Intrepid
Major
Such behavior is often observed in people who have difficulty reading.
Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)
- Thread starter localizer
- Start date
vesicles
Colonel
Well, this collaboration has produce much results. Just do a search on PubMed and see how many studies on the Coronavirus have been co-authored by Chinese scientists and scientists from Western nations. A simple answer would be a lot. The sad thing is that the politicians and the news media have chosen to ignore this extensive collaboration.
vesicles
Colonel
Don't believe this. We have seen absolutely no evidence that the viral genome has been touched by human (bioweapon, etc), or that the virus has been handled by human (some sort of lab accident). Any man-made manipulation leaves some kind of clue in the genome. We have seen none. This virus is all natural.
In particular with the above article. This article was put on line back in December, 2019 and was based on an outdated and false data that the viral genome contained HIV genes. This is now considered to be completely false. The original Indian article on the topic of the HIV genes listed 4 base pairs shared by the Coronavirus and HIV. You will actually find more commonly shared DNA sequences if you randomly pick two genes from any living species. Keep in mind that ALL genomes of ALL living things are composed of 4 (four) bases. Can you imagine that kind of overlaps that genomes of all living things can have? In fact, I'm almost 120% sure that you will find even more commonly shared DNA sequences if you compare the viral genome with our own. Of course, that does not mean that someone has combined human genome with the virus.
The journal "open journal of regenerative medicine" has an impact factor of 1.33. In the biology/medical field, any journal will an impact factor below 1.5 would be considered as not peer-reviewed...
Intrepid
Major
From the German news: When looking at the general death toll of 24 European countries, it is noticeable that these increased noticeably between March 16 and April 12 (KW 12 to KW 15). The most noticeable increase was in France, Italy and Spain.
The number of people over 65 has risen sharply in Belgium, England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland. Such an increase cannot be seen in Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Austria and Hungary.
As written, a consideration without distinguishing whether Covid-19 was a reason or not. So to speak, just a control parameter as to whether the pandemic statistics can be valid.
This data source was referred to:
In 10 to 20 years we will know whether it will benefit an economy by protecting its old people or whether it will harm it.
The number of people over 65 has risen sharply in Belgium, England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland. Such an increase cannot be seen in Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Austria and Hungary.
As written, a consideration without distinguishing whether Covid-19 was a reason or not. So to speak, just a control parameter as to whether the pandemic statistics can be valid.
This data source was referred to:
In 10 to 20 years we will know whether it will benefit an economy by protecting its old people or whether it will harm it.
Last edited:
coolieno99
Junior Member
He didn't say the US Army did brought the virus into China, but it MIGHT brought it over. Meaning there's a possibility of doing so. CNN was correct in saying that it was first REPORTED in China, meaning it's not necessarily originated in China.
For example, the Spanish flu of 1918 was one of the largest pandemic in history, infected 500 million people around the world, and killing 17 million. But there's one problem with this. It did not originate in Spain. Spain was the first country to reported it. And ever since then , the pandemic is associated with Spain.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
antiterror13
Brigadier
3% of population ?
You mean 0.33% (1 in 300) of the population ?