Parece que Cuba envio a vacunarse al equipo de beisbol a Miami
https://runrun.es/runrunes-de-bocaranda ... acunacion/
La Federación Cubana de Béisbol, dirigida por la dictadura castrista, lanzó un duro comunicado contra Prieto: “Ha generado repudio entre sus compañeros y demás miembros de la delegación, dispuestos a sobreponerse al lógico impacto de un hecho ajeno a la mayoritaria voluntad de ser fieles a la patria y la misión con que viajamos al evento”.
Los jugadores restantes, luego de perder un partido importante ante Venezuela, decidieron todos vacunarse contra la Covid-19 con la estadounidense Johnson & Johnson, algo que también fue tildado de una “traición a la patria” por la dictadura cubana, que está desarrollando su dudosa vacuna Soberana
Por cierto, uno de los jugadores desertó, perdon, fue corrompido por Sauron para que traicione a Felicidonia.
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LATINOAMERICA
-
NBQ soldier
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 899
- Registrado: 22 Sep 2020, 20:56
-
Mantusa10
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 892
- Registrado: 16 Abr 2020, 12:52
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Estos pillines seudosocialistas que le tumban unas vacunas a los imperiales , que desvergüenza ... 
-
Mantusa10
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 892
- Registrado: 16 Abr 2020, 12:52
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
El controversial articulo de Nicholas wade con los pro y los contra de la teoria del laboratorio , no se puede negar que hace un caso muy solido en favor del escape de laboratorio , el mejor que leído ...
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/
El articulo tiene mucha información ...
Pero básicamente explica que si se puede alterar un virus que esta dentro de la tecnología disponible y no es nada imposible...
We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
Peter Daszak, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, talks on his cellphone at the Hilton Wuhan Optics Valley in Wuhan. (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) Peter Daszak, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, talks on his cellphone at the Hilton Wuhan Optics Valley in Wuhan. (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)
Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people. If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.
A second statement that had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.
Unfortunately, this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above. True, some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.
The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning.
The reason for the slippage is clear once the technical language has been penetrated. The two reasons the authors give for supposing manipulation to be improbable are decidedly inconclusive.
First, they say that the spike protein of SARS2 binds very well to its target, the human ACE2 receptor, but does so in a different way from that which physical calculations suggest would be the best fit. Therefore the virus must have arisen by natural selection, not manipulation.
If this argument seems hard to grasp, it’s because it’s so strained. The authors’ basic assumption, not spelt out, is that anyone trying to make a bat virus bind to human cells could do so in only one way. First they would calculate the strongest possible fit between the human ACE2 receptor and the spike protein with which the virus latches onto it. They would then design the spike protein accordingly (by selecting the right string of amino acid units that compose it). Since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated.
But this ignores the way that virologists do in fact get spike proteins to bind to chosen targets, which is not by calculation but by splicing in spike protein genes from other viruses or by serial passage. With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals, the more successful are selected until one emerges that makes a really tight bind to human cells. Natural selection has done all the heavy lifting. The Andersen paper’s speculation about designing a viral spike protein through calculation has no bearing on whether or not the virus was manipulated by one of the other two methods.
The authors’ second argument against manipulation is even more contrived. Although most living things use DNA as their hereditary material, a number of viruses use RNA, DNA’s close chemical cousin. But RNA is difficult to manipulate, so researchers working on coronaviruses, which are RNA-based, will first convert the RNA genome to DNA. They manipulate the DNA version, whether by adding or altering genes, and then arrange for the manipulated DNA genome to be converted back into infectious RNA.
Only a certain number of these DNA backbones have been described in the scientific literature. Anyone manipulating the SARS2 virus “would probably” have used one of these known backbones, the Andersen group writes, and since SARS2 is not derived from any of them, therefore it was not manipulated. But the argument is conspicuously inconclusive. DNA backbones are quite easy to make, so it’s obviously possible that SARS2 was manipulated using an unpublished DNA backbone.
And that’s it. These are the two arguments made by the Andersen group in support of their declaration that the SARS2 virus was clearly not manipulated. And this conclusion, grounded in nothing but two inconclusive speculations, convinced the world’s press that SARS2 could not have escaped from a lab. A technical critique of the Andersen letter takes it down in harsher words.
Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.
