I'm not sure I understand the claim being made.  
Regardless of if the original strain was man made or not, they conclude that the changes from the original (or delta) to Omicron must have been man made?  Given that Omicron was much more contagious and much less deadly, I guess the suspect would be a state actor trying to "vaccinate" areas that were going to be harder to reach with vaccine? Am I missing something?

Bump 4 FSG... still trying to understand

The study basically says there's no natural line from Omicron back to Alpha. There's some type of unnatural evolution in COVID-19. Whether that's attempting for genetic selection as you said or something g nefarious we don't know.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Background: The study begins with an overview of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, first identified in Wuhan, China. It details the virus's genetic structure, emphasizing the spike protein, which has undergone significant mutations in various strains, including the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants.

Omicron Variant Analysis: The study primarily concentrates on the Omicron variants, first reported in South Africa in 2021. These variants showed an unusually high number of mutations in the spike protein. The research aimed to understand how these Omicron variants evolved, which contradicted typical viral evolution patterns.

Mutation Patterns: Researchers found that most mutations in the spike protein across various SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly Omicron, were non-synonymous. This pattern is atypical compared to other human coronaviruses. They analyzed specific mutation subsets in different isolates, revealing patterns that challenge the idea of Omicron evolving through standard processes.

Homologous Recombination Questioned: The study suggests that the formation of some Omicron isolates does not align with natural evolutionary processes like homologous recombination. This conclusion is based on the analysis of mutation patterns and the prevalence of other variants in certain regions during the study period.

Hypothesis of Artificial Synthesis: One of the study's more controversial points is the hypothesis that some Omicron variants might have been artificially synthesized. This is based on unusual mutation patterns, including the absence of synonymous mutations and the presence of recombinant Omicron isolates dating back to 2020 in places like Puerto Rico.

Reverse Genetics and Virus Research: The paper discusses the role of reverse genetics in virus research. While acknowledging its importance, the authors suggest considering the possibility of artificially synthesized viruses in the mutation process of SARS-CoV-2. They clarify that they do not assert these viruses were created with malicious intent.

Conclusion and Implications: The study concludes that the Omicron variants evolved through a novel mechanism, not previously known in biology. This finding raises questions about the pandemic's origin and the nature of the virus's evolution, suggesting it might be part of a larger experiment.

---

Background: The study begins with an overview of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, first identified in Wuhan, China. It details the virus's genetic structure, emphasizing the spike protein, which has undergone significant mutations in various strains, including the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants.

Omicron Variant Analysis: The study primarily concentrates on the Omicron variants, first reported in South Africa in 2021. These variants showed an unusually high number of mutations in the spike protein. The research aimed to understand how these Omicron variants evolved, which contradicted typical viral evolution patterns.

Mutation Patterns: Researchers found that most mutations in the spike protein across various SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly Omicron, were non-synonymous. This pattern is atypical compared to other human coronaviruses. They analyzed specific mutation subsets in different isolates, revealing patterns that challenge the idea of Omicron evolving through standard processes.

Homologous Recombination Questioned: The study suggests that the formation of some Omicron isolates does not align with natural evolutionary processes like homologous recombination. This conclusion is based on the analysis of mutation patterns and the prevalence of other variants in certain regions during the study period.

Hypothesis of Artificial Synthesis: One of the study's more controversial points is the hypothesis that some Omicron variants might have been artificially synthesized. This is based on unusual mutation patterns, including the absence of synonymous mutations and the presence of recombinant Omicron isolates dating back to 2020 in places like Puerto Rico.

Reverse Genetics and Virus Research: The paper discusses the role of reverse genetics in virus research. While acknowledging its importance, the authors suggest considering the possibility of artificially synthesized viruses in the mutation process of SARS-CoV-2. They clarify that they do not assert these viruses were created with malicious intent.

Conclusion and Implications: The study concludes that the Omicron variants evolved through a novel mechanism, not previously known in biology. This finding raises questions about the pandemic's origin and the nature of the virus's evolution, suggesting it might be part of a larger experiment.

So, you mean it wasn't 5G causing pigs and bats to fly around China that had something to do with this naturally occurring with our ability to be infected by this virus? I am shocked...

