However, despite not fully understanding your article due to lack of some knowledge, I would like to say that likely, Ba.1 specifically was directly edited, and did NOT appear as a result of lab passage.
The reason is an extreme lack of synonymous mutations. Any kind of genuine evolution would produce synonymous mutations on top of non-synonymous mutations because evolution is driven by random mutations.
Also trying to put "dates" on directly edited virus genomes makes little sense.
I agree with you on Ethical Skeptic.
What do you think?
(I am not saying that Ba.2 is different, I just did not look at it).
Very much appreciated the "story hour version" i.e not smarter than a pre pandemic fifth grader. I am trying. Could you try a kindergarten version next time...big words and a cute drawing on every page. :)
Feb 23, 2022·edited Feb 23, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
For the layman just start at 'What Could Go Wrong'. Wicked description! Loved it. Feedback loops are hard, EVOLUTIONARY feedback loops now good luck debugging that one X)
That paragraph created enough intrigue to try to understand the technical details. Should that not be first ??
Your theory is somewhat lacking in parsimony, though it does offer a way in which multiple variants of the same lineage but with apparently several years' worth of mutations separating them might emerge in the same geographic region at the same time. At this point I'm content with the idea that it probably involved mice, and given the unusual rate of mutation and the fact that mice are our lab animal of choice for this virus, there's a decent chance that at least some of those were lab mice. Beyond that, you may have solved the mystery, or there may have been a few other twists and turns along the way.
Hi, just like you I started thinking about Ba.1 specifically being a lab product. I even wrote an article stating that on December 2.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/urgent-omicron-variant-likely-to
However, despite not fully understanding your article due to lack of some knowledge, I would like to say that likely, Ba.1 specifically was directly edited, and did NOT appear as a result of lab passage.
The reason is an extreme lack of synonymous mutations. Any kind of genuine evolution would produce synonymous mutations on top of non-synonymous mutations because evolution is driven by random mutations.
Also trying to put "dates" on directly edited virus genomes makes little sense.
I agree with you on Ethical Skeptic.
What do you think?
(I am not saying that Ba.2 is different, I just did not look at it).
VAXSCAM
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/vaxscam?utm_source=url
Big oopsie. How do you know there's an elephant in your refrigerator? Answer: footprints in the butter. Lab leak theory gaining traction. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10542309/Fresh-lab-leak-fears-study-finds-genetic-code-Covids-spike-protein-linked-Moderna-patent.html
Very much appreciated the "story hour version" i.e not smarter than a pre pandemic fifth grader. I am trying. Could you try a kindergarten version next time...big words and a cute drawing on every page. :)
For the layman just start at 'What Could Go Wrong'. Wicked description! Loved it. Feedback loops are hard, EVOLUTIONARY feedback loops now good luck debugging that one X)
That paragraph created enough intrigue to try to understand the technical details. Should that not be first ??
Your theory is somewhat lacking in parsimony, though it does offer a way in which multiple variants of the same lineage but with apparently several years' worth of mutations separating them might emerge in the same geographic region at the same time. At this point I'm content with the idea that it probably involved mice, and given the unusual rate of mutation and the fact that mice are our lab animal of choice for this virus, there's a decent chance that at least some of those were lab mice. Beyond that, you may have solved the mystery, or there may have been a few other twists and turns along the way.