The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific, statements, yet were amazingly effective. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely. Their authors relied for the most part on the Daszak and Andersen letters, failing to understand the yawning gaps in their arguments. Mainstream newspapers all have science journalists on their staff, as do the major networks, and these specialist reporters are supposed to be able to question scientists and check their assertions. But the Daszak and Andersen assertions went largely unchallenged.
Doubts about natural emergence. Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization (WHO) commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Daszak, kept asserting before, during, and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.
This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and after a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.
And as long as that remains the case, it’s logical to pay serious attention to the alternative conjecture, that SARS2 escaped from a lab.
Why would anyone want to create a novel virus capable of causing a pandemic? Ever since virologists gained the tools for manipulating a virus’s genes, they have argued they could get ahead of a potential pandemic by exploring how close a given animal virus might be to making the jump to humans. And that justified lab experiments in enhancing the ability of dangerous animal viruses to infect people, virologists asserted.
With this rationale, they have recreated the 1918 flu virus, shown how the almost extinct polio virus can be synthesized from its published DNA sequence, and introduced a smallpox gene into a related virus.
These enhancements of viral capabilities are known blandly as gain-of-function experiments. With coronaviruses, there was particular interest in the spike proteins, which jut out all around the spherical surface of the virus and pretty much determine which species of animal it will target. In 2000 Dutch researchers, for instance, earned the gratitude of rodents everywhere by genetically engineering the spike protein of a mouse coronavirus so that it would attack only cats.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/
El articulo tiene mucha información ...
Pero básicamente explica que si se puede alterar un virus que esta dentro de la tecnología disponible y no es nada imposible...
We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
Peter Daszak, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, talks on his cellphone at the Hilton Wuhan Optics Valley in Wuhan. (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) Peter Daszak, a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, talks on his cellphone at the Hilton Wuhan Optics Valley in Wuhan. (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)
Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people. If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.
A second statement that had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.
Unfortunately, this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above. True, some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.
The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning.
The reason for the slippage is clear once the technical language has been penetrated. The two reasons the authors give for supposing manipulation to be improbable are decidedly inconclusive.
First, they say that the spike protein of SARS2 binds very well to its target, the human ACE2 receptor, but does so in a different way from that which physical calculations suggest would be the best fit. Therefore the virus must have arisen by natural selection, not manipulation.
If this argument seems hard to grasp, it’s because it’s so strained. The authors’ basic assumption, not spelt out, is that anyone trying to make a bat virus bind to human cells could do so in only one way. First they would calculate the strongest possible fit between the human ACE2 receptor and the spike protein with which the virus latches onto it. They would then design the spike protein accordingly (by selecting the right string of amino acid units that compose it). Since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated.
But this ignores the way that virologists do in fact get spike proteins to bind to chosen targets, which is not by calculation but by splicing in spike protein genes from other viruses or by serial passage. With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals, the more successful are selected until one emerges that makes a really tight bind to human cells. Natural selection has done all the heavy lifting. The Andersen paper’s speculation about designing a viral spike protein through calculation has no bearing on whether or not the virus was manipulated by one of the other two methods.
The authors’ second argument against manipulation is even more contrived. Although most living things use DNA as their hereditary material, a number of viruses use RNA, DNA’s close chemical cousin. But RNA is difficult to manipulate, so researchers working on coronaviruses, which are RNA-based, will first convert the RNA genome to DNA. They manipulate the DNA version, whether by adding or altering genes, and then arrange for the manipulated DNA genome to be converted back into infectious RNA.
Only a certain number of these DNA backbones have been described in the scientific literature. Anyone manipulating the SARS2 virus “would probably” have used one of these known backbones, the Andersen group writes, and since SARS2 is not derived from any of them, therefore it was not manipulated. But the argument is conspicuously inconclusive. DNA backbones are quite easy to make, so it’s obviously possible that SARS2 was manipulated using an unpublished DNA backbone.
And that’s it. These are the two arguments made by the Andersen group in support of their declaration that the SARS2 virus was clearly not manipulated. And this conclusion, grounded in nothing but two inconclusive speculations, convinced the world’s press that SARS2 could not have escaped from a lab. A technical critique of the Andersen letter takes it down in harsher words.
Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.
The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific, statements, yet were amazingly effective. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely. Their authors relied for the most part on the Daszak and Andersen letters, failing to understand the yawning gaps in their arguments. Mainstream newspapers all have science journalists on their staff, as do the major networks, and these specialist reporters are supposed to be able to question scientists and check their assertions. But the Daszak and Andersen assertions went largely unchallenged.