I think the real conclusion and implication should also add: We know it was man made, we know where the origin is, we should be aiming at those responsible for creating it, understanding it's gain of function, have them tried for crimes against humanity and promptly and swiftly executed for it for the whole world to see. By hanging or firing squad.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Background: The study begins with an overview of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, first identified in Wuhan, China. It details the virus's genetic structure, emphasizing the spike protein, which has undergone significant mutations in various strains, including the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants.

Omicron Variant Analysis: The study primarily concentrates on the Omicron variants, first reported in South Africa in 2021. These variants showed an unusually high number of mutations in the spike protein. The research aimed to understand how these Omicron variants evolved, which contradicted typical viral evolution patterns.

Mutation Patterns: Researchers found that most mutations in the spike protein across various SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly Omicron, were non-synonymous. This pattern is atypical compared to other human coronaviruses. They analyzed specific mutation subsets in different isolates, revealing patterns that challenge the idea of Omicron evolving through standard processes.

Homologous Recombination Questioned: The study suggests that the formation of some Omicron isolates does not align with natural evolutionary processes like homologous recombination. This conclusion is based on the analysis of mutation patterns and the prevalence of other variants in certain regions during the study period.

Hypothesis of Artificial Synthesis: One of the study's more controversial points is the hypothesis that some Omicron variants might have been artificially synthesized. This is based on unusual mutation patterns, including the absence of synonymous mutations and the presence of recombinant Omicron isolates dating back to 2020 in places like Puerto Rico.

Reverse Genetics and Virus Research: The paper discusses the role of reverse genetics in virus research. While acknowledging its importance, the authors suggest considering the possibility of artificially synthesized viruses in the mutation process of SARS-CoV-2. They clarify that they do not assert these viruses were created with malicious intent.

Conclusion and Implications: The study concludes that the Omicron variants evolved through a novel mechanism, not previously known in biology. This finding raises questions about the pandemic's origin and the nature of the virus's evolution, suggesting it might be part of a larger experiment.

So, you mean it wasn't 5G causing pigs and bats to fly around China that had something to do with this naturally occurring with our ability to be infected by this virus? I am shocked...

I think the real conclusion and implication should also add: We know it was man made, we know where the origin is, we should be aiming at those responsible for creating it, understanding it's gain of function, have them tried for crimes against humanity and promptly and swiftly executed for it for the whole world to see. By hanging or firing squad.

Beheading and crucifixion are also useful methods.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I never got "The Jab". I was all up and down the east coast during the "pandemic", I was in multiple crowds in multiple places and never even had a sniffle. I knew in my gut that this entire COVID stuff and the so called Vaccine was all a bunch of Government and Big Pharma BS!

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sues Pfizer, alleges pharma giant lied about COVID vaccine efficacy
Paxton's office accused Pfizer of 'unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine'

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Pfizer, alleging that the pharmaceutical giant lied about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tex...e-efficacy

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

My dad and I have both fully recovered
No one else got it surprisingly in our family

Cases have started to ramp up again

---

https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1...LQFWQ&s=19

---

My dad and I have both fully recovered
No one else got it surprisingly in our family

Cases have started to ramp up again

I'm glad y'all have recovered!

---

https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1...LQFWQ&s=19

Hey, and if he's lucky, he'll get back a fraction of what they made, and no one will be punished.

---

https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1...LQFWQ&s=19

Hey, and if he's lucky, he'll get back a fraction of what they made, and no one will be punished.

Punished? 

What's that mean?

---

https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1...LQFWQ&s=19

Hey, and if he's lucky, he'll get back a fraction of what they made, and no one will be punished.

Hey, and if he's lucky, he'll get back a fraction of what they made, and no one will be punished.

Punished? 

What's that mean?

They've already paid billions in fines before, what's a few more billion.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

I'm sure our resident administrator can clue us in on the excess death cause and explain why this doesn't seem to be a priority for the CDC.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4...ing-early/

I'm sure Dr. Kory is another quack.

---

I have somewhere to be but I'll say this for now in response to this bit from the article.


Therein lies the most pressing question for insurers, epidemiologists and health agency officials. Why is the traditionally healthiest sector of our society — young, employed, insured workers — dying at such rates? Public health officials aggressively oversaw the pandemic response, for better or worse. Why aren’t they looking into this?

