Skip to main content

View Diary: New CDC Estimates Of Swine Flu Cases (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bunk (0+ / 0-)

    You:

    Mutations tend to occur (or more accurately, are selected for) prior to an epidemic which is what causes epidemics to happen.

    That's where you imply that mutations are more frequent before an epidemic than during one. That's wrong, and illogical. You refuse to acknowledge that the increased exposure of the virus genome to a consistently mutagenic environment increases the chances of any single mutation event, therefore an increased probability of mutation, therefore an increased mutation rate. Not the chance of an individual mutation, that I never said, but the overall chances and therefore rates of any mutation in the genome everwhere it's reproducing, which is what I actually said. Strawman after strawman.

    As I said, replication is a virus' way of reproducing. You're not getting anywhere denying the credibility of a scientist using "virus reproduction" in a scientific journal that has no other question as to its credibility, while citing your own credentials as proof you're right, when other questions about your credibility have such damning answers.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:31:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's not a scientific journal you cited (0+ / 0-)

      its a FAQ sheet from a medical awareness .org site.

      "Imply" is another word for 'I think you mean' which is serving you to continue this ridiculous tantrum.  Everything with you is 'imply'.

      Virus genomes are not being exposed to mutagenic environments.  They mutate as a result of random errors in the replication process from the host cell polymerase.  Mutagenic environments, or mutagens, are chemicals or energy that alter DNA.  It is associated with cell damage due to things like UV light, free radicals or fixatives.  When people talk about 'mutagens' or 'mutagenic environments' that does not apply to viruses in a host cell.  Those genomes are subject to mutation via RNA and DNA polymerase error rate, not chemicals or radiation.  Chemicals and radiation mutate cellular DNA by crosslinking nucleotides (that would kill a virus) or replacing bases with incorrect ones according to the replication sequence (aka a polymerase or proofreading error).  People and their cells are exposed to mutagens and mutagenic environments, viruses are subject only to the polymerases.

      I indeed chose my words poorly when I typed

      Mutations tend to occur

      as the individual mutations occur at the same rate regardless.  I have since chosen my words much more carefully as I've repeated over and over again in all the subsequent posts about how the rate doesn't change.  It's a constant.  What increases is the likelihood of a highly transmissible variant to emerge and be capable of spreading throughout a population.  But in an environment where a similar virus is already spreading rampantly throughout a population, such variants cannot compete for all the reasons you continue to ignore as you defend your poor use of scientific terms.

      So if you're abandoning all your substantive arguments in favor of defending your poor use of scientific nomenclature and pointing out that one sentence in my original post that was poorly worded then kudos to you.  You've succeeded.

      I particularly liked your last sentence where you waved your hands and a FAQ sheet became a 'scientific journal' while another waving of your hands and suddenly questions of my credibility have "damning answers".  Those are very impressive and most definitely 'words'!  How very convenient for you that you can create fact out of thin air just by typing!

      Any comment on your claim that seasonal influenza is going around concurrently with H1N1?  

      Any examples you'd like to cite where another virus enters into the population, is passed easily from person to person and yet phenotypically distinct mutants emerge from it whose antigenic characteristics are maintained?

      Would you like to comment on what the chances for mutation of influenza virus are during replication when there is no epidemic?  Ok, and what are those chances DURING pandemic?  I want numbers here, not hand waving and links to FAQ sheets.  If you think I'm giving you an impossible task with this last one I'd be happy to post them if you don't.

      "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

      by pullbackthecurtain on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:25:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's Enough (0+ / 0-)

        Finally:

        I indeed chose my words poorly when I typed

        Mutations tend to occur

        as the individual mutations occur at the same rate regardless.

        That's good enough for me.

        The rest of the blather I get from you isn't. And no sign of anything better to come. Goodbye.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 12:57:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A simple mind (0+ / 0-)

          satisfied with a simple victory.

          Now you can go back to being entertained by shiny things!

          For anyone else following along the chance for mutation of influenza virus normally is:

          1 in 200,000  

          During an epidemic the chance is 1 in 200,000.

          Source: a REAL scientific journal

          Parvin et. al. J. Virology 1986. 377-383

          "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

          by pullbackthecurtain on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:46:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Simplicity (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, I was satisfied with getting you to finally admit that you "chose your words poorly", AKA, were wrong.

            Anyone else reading this thread will surely notice that you're still insisting that they weren't wrong.

            Simple minds like mine don't keep arguing with people who contradict themself so blatantly. Too dark for me.

            You may now continue to take cheap but meaningless shots in my presumed absence.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:15:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site