Doubts about natural emergence. Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization (WHO) commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Daszak, kept asserting before, during, and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.
This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and after a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.
And as long as that remains the case, it’s logical to pay serious attention to the alternative conjecture, that SARS2 escaped from a lab.
Why would anyone want to create a novel virus capable of causing a pandemic? Ever since virologists gained the tools for manipulating a virus’s genes, they have argued they could get ahead of a potential pandemic by exploring how close a given animal virus might be to making the jump to humans. And that justified lab experiments in enhancing the ability of dangerous animal viruses to infect people, virologists asserted.
With this rationale, they have recreated the 1918 flu virus, shown how the almost extinct polio virus can be synthesized from its published DNA sequence, and introduced a smallpox gene into a related virus.
These enhancements of viral capabilities are known blandly as gain-of-function experiments. With coronaviruses, there was particular interest in the spike proteins, which jut out all around the spherical surface of the virus and pretty much determine which species of animal it will target. In 2000 Dutch researchers, for instance, earned the gratitude of rodents everywhere by genetically engineering the spike protein of a mouse coronavirus so that it would attack only cats.
-
sinsentidocomun
- Coronel
- Mensajes: 2888
- Registrado: 06 Oct 2019, 04:59
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Un mensaje similar y el forista será sancionado.
"Creo que al sur de la frontera con México es el patio delantero de EEUU" Joe Biden
-
Chuck
- General de Brigada
- Mensajes: 4304
- Registrado: 11 Ago 2008, 16:40
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Cuantos "accidentes" en laboratorios han habido? En el mundo, USA, China?
Uno? cinco? diez?
Son muchos. Y son los que se reconocen.
Siguiendo la navaja de Occam, si tienes un laboratorio que está trabajando en ese momento en gain of function del virus SARS con virus de murciélagos, algo que no ha sino negado por Fauchi, y ese laboratorio está en la misma área en donde nace el virus, mas los científicos "enfermos con gripe" en la misma época... es raro considerar una posibilidad que sea un accidente?
La palabra "conspiración" tiene la misma connotación de ultra-righ, white supremasist o nazi. Se usa para apocar dudas razonables o planteamientos sin necesariamente meterse al fondo del asunto.
Así como hay científicos que dicen que es improbable que el virus sea fabricado o sea un leak, otros dicen que es una duda razonable. Razones políticas más o menos, creo que debe investigarse como corresponde, pero como hablamos del CCP, eso puede que jamás pase.
Lo que más me hace pensar que algo de cierto hay en esta "teoría", es la cantidad de sitios de "fackchecking" que salen automáticamente cuando buscas algo de esto en Google.
[quote=JRIVERA Te doy la razón en cuanto a que nunca he trabajado
-
Mantusa10
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 892
- Registrado: 16 Abr 2020, 12:52
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Uno de los problemas que son muchos , es que Peter Daszak el virologo que junto los otros virologistas para hacer el famoso artículo en Lancet que refuta la teoria del laboratorio y que sospechosamente fue el encargado de la investigación de la OMS en Wuhan...
Tiene mucho que perder si se demuestra que esto fue un accidente de laboratorio, porque lleva 20 años haciendo gain-of-function y dandole fondos a laboratorios chinos para hacer los experimentos ....
Esto es una sopa muy complicada porque Daszak y otros virologistas tiene mucho interés en ocultar algun accidente , por otro lado los intereses políticos no ayudan a garantizar una investigación independiente y justa....
Tiene mucho que perder si se demuestra que esto fue un accidente de laboratorio, porque lleva 20 años haciendo gain-of-function y dandole fondos a laboratorios chinos para hacer los experimentos ....
Esto es una sopa muy complicada porque Daszak y otros virologistas tiene mucho interés en ocultar algun accidente , por otro lado los intereses políticos no ayudan a garantizar una investigación independiente y justa....
-
Robert_
- Suboficial Primero
- Mensajes: 606
- Registrado: 12 Mar 2016, 20:10
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
El principal, es la inteligencia ineficiente que tiene EEUU en China, sus redes son constantemente descubiertas y el trabajo de campo es dependiente de reclutamientos que estan impulsados por dinero, o simplemente a personas que odian al PCCH, y no a espías formados como tal o reclutamientos de personas que se manejen en las altas esferas de gobierno.... Esto hace que la información que llega sea poco confiable y necesite mucha verificación, además de filtros para no caer en dobles espías.... Entonces cuando Biden da 90 días a sus agencias de inteligencia para llegar a una conclusión respecto a si el virus a salido de un laboratorio, esta obligando a sus agencias rebuscar información, incluso a fabricarla o incluso a caer víctima de los señuelos Chinos.... En otras palabras quieren que hagan en 90 días, algo que incluso los jefes de inteligencia han dicho que les ha costado en muchos años..... Más aún cuando incluso en años pasado han asegurado que China no es transparente, y cuando han investigado a profundidad, resulta que en registros públicos en China está la información que desde EEUU han asegurado que se esconde...
En cuanto a que el virus ha sido una fuga de laboratorio, es una hipótesis, que no es para nada imposible, sin embargo, hasta ahora no hay nada concreto, no hay pruebas de nada, y sólo hay informes que hablan de que puede ser posible y explican las razones por las que pudo ocurrir una fuga, no obstante, no hay pruebas de absolutamente nada, por lo que la inteligencia no puede basarse en simple especulaciones de los medios, y tiene que recabar pruebas de campo...porque si es por hipótesis, la comunidad científica ve la hipótesis del laboratorio posible, sin embargo, es mucho menos probable que el surgimiento natural y la transferencia zoonotica
-
Domper
- General de Ejército
- Mensajes: 14687
- Registrado: 13 Ago 2014, 16:15
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
En época de gripe, si alguien tiene síntomas gripales, suele ser gripe. Como dicen, un principio en medicina es que si se oye un animal galopando, suele ser un caballo y no una cebra.Chuck escribió: ↑07 Jun 2021, 16:26Cuantos "accidentes" en laboratorios han habido? En el mundo, USA, China?
Uno? cinco? diez?
Son muchos. Y son los que se reconocen.
Siguiendo la navaja de Occam, si tienes un laboratorio que está trabajando en ese momento en gain of function del virus SARS con virus de murciélagos, algo que no ha sino negado por Fauchi, y ese laboratorio está en la misma área en donde nace el virus, mas los científicos "enfermos con gripe" en la misma época... es raro considerar una posibilidad que sea un accidente?
No han sido raros los accidentes de laboratorio. Incluso en un caso afectó a un trabajador externo (el caso de Ebola Reston), pero también se ha aprendido un poco desde entonces.
Ya he explicado los motivos por los que resulta muy improbable que el covid sea de origen natural, o que saliera de un laboratorio. Hay explicaciones más plausibles, y que cuadran con los anteriores brotes de coronavirus graves (el SARS y el MERS). Claro que eso son argumentos científicos, que no son los que manejan los políticos.
Pues no. En un artículo no solo cuenta la firma, sino los argumentos. Que han sido los que han pasado la revisión por pares, y son los que tienen valor para el lector. Claro que The Lancet no es una revista de divulgación; se supone que el lector debe ser el que interprete lo escrito.Mantusa10 escribió: ↑07 Jun 2021, 19:52 Uno de los problemas que son muchos , es que Peter Daszak el virologo que junto los otros virologistas para hacer el famoso artículo en Lancet que refuta la teoria del laboratorio y que sospechosamente fue el encargado de la investigación de la OMS en Wuhan...
Tiene mucho que perder si se demuestra que esto fue un accidente de laboratorio, porque lleva 20 años haciendo gain-of-function y dandole fondos a laboratorios chinos para hacer los experimentos ....
Esto es una sopa muy complicada porque Daszak y otros virologistas tiene mucho interés en ocultar algun accidente , por otro lado los intereses políticos no ayudan a garantizar una investigación independiente y justa....
Firme quien firme, sus argumentos (que han sido comprobados por otros equipos) tienen un peso abrumador. Lo dicho, pueden ser cebras. Como decía mi profesor de física hablando de fenómenos cuánticos, posible, pero no probable.
Saludos
Tu regere imperio fluctus Hispane memento
-
Domper
- General de Ejército
- Mensajes: 14687
- Registrado: 13 Ago 2014, 16:15
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Pues el artículo de marras empieza por decir que el SARS1 es por un virus de murciélago; yo que pensaba que la civeta es un tipo de comadreja. El artículo no hace sino reunir argumentos “ad hominem” (no critica el trabajo sino al autor), sugerencias, pero pocas afirmaciones comprobables (más bien, ninguna).
Incluso algunos de los argumentos empleados se pueden revolver. Por ejemplo, hablan de los accidentes de laboratorio con la viruela, pero olvidan decir que la viruela es bastante contagiosa. No llega a ser como el sarampión, pero lo es bastante más que el covid, hay casos documentados de transmisión por objetos contaminados días antes, o por aerosol en edificios, a veces a bastante distancia de la fuente. Pues bien, esos accidentes se produjeron cuando ya no se vacunaba sistemáticamente de viruela, y a pesar de ello no produjeron un brote epidémico, sino casos aislados. El último, hace cincuenta años; se ha aprendido un poco sobre bioseguridad desde entonces.
Por desgracia, ese artículo es el típico ejemplo de “leyenda negra” con argumentos del tipo “podría ser”, “el que firma no me gusta”, etcétera. Muy parecidos a los de los ufólogos, que mezclan imaginación con palabrería técnica. Pero no explica (por ejemplo) por qué hay grandes porciones del genoma viral que no era conocido previamente, y que no hay “marcas” de la inserción de los genes extraños. Por ejemplo.
Lo dicho. Argumentos para la galería, pero de peso bastante escaso.
Saludos
Tu regere imperio fluctus Hispane memento
-
Mantusa10
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 892
- Registrado: 16 Abr 2020, 12:52
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Todos los argumentos en esta discusión son traidos a pelo , también los tuyos ...
Dices que desde el último accidente hace 50 años aprendimos algo , desde el último gran accidente nuclear debimos haber aprendido algo pero los japoneses aprendieron que resulta que no ....
Por tu regla debimos haber aprendido pero no , tu argumento es traído por los pelos ...
Sobre que no hay “marcas” de la inserción de los genes extraños , si lees el articlo y otros australianos y de uk , hay varias formas de alterar virus sin dejar huellas , por lo tanto este argumento es traido a pelo ...
Ignoras que pese haber pasado un 17 meses desde los primeros casos , nadie a encontrado el famoso host mas perdido que el eslabón perdido , en los otros casos como el SARS 1 los han encontrado con relativa facilidad , cuando los chinos son los mas interesados en encontrarlo para poner fina la polemica...
No vamos a tener nunca una respuesta cierta , porque se metio la política de por medio y veo muy difícil un informe imparcial de nadie ....
Pero comparar esto a los ufulogos es cojido un poco al pelo , no contar que el informe del pentagon dice claro que no sabemos que demonios vuela sobre areas restringidas en USA con capacidades muy superiores a las nuestras , va y de verdad son aliens
Dices que desde el último accidente hace 50 años aprendimos algo , desde el último gran accidente nuclear debimos haber aprendido algo pero los japoneses aprendieron que resulta que no ....
Por tu regla debimos haber aprendido pero no , tu argumento es traído por los pelos ...
Sobre que no hay “marcas” de la inserción de los genes extraños , si lees el articlo y otros australianos y de uk , hay varias formas de alterar virus sin dejar huellas , por lo tanto este argumento es traido a pelo ...
Ignoras que pese haber pasado un 17 meses desde los primeros casos , nadie a encontrado el famoso host mas perdido que el eslabón perdido , en los otros casos como el SARS 1 los han encontrado con relativa facilidad , cuando los chinos son los mas interesados en encontrarlo para poner fina la polemica...
No vamos a tener nunca una respuesta cierta , porque se metio la política de por medio y veo muy difícil un informe imparcial de nadie ....
Pero comparar esto a los ufulogos es cojido un poco al pelo , no contar que el informe del pentagon dice claro que no sabemos que demonios vuela sobre areas restringidas en USA con capacidades muy superiores a las nuestras , va y de verdad son aliens
-
Domper
- General de Ejército
- Mensajes: 14687
- Registrado: 13 Ago 2014, 16:15
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Distingo entre mi opinión y las publicaciones.
He leído esos artículos, los otros, y sé un poco de genética y de virus.Sobre que no hay “marcas” de la inserción de los genes extraños , si lees el articlo y otros australianos y de uk , hay varias formas de alterar virus sin dejar huellas , por lo tanto este argumento es traido a pelo ...
Con el Ebola se ha tardado cuarenta años.Ignoras que pese haber pasado un 17 meses desde los primeros casos , nadie a encontrado el famoso host mas perdido que el eslabón perdido , en los otros casos como el SARS 1 los han encontrado con relativa facilidad , cuando los chinos son los mas interesados en encontrarlo para poner fina la polemica...
Lo dicho, son argumentos negativos (del tipo "no se puede demostrar que...") cuando los estudios genéticos son bastante abrumadores.
Saludos
Tu regere imperio fluctus Hispane memento
-
OliverBR
- General de División
- Mensajes: 7454
- Registrado: 18 Mar 2011, 22:50
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
El verdadero significado de la palabra limosna:
Tómalo y cállate.El Ministerio de Salud [de Brasil] recibirá la vacuna Janssen válida hasta el 27 de junio y tendrá 14 días para distribuir y aplicar todas las dosis.
El día 4, el Ministerio de Salud informó que había logrado adelantar parte de los 38 millones de dosis adquiridas con el farmacéutico a junio.
https://g1.globo.com/bemestar/vacina/no ... nass.ghtml
-
Mantusa10
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 892
- Registrado: 16 Abr 2020, 12:52
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Domper todo el mundo sabe que usted conoce acerca del tema porque es un profesional de salud , pero yo creo mi opinión personal que no soy especialista , despues de leer a tirios y troyanos que la data disponible no indica nada definitivo del lado natural ni del accidente de laboratorio , aunque lo mas logico seria una mutación natural ...
El ebola es algo diferente , cuando me refiero a encontrar el host en los ultimos virus respiratorios coronavirus donde se han encontrado con relativa facilidad , no en este caso donde debería haber cierta urgencia para callar rumores ...
De todas formas nadie va a quedar satisfecho unos tratando de hacer de esto política y otros defendiendo la gain-of-function algo que me parece como mínimo bastante peligroso ....
El ebola es algo diferente , cuando me refiero a encontrar el host en los ultimos virus respiratorios coronavirus donde se han encontrado con relativa facilidad , no en este caso donde debería haber cierta urgencia para callar rumores ...
De todas formas nadie va a quedar satisfecho unos tratando de hacer de esto política y otros defendiendo la gain-of-function algo que me parece como mínimo bastante peligroso ....
-
Chuck
- General de Brigada
- Mensajes: 4304
- Registrado: 11 Ago 2008, 16:40
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
Pues domper no ha negado que se haya estado trabajando específicamente en gain of function en el laboratorio de Hunan, o que los gringos hayan estado apoyando esos estudios con recursos.
Si ambas cosas no dan para que hayan intereses en tapar el origen real de la pandemia, desde ambos lados, pues no se que cosa más lo podría generar.
Domper, Trump tenía en curso una investigación respecto al tema, la que fue cancelada por la administración Biden. Y luego, cuando la "teoría" ganaba más y más fuerza y salían a la luz los correos de Fauchi, pues anuncian una investigación propia.
Por qué parar la de Trump? Si es un bulo, por qué hacer una propia? Si tienes los estudios genéticos que abrumadoramente muestran la poca posibilidad de que el virus haya sido modificado, pues tráelos para verlos.
Si ambas cosas no dan para que hayan intereses en tapar el origen real de la pandemia, desde ambos lados, pues no se que cosa más lo podría generar.
Domper, Trump tenía en curso una investigación respecto al tema, la que fue cancelada por la administración Biden. Y luego, cuando la "teoría" ganaba más y más fuerza y salían a la luz los correos de Fauchi, pues anuncian una investigación propia.
Por qué parar la de Trump? Si es un bulo, por qué hacer una propia? Si tienes los estudios genéticos que abrumadoramente muestran la poca posibilidad de que el virus haya sido modificado, pues tráelos para verlos.
[quote=JRIVERA Te doy la razón en cuanto a que nunca he trabajado
-
OliverBR
- General de División
- Mensajes: 7454
- Registrado: 18 Mar 2011, 22:50
EMERGENCIA CORONAVIRUS LA VACUNACIÓN
La vacuna Butanvac fue liberada por Anvisa para testes en humanos:
sds.
En el total serán 6 mil voluntarios.A Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) anunciou hoje que deu o aval para o início dos testes clínicos em humanos da vacina contra a covid-19 desenvolvida pelo Instituto Butantan, a ButanVac...
O imunizante está sendo produzido desde o fim de abril, como foi anunciado pelo diretor do Butantan, Dimas Covas, em seu depoimento à CPI da Covid, e já possui ao menos 7 milhões de doses estocadas.
Segundo Dimas, a meta seria entregar 18 milhões de doses até 31 de julho e 40 milhões até 30 de setembro...
https://www.uol.com.br/vivabem/noticias ... copiaecola
sds.
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados