins (known as promiscuity). I'd be surprised if you couldn't make the same statement about any other virus. Moreover, it's irrelevant. A virus doesn't need to mutate to target a different receptor to come back as a second wave, it just needs to mutate to no longer be recognized by your antibodies. There could be multiple waves of this virus, but the weak affinity for multiple receptors isn't particularly ominous.

For point 2, I addressed earlier that there aren't actually insertions from HIV, but I'll just add that the type of engineering he's suggesting just isn't how biology works. It's common to splice together two proteins or large (>50 amino acids) domains, but inserting ~5 amino acids would never work. They need the context of the neighboring residues to orient them in the right structure.

I couldn't find a source that he's referring to for the third point. I'd have to know which exact strains he's referring to and see how close the homology is. However even assuming it's true, there's a less sinister explanation: the more potent spike protein and replicase were both present in a common ancestor.

Finally, I'd rather focus on ideas than dwell on his qualifications, but it's worth pointing out that he's being quite ingenuous about his affiliations. Harvard and MIT have continuing education programs that are open to pretty much anyone who is willing to write a check and aren't taught at anywhere near the level as the undergrad or graduate courses. They seem to be a favorite way for cranks to buy legitimacy.
 
elt894 said:
To follow up on this, it seems the main points he's making are:
1) Weak binding to multiple receptors signify multiple coming waves as the virus mutates ("pinballing").
2) Insertions from HIV indicate engineering
3) Splicing of the spike protein from SARS with the replicase from bat SARS-like coronavirus.

Let me know if I missed any.

Regarding point 1, it's very common for a protein to show weak affinity for multiple other proteins (known as promiscuity). I'd be surprised if you couldn't make the same statement about any other virus. Moreover, it's irrelevant. A virus doesn't need to mutate to target a different receptor to come back as a second wave, it just needs to mutate to no longer be recognized by your antibodies. There could be multiple waves of this virus, but the weak affinity for multiple receptors isn't particularly ominous.

For point 2, I addressed earlier that there aren't actually insertions from HIV, but I'll just add that the type of engineering he's suggesting just isn't how biology works. It's common to splice together two proteins or large (>50 amino acids) domains, but inserting ~5 amino acids would never work. They need the context of the neighboring residues to orient them in the right structure.

I couldn't find a source that he's referring to for the third point. I'd have to know which exact strains he's referring to and see how close the homology is. However even assuming it's true, there's a less sinister explanation: the more potent spike protein and replicase were both present in a common ancestor.

Finally, I'd rather focus on ideas than dwell on his qualifications, but it's worth pointing out that he's being quite ingenuous about his affiliations. Harvard and MIT have continuing education programs that are open to pretty much anyone who is willing to write a check and aren't taught at anywhere near the level as the undergrad or graduate courses. They seem to be a favorite way for cranks to buy legitimacy.
More...

I did get that impression from his website. Thank you for confirming.

For what it's worth I'm now getting forwards from mom who say China did this on purpose
 
Because their market is controlled and monitored like the US market is.

Why with all this FEAR, the US market is same as 2019?

Cause they don't want the rich to panic and margin calls, as lots of debt is backed by stock.
or they don't want people to think they lose 50% of paper wealth.
 
So if I follow you pointy-foil-hat types correctly, (global exporter) China invented a method to destroy the world market to which it exports, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first.

Or was it that (largest U.S. debt-holder) China wanted to destroy the U.S. taxpayer, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first?

I get it. I get it. Makes perfect sense. :wtf::confused::vomit: :banghead::banghead::banghead:

:cool:
 
tommcginnis said:
So if I follow you pointy-foil-hat types correctly, (global exporter) China invented a method to destroy the world market to which it exports, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first.

Or was it that (largest U.S. debt-holder) China wanted to destroy the U.S. taxpayer, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first?

I get it. I get it. Makes perfect sense. :wtf::confused::vomit: :banghead::banghead::banghead:

:cool:
More...
China mind control told our executive to completely drop the ball and decimate our economy
 
tommcginnis said:
So if I follow you pointy-foil-hat types correctly, (global exporter) China invented a method to destroy the world market to which it exports, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first.

Or was it that (largest U.S. debt-holder) China wanted to destroy the U.S. taxpayer, and tested it by chopping out their own legs first?

I get it. I get it. Makes perfect sense. :wtf::confused::vomit: :banghead::banghead::banghead:

:cool:
More...

If I think about it too much it doesn't make sense.

But China is well known for cutting off their nose to spite their face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top