There was a lot of money to be made by folks who pushed these public health officials and pushed them hard. There is no money to be made by looking into and doing something about these excess deaths. The only ones who would make, or rather save money are the life insurance companies and who listens to them? 

There's more to it but I've got to go.

---

I saw a report on TV this morning talking about how tens of millions of dollars of COVID PPE has expired and now has to be disposed of and REPLACED.

Gosh, I wonder how many politicians and health professionals have stock in the PPE business.

---

I'm sure our resident administrator can clue us in on the excess death cause and explain why this doesn't seem to be a priority for the CDC.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4...ing-early/

I'm sure Dr. Kory is another quack.

I assume you're referring to me? Yeah, Kory had his work tossed out for failing to disclose his conflicts of interest in the research. It's why all the "Ivermectin Works" stuff he published (and subsequently made a fortune on selling by telehealth btw) was revoked. He's a crook.

And yeah, why would we see excess death in the group most likely to refuse the vaccine? I do wonder...

Meanwhile, in the most stringent lockdown state with the highest and fastest vaccine compliance rates (New Zealand) we saw a negative excess death number is 2021 and small increase in mortality that times almost perfectly with the Covid waves in the subsquent periods of the pandemic. Almost like the vaccine actually worked in places where they used transmition precautions correctly. Funny how that works.

Carry on.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sweet. I knew there was a boogeyman. There always is.

Link me the research you're citing that shows vaccine use by age and covid deaths by age, please.

---

Just a quick search shows that you're wrong about the group least likely to get the vaccine. At least give me good data, dog. I'd hate for you to be labeled a fraud like anyone who opposes blanket use of the vaccine).

Btw, found a spreadsheet and running the numbers... the 25-49 bracket is the only group with a positive correlation of vaccination to case rate. I mean, I'm not making anything of it, as it's a VERY weak positive correlation. In fact, all of the age groups have a weak correlation (at least the others are negative, with the exception of 65 and older, which is a moderate to significant correlation. There's a shocker. How come every time I look at this data and do the math, it supports what I've said from the beginning? That the vaccine is probably only helping people over 65. The rest is smoke and mirrors. But, hey, I'm open to other data if you have it.

---

Just a quick search shows that you're wrong about the group least likely to get the vaccine. At least give me good data, dog. I'd hate for you to be labeled a fraud like anyone who opposes blanket use of the vaccine).

Btw, found a spreadsheet and running the numbers... the 25-49 bracket is the only group with a positive correlation of vaccination to case rate. I mean, I'm not making anything of it, as it's a VERY weak positive correlation. In fact, all of the age groups have a weak correlation (at least the others are negative, with the exception of 65 and older, which is a moderate to significant correlation. There's a shocker. How come every time I look at this data and do the math, it supports what I've said from the beginning? That the vaccine is probably only helping people over 65. The rest is smoke and mirrors. But, hey, I'm open to other data if you have it.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19...dashboard/

Label me whatever you want, I'd have to care for it to matter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You would have to have the "wrong opinion" for it to matter. Caring is optional. Speaking of caring, can you provide specific data? The link you provided is a giant wall of bar graphs based on multiple studies. I'm sure those graphs are great if someone wants to casually absorb new information, but, since we're having a substantive debate, I'd like to look into the specifics. I spent an hour parsing data from the CDC website yesterday that contradicts what you claimed in the above post. So, unless you want to give me something more accurate, I'm just gonna assume you get your updates in the form of a new daily bar graph and make it fit with your world view.

---

You would have to have the "wrong opinion" for it to matter. Caring is optional. Speaking of caring, can you provide specific data? The link you provided is a giant wall of bar graphs based on multiple studies. I'm sure those graphs are great if someone wants to casually absorb new information, but, since we're having a substantive debate, I'd like to look into the specifics. I spent an hour parsing data from the CDC website yesterday that contradicts what you claimed in the above post. So, unless you want to give me something more accurate, I'm just gonna assume you get your updates in the form of a new daily bar graph and make it fit with your world view.

What you assume isn't really my concern. You have fun now!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato