The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
1–10 of 217 posts
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#2Can highly recommend Ken Alibek's book about the Russian biological warfare programme "Biohazard". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Alibek
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#3Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow.
She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona.
NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#4Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#5Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
I've turned on dead comments for that exact reason. A lot of them seem totally innocuous. You do get the occasional spam though.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#6Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
I assume he has been shadow banned. Comments which are not completely dead have been 'vouched' ?
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#7Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
I noticed that user too, and was "impressed" how most of their comments are downvoted to death. Some of them might have deserved it, but others seem totally normal. I guess they're expressing strong and unpopular opinions..?
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#8The 1977 H1N1 seems not to be a gain of function but them trying it out to test a vaccine. It goes to show labs can do dumb stuff.
Given the spread of risky research:
> At least 59 facilities, like Wuhan Institute, are planned or in operation across world https://www.ft.com/content/a0badd5d-4d88-4a3b-b019-61c6d8275...
I hope they regulate this stuff better.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#9Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
I noticed that user too, and was "impressed" how most of their comments are downvoted to death. Some of them might have deserved it, but others seem totally normal. I guess they're expressing strong and unpopular opinions..?
There's a fair bit of antagonism and peculiar beliefs from what I saw. Referring to HN as "mostly Marxist" is a prime example.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I noticed that user too, and was "impressed" how most of their comments are downvoted to death. Some of them might have deserved it, but others seem totally normal. I guess they're expressing strong and unpopular opinions..?
There's a fair bit of antagonism and peculiar beliefs from what I saw. Referring to HN as "mostly Marxist" is a prime example.
that may just be because hn is neolib city