CORONA Single-cell RNA expression profiling of ACE2, (corona targets asian men)

bw

Fringe Ranger
So, it is possible for there to be a race specific virus as long as it was acci'dint?

It's possible for any virus to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. It's possible for any number of afflictions to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. Tay-Sachs affects Cajuns more than it does the general population, but that doesn't mean someone had it in for Cajuns.
 

Meadowlark

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I think the intended target was Taiwan, which is full of Han Chinese and the focus of the mainlands desire to unite both. Look at how easily it spreads, designed to maximize societal chaos and breakdown rather than kill everyone.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
For those who insist on the pushing the cult of human homogeneity, and demand that all diseases effect people equally across all ethnicities. Please explain why 90% of American Indians died from diseases that only killed a small percentage of the European population at the time? Explain what other species follow this imaginary ppattern! You do realize that we literally breed for disease resistance in livestock and plants?
Human biodiversity is a good thing!

No one is pushing a "cult" of any kind. On the other hand, some of what is being pushed around here is way too close to the psudeo-science of eugenics which is what the Nazis used to justify their horrendous and evil actions against the jews and other ethnic groups. Eugenics is basically a type of racism cloaked in science. It has been proven false and impossible … scientifically proven … for over a century and yet people still fall for the bullcrap when it aligns with what they want to believe.

The reason why 90% of the Native American/First People were devastated is because the disease were novel to their immune systems, not strictly because of genetics. The black plague did the same thing in Europe. And Mexicans can drink their water while other people are told not to drink the water ... because their immune systems, not due to genetics.

You are mixing apples and oranges and trying to get the science to say that apples are orange and oranges are red.

Yes, people pass along traits ... and some of these traits affect some ethnicities more than others ... sickle cell is one of the more common examples of this.

Let me try and explain what I mean. Human beings have different eye colors. But just because someone is blue eyed doesn't mean they won't have a brown eyed kid ... because even though the blue eye is what they expressed physically their genetic code still has the info on brown eyes and that might be what their kid physically expresses.

On average the genetic difference between people is about 0.1%. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, Asian, Hawaiian, African, Honduran, Jewish, Albino, male, female, or anything other flavor. That percentage difference remains true. There is an hypothesis made about five years ago that the differences may be a few percentage points higher, but we are talking at best half of a percent versus a tenth of a percent.

Based on that scientifically proven reality, there is no real way to have a disease that targets "Asians." Not in the way that people are theorizing.
 

bw

Fringe Ranger
Eugenics is basically a type of racism cloaked in science. It has been proven false and impossible … scientifically proven … for over a century and yet people still fall for the bullcrap when it aligns with what they want to believe.

Eugenics when applied to humans is fraught with political/tribal conflict problems. Pretty much a waste of time even to bring it up. But eugenics is how we breed animals, and is hardly false and impossible.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Suggesting that a specific genetic trait or combinations thereof in a single ethnic group exists is not racist or Eugenic. It's the definition of ethnicity. To suggest that ethnicity can be or has been engineered as an aiming mechanism of sorts for a contagion is not an indication of some sort of rising Nazi sentiment.

I understand that we have to be careful to not look like we're like Stormfront or something, but we can't leave our brains at the door just to avoid controversy. As I said a couple of days ago, I'm not married to the idea of an ethnic engineering of this virus, but I'm still not ready to rule it out. I certainly don't wish such a thing on people, if anything, I find it to be an especially evil thing to have been done, if that's what is happening here.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Suggesting that a specific genetic trait or combinations thereof in a single ethnic group exists is not racist or Eugenic. It's the definition of ethnicity. To suggest that ethnicity can be or has been engineered as an aiming mechanism of sorts for a contagion is not an indication of some sort of rising Nazi sentiment.

I understand that we have to be careful to not look like we're like Stormfront or something, but we can't leave our brains at the door just to avoid controversy. As I said a couple of days ago, I'm not married to the idea of an ethnic engineering of this virus, but I'm still not ready to rule it out. I certainly don't wish such a thing on people, if anything, I find it to be an especially evil thing to have been done, if that's what is happening here.
I hear what you are saying but as people use their brain to come up with theories we should certainly color inside the lines of good science. It is a slippery slope to discount already proven science.

A bit of science trivia. Humans only have 0.1% different between each other. That number for animals is higher. For chimpanzees it is 1.2%.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
Maybe it mutated toward the human hosts it first had the most contact with?

My second thought, it was designed to self-modify to favor whatever population it was released into and thereby do the most damage in that initial first wave of infections. Would work best in very homogenous societies?
 

bw

Fringe Ranger
My second thought, it was designed to self-modify to favor whatever population it was released into and thereby do the most damage in that initial first wave of infections. Would work best in very homogenous societies?

I think "designed to self-modify" takes us into second-order genetic design without much justification. More straightforward to say that viruses are naturally selected by the population they are in.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
I hear what you are saying but as people use their brain to come up with theories we should certainly color inside the lines of good science. It is a slippery slope to discount already proven science.

A bit of science trivia. Humans only have 0.1% different between each other. That number for animals is higher. For chimpanzees it is 1.2%.
I am staying within the lines with my particular crayon. Ethnic concentrations of genetics are a true thing, the idea that specific targeting of those concentrations for any number of purposes is also a thing. The specific idea of using such targeting to perpetrate an assault on an ethnic concentration is merely another expression of human dispicabilty. Also a thing.

Case in point: Cancer researchers just discovered a T-cell that targets cancers preferentially. If such a directed targeting can occur naturally, the same sort of thing can be established artificially.

As for the low variability in genetics within the Human species, that makes the targeting easier, not harder.

Like I tried to express before, the targeting isn't perfect, since we humans do indeed mix ethnically. There will be some people who don't seem to be of ethnicity "A" and are more assumed to be ethnicity "B", based on the coarse standards of look and expression of general traits. Some of those sorts of people may have an otherwise hidden or dormant "Type-A" trait that is part of the target, and when they fall ill as a result, they are collateral damage.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Howdy, Folks!



One tends to experiment on what one has an abundance of.

Start with mice and rats, work up to humans.


Possible they used human test subjects taken from prisons.

As one can see from the above statistics, mostly male, very few foreigners.

So, the human test subjects were overwhelmingly male asians.

Something happened, virus got out. Accident.

The variant targeting males of western European extraction was probably only on the drawing board before this happened.

TPTB in China may view this as a "rebalancing" of their population, so they may deem this acceptable losses.

Just some back of the napkin guesswork going on here - nothing more than a mental exercise, really.

Peace and Love,

Donald Shimoda
Their human test subjects would be either Falung Gong practitioners or Uighurs.
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
No one is pushing a "cult" of any kind. On the other hand, some of what is being pushed around here is way too close to the psudeo-science of eugenics which is what the Nazis used to justify their horrendous and evil actions against the jews and other ethnic groups. Eugenics is basically a type of racism cloaked in science. It has been proven false and impossible … scientifically proven … for over a century and yet people still fall for the bullcrap when it aligns with what they want to believe.

The reason why 90% of the Native American/First People were devastated is because the disease were novel to their immune systems, not strictly because of genetics. The black plague did the same thing in Europe. And Mexicans can drink their water while other people are told not to drink the water ... because their immune systems, not due to genetics.

You are mixing apples and oranges and trying to get the science to say that apples are orange and oranges are red.

Yes, people pass along traits ... and some of these traits affect some ethnicities more than others ... sickle cell is one of the more common examples of this.

Let me try and explain what I mean. Human beings have different eye colors. But just because someone is blue eyed doesn't mean they won't have a brown eyed kid ... because even though the blue eye is what they expressed physically their genetic code still has the info on brown eyes and that might be what their kid physically expresses.

On average the genetic difference between people is about 0.1%. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, Asian, Hawaiian, African, Honduran, Jewish, Albino, male, female, or anything other flavor. That percentage difference remains true. There is an hypothesis made about five years ago that the differences may be a few percentage points higher, but we are talking at best half of a percent versus a tenth of a percent.

Based on that scientifically proven reality, there is no real way to have a disease that targets "Asians." Not in the way that people are theorizing.
Smh, where did their immune system come from?? They died because the immune system , hat their genetics created, did not give them protection.

Saying we share 99.9% of our DNA is an apples to oranges form of lying. We are 40% banana and 98% chimpanzee under the same lying Apple's to oranges comparison. The fact is that Asian can be up to 10% , or more, Denison and neandethal, which are official classified as another species. alleles that some other groups do not have!!

Now again, we breed For disease resistance in animals and plants. The fact that you seem happy to label anyone who doesn't buy into the cult of human homogeneity, where there are no difference between races or sexes . (Which always gets the white man man blamed when your ideology totally collapses when faced with reality.) , some form of eugenics racist, is well noted.

I Simpit can't take people seriously who pretend we are wall exactly the same, with different tonors. why exactly does human diversity offend you?

I suppose you thinking racist that 1% of Europeans can never catch AIDS, because of GENETICS!! Smh, I reject the unscientific hogwash that humans are exempt from science and genetics that effects everyone other part of life on the planet.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
It's possible for any virus to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. It's possible for any number of afflictions to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. Tay-Sachs affects Cajuns more than it does the general population, but that doesn't mean someone had it in for Cajuns.

That's my point too. A virus doesn't have to be a bio-weapon to target someone genetically susceptible. BRCA gene is not a bio-weapon, but if you have it, you're more likely to get breast cancer. TaySachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, certain cancers - we all know that there are genes that make you more susceptible. Bio-warfare is and should be a separate discussion once we get past establishing that genetic predisposition is true. Once you see this is true - then you can start to ponder whether any vile human tried to exploit those vulnerabilities.

HD
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
I am staying within the lines with my particular crayon. Ethnic concentrations of genetics are a true thing, the idea that specific targeting of those concentrations for any number of purposes is also a thing. The specific idea of using such targeting to perpetrate an assault on an ethnic concentration is merely another expression of human dispicabilty. Also a thing.

