New coronavirus in/from China

[Stumuz2]

The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.

Another use for PEG (a very common industrial chemical) is smoke in nightclubs. John Travolta has been breathing it for years.

[kenneal - lagger]

Did you cut and paste that LJ, including the "scientifically illiterate" bit? I seem to have heard it all many times before!

I, and I suspect many others here, are quite happy to go with what the NHS seems to want and that is as few covid cases in hospitals as they can get at any one time.

[Little John]

Did you cut and paste that LJ, including the "scientifically illiterate" bit? I seem to have heard it all many times before!

I, and I suspect many others here, are quite happy to go with what the NHS seems to want and that is as few covid cases in hospitals as they can get at any one time.

nope.

The only part I have more or less directly copied is the factual information about Yeadon's petition to the EU. Meanwhile, care to debate the facts contained in the post as opposed to engaging in puerile talking points?

No, of course you don't

[Little John]

The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.

Another use for PEG (a very common industrial chemical) is smoke in nightclubs. John Travolta has been breathing it for years.

Not quite the same as injecting it. Besides which, I suspect you are referring to propylene glycol. Not the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

[Little John]

So regarding Hancock's latest scaremongering in parliament regarding a "new mutation" of Covid 19:

A paper in Nature by François Balloux among others provides the missing context. He pointed out that he and his team had identified 12,000 variants/mutations, none of which increased transmission or led to more severe infections. Here’s the abstract:

COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which jumped into the human population in late 2019 from a currently uncharacterised animal reservoir. Due to this recent association with humans, SARS-CoV-2 may not yet be fully adapted to its human host. This has led to speculations that SARS-CoV-2 may be evolving towards higher transmissibility. The most plausible mutations under putative natural selection are those which have emerged repeatedly and independently (homoplasies). Here, we formally test whether any homoplasies observed in SARS-CoV-2 to date are significantly associated with increased viral transmission. We do not identify a single recurrent mutation in this set convincingly associated with increased viral transmission. Instead, recurrent mutations currently in circulation appear to be evolutionary neutral and primarily induced by the human immune system via RNA editing, rather than being signatures of adaptation. At this stage we find no evidence for significantly more transmissible lineages of SARS-CoV-2 due to recurrent mutations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19818-2

[Catweazle]

So regarding Hancock's latest scaremongering in parliament regarding a "new mutation" of Covid 19:

A paper in Nature by François Balloux among others provides the missing context. He pointed out that he and his team had identified 12,000 variants/mutations, none of which increased transmission or led to more severe infections. Here’s the abstract:

COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which jumped into the human population in late 2019 from a currently uncharacterised animal reservoir. Due to this recent association with humans, SARS-CoV-2 may not yet be fully adapted to its human host. This has led to speculations that SARS-CoV-2 may be evolving towards higher transmissibility. The most plausible mutations under putative natural selection are those which have emerged repeatedly and independently (homoplasies). Here, we formally test whether any homoplasies observed in SARS-CoV-2 to date are significantly associated with increased viral transmission. We do not identify a single recurrent mutation in this set convincingly associated with increased viral transmission. Instead, recurrent mutations currently in circulation appear to be evolutionary neutral and primarily induced by the human immune system via RNA editing, rather than being signatures of adaptation. At this stage we find no evidence for significantly more transmissible lineages of SARS-CoV-2 due to recurrent mutations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19818-2

Everyone is well aware of the thousands of variations and the fact that they have not increased the transmissibility. The "Kent" version is being reported because it does appear to do so, although experts are stressing that the effects do not seem to be any more serious.

[Little John]

So regarding Hancock's latest scaremongering in parliament regarding a "new mutation" of Covid 19:

A paper in Nature by François Balloux among others provides the missing context. He pointed out that he and his team had identified 12,000 variants/mutations, none of which increased transmission or led to more severe infections. Here’s the abstract:

COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which jumped into the human population in late 2019 from a currently uncharacterised animal reservoir. Due to this recent association with humans, SARS-CoV-2 may not yet be fully adapted to its human host. This has led to speculations that SARS-CoV-2 may be evolving towards higher transmissibility. The most plausible mutations under putative natural selection are those which have emerged repeatedly and independently (homoplasies). Here, we formally test whether any homoplasies observed in SARS-CoV-2 to date are significantly associated with increased viral transmission. We do not identify a single recurrent mutation in this set convincingly associated with increased viral transmission. Instead, recurrent mutations currently in circulation appear to be evolutionary neutral and primarily induced by the human immune system via RNA editing, rather than being signatures of adaptation. At this stage we find no evidence for significantly more transmissible lineages of SARS-CoV-2 due to recurrent mutations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19818-2

Everyone is well aware of the thousands of variations and the fact that they have not increased the transmissibility. The "Kent" version is being reported because it does appear to do so, although experts are stressing that the effects do not seem to be any more serious.

Care to link to a single piece of independently verifiable, peer reviewed, scientific evidence in support of that assertion?

No, of course you don't.

[Little John]

Just had the word from my contacts in both the Boro and York NHS trusts that take up of the Covid vaccine is pitifully low. Apparently, this is is mirrored all around the country and is true for:

(a) elderly/vulnerable people
(b) NHS and other medical and ancillary staff
(c) care sector staff

Which are the three groups that have been initially prioritized.

They don't want it

Consequently, the vaccine availability has now been opened up in both trusts for anyone to take it. Again, this is probably mirrored across the country. None of which is being reported on.

Obviously.

Despite the constant torrent of one-sided bullshit coming out of the MSM, people have woken up.

But hey... that's great news... right?

It means you pant shitters can go and fill your boots with the vaccine.

Go on, you know you want to......

[Catweazle]

So regarding Hancock's latest scaremongering in parliament regarding a "new mutation" of Covid 19:

A paper in Nature by François Balloux among others provides the missing context. He pointed out that he and his team had identified 12,000 variants/mutations, none of which increased transmission or led to more severe infections. Here’s the abstract:



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19818-2

Everyone is well aware of the thousands of variations and the fact that they have not increased the transmissibility. The "Kent" version is being reported because it does appear to do so, although experts are stressing that the effects do not seem to be any more serious.

Care to link to a single piece of independently verifiable, peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of that assertion?

No, of course you don't.

It's only just been reported, there hasn't been time to do it. In time it will be properly researched.

[Little John]

Everyone is well aware of the thousands of variations and the fact that they have not increased the transmissibility. The "Kent" version is being reported because it does appear to do so, although experts are stressing that the effects do not seem to be any more serious.

Care to link to a single piece of independently verifiable, peer reviewed scientific evidence in support of that assertion?

No, of course you don't.

It's only just been reported, there hasn't been time to do it. In time it will be properly researched.

You are absolutely f***ing hilarious...

[Catweazle]

Just had the word from my contacts in both the Boro and York NHS trusts that take up of the Covid vaccine is pitifully low. Apparently, this is is mirrored all around the country and is true for:

(a) elderly/vulnerable people
(b) NHS and other medical and ancillary staff
(c) care sector staff

Which are the three groups that have been initially prioritized.

They don't want it

Consequently, the vaccine availability has now been opened up in both trusts for anyone to take it. Again, this is probably mirrored across the country. None of which is being reported on.

Obviously.

Despite the constant torrent of one-sided bullshit coming out of the MSM, people have woken up.

But hey... that's great news... right?

It means you pant shitters can go and fill your boots with the vaccine.

Go on, you know you want to......

Anti-Vaxxers will be dancing in the streets. Congratulations guys, what used to be a fairly harmless paranoid delusion will now kill people.

[Little John]

You see, as soon as people like you use the term "anti-vaxers" to describe anyone who criticizes this Covid19 farce, including the mass deployment of a vaccine that uses novel technology never before used on humans, that has known serious complications in other mammals where it has been used, that has been "developed" in 10 months as opposed to the normal development time of 10 years, where the manufactures have been given special legal immunity from prosecution in the event of anything going wrong, where those same manufacturers have already admitted that this mass deployment is, in truth, "phase three" of the vaccine's "development" all in the context of a government pushing this mass roll out who have consistently and provably lied to all of us about the nature of Covid19 from the start - it becomes possible to disregard anything else you have to say on the matter since you have demonstrated yourself to be utterly incapable of or unwilling to engage in independent thought.

[kenneal - lagger]

LJ, the rest of the country will have noted that the North East is an area of high covid infection and might just look at that as a result of not doing what the government asks. Maybe the rest of the country will say that they don't want high infection rates and take up the vaccine. It will be a case of survival of the fittest so we'll just have to see who survives.

[RevdTess]

utterly incapable of or unwilling to engage in independent thought.

You're presumably aware that we're all doing the same thing - getting our ideas and evidence from someone else? The difference is who we think are worth listening to, and why. But none of us are doing our own research beyond regurgitating what others are saying. You're no more a free thinker than anyone else. And that's fine.

[Little John]

utterly incapable of or unwilling to engage in independent thought.

You're presumably aware that we're all doing the same thing - getting our ideas and evidence from someone else? The difference is who we think are worth listening to, and why. But none of us are doing our own research beyond regurgitating what others are saying. You're no more a free thinker than anyone else. And that's fine.

Yes, yes... of course..

There is no such thing as a difference between the objective truth based on falsifiable evidence or opinion is there. So, everything is "valid". How very CofE and post modern of you.