i deleted my most shared tweet. rip. i believe the part about '1 in a billion' is too ambiguous and/or not supported. i don't know how we'd approach putting a likelihood on the #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG sequence in moderna's patents coincidentally also ending up in SARS-CoV-2
the rest of the original thread here: rest of the original thread here:
the 1 in a billion claim can make sense if simplifying each 'slot' in a genome to something like the wheel of a fruit machine, pulling the lever, and checking the output for occurrences of the query string.
but to get a sense of how likely the coincidence is in real life: we'd want to know what the most similar viral sequences in the wild are, what the mutation rate of these viruses is (ht @mittelwertsatz), estimate transmission rate and host population, ctd
and try to figure out the odds of the most evolutionarily viable set of mutations getting from A to B, occurring. and even then we're not taking into account all the existing viruses we don't currently know about.
this 19n sequence for a furin cleavage site appears in moderna's pre pandemic patents, and in SARS-CoV-2, and nowhere else before the pandemic as far as we know. #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG
bigger brains that mine might be able to talk more insightfully re. odds of such a coincidence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
in the fruit machine fallacy the 'digits' of a genome are treated as though they are wheels of a fruit machine.
roughly: you look at a sequence of nucleotides, at the number of possible types for each nucleotide, and calculate the odds of recreating the sequence of interest if all nucleotide types were set at random.
many otherwise smart seeming people claiming that the risk of harm from vaccination is very small.
no. we don't know what the risks are. because: 🧵
1. there's no rigorously collection of adverse events. only passive systems like VAERS. VAERS, known to be subject to massive underreporting, *is* seeing many times more reports than the increased rate of vaccination alone would predict. this is ignored by 'authorities' so far.
2. there is no routine testing for subclinical damage post vaccination. nor was there any biomarker testing for the possibility of such damage in the trials - for instance micro clots.
as far as I can tell, the risk, by the way has entirely to do with the user needing to precisely measure out a correct weight-adjusted dose themselves.
this, needless to say, is not medical advice. and neither is what the FDA is flippantly shitting out above.