Case in point: Cancer researchers just discovered a T-cell that targets cancers preferentially. If such a directed targeting can occur naturally, the same sort of thing can be established artificially.

As for the low variability in genetics within the Human species, that makes the targeting easier, not harder.

Like I tried to express before, the targeting isn't perfect, since we humans do indeed mix ethnically. There will be some people who don't seem to be of ethnicity "A" and are more assumed to be ethnicity "B", based on the coarse standards of look and expression of general traits. Some of those sorts of people may have an otherwise hidden or dormant "Type-A" trait that is part of the target, and when they fall ill as a result, they are collateral damage.

On face value you would think so. The problem is the "targeting" can't be exclusive enough. Because while there may be a recessive gene trait that you can "target", the non-recessive genes are still present. Say you wanted to go over green-eyed people. The problem is that green-eyed people also have the genetic material for blue and brown eyes in their DNA.

Put another way, whether your worldview is secular or primarily religious, it is agreed that all humans descend from a common ancestor. Genetic material from that common ancestor resides in all of us regardless of ethnicity or even gender. Our overall genetic make up is not differentiated enough that you could create (or have happen in nature) a virus that targeted an ethnicity that wouldn't also be dangerous to other ethnicities.

As for the T cell issue … a killer t-cell targets cancer as part of its immune job. It's a lymphocyte. It doesn't kill the host organism, only the cancer. And killing the cancer doesn't kill the host organism either. The cell they are killing/targeting has already been infected/changed and is signaling that it no longer belongs. What you are saying is that, whether engineered or natural, a virus … that isn't part of the human organism to start with … will enter the body and attack cells to replicate itself, but will only target certain humans based on their DNA. And science has not proven that virus can "think" enough to be able to accomplish such a thing. Virus are opportunistic, they don't have the ability to differentiate their "prey" in a macro which is what going after a specific ethnicity would be.

Assuming such a virus did exist … that it was designed to target one type of human being … it still would be hella inefficient as well as too specific to survive in the wild. Why? Because it would enter a body and die 99.9% of the time rather than find a compatible set of DNA to attack and replicate within. And sometimes that spread would be 100%.

This coronavirus has already been shown to infect non-Asians. Some will say that it is just a mutation. That still changes the narrative away from and not towards the theory that it was originally targeted at Asians.

Now add into that the complication that "Asian DNA" is a part of way too many ethnicities. Native Americans & First Peoples are a huge category of "Asian." Then there is the Mongolian factor. Polynesians fall into that category as well. Many people in Russia, Poland, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Hungary test positive for Asian DNA.

It just isn't possible given the full scientific picture. Geographic borders have nothing to do with genetics.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
It's possible for any virus to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. It's possible for any number of afflictions to affect one race more than another without it having been intentional. Tay-Sachs affects Cajuns more than it does the general population, but that doesn't mean someone had it in for Cajuns.

Agreed. There was at least one huge plague during the British control of India that ravaged the locals and didn't do squat to the Brits there. Apparently it wasn't something the Brits had already been exposed to, the way smallpox, etc., nailed American aborigines early in American colonization.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
On face value you would think so. The problem is the "targeting" can't be exclusive enough. Because while there may be a recessive gene trait that you can "target", the non-recessive genes are still present. Say you wanted to go over green-eyed people. The problem is that green-eyed people also have the genetic material for blue and brown eyes in their DNA.

Put another way, whether your worldview is secular or primarily religious, it is agreed that all humans descend from a common ancestor. Genetic material from that common ancestor resides in all of us regardless of ethnicity or even gender. Our overall genetic make up is not differentiated enough that you could create (or have happen in nature) a virus that targeted an ethnicity that wouldn't also be dangerous to other ethnicities.

As for the T cell issue … a killer t-cell targets cancer as part of its immune job. It's a lymphocyte. It doesn't kill the host organism, only the cancer. And killing the cancer doesn't kill the host organism either. The cell they are killing/targeting has already been infected/changed and is signaling that it no longer belongs. What you are saying is that, whether engineered or natural, a virus … that isn't part of the human organism to start with … will enter the body and attack cells to replicate itself, but will only target certain humans based on their DNA. And science has not proven that virus can "think" enough to be able to accomplish such a thing. Virus are opportunistic, they don't have the ability to differentiate their "prey" in a macro which is what going after a specific ethnicity would be.

Assuming such a virus did exist … that it was designed to target one type of human being … it still would be hella inefficient as well as too specific to survive in the wild. Why? Because it would enter a body and die 99.9% of the time rather than find a compatible set of DNA to attack and replicate within. And sometimes that spread would be 100%.

This coronavirus has already been shown to infect non-Asians. Some will say that it is just a mutation. That still changes the narrative away from and not towards the theory that it was originally targeted at Asians.

Now add into that the complication that "Asian DNA" is a part of way too many ethnicities. Native Americans & First Peoples are a huge category of "Asian." Then there is the Mongolian factor. Polynesians fall into that category as well. Many people in Russia, Poland, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Hungary test positive for Asian DNA.

It just isn't possible given the full scientific picture. Geographic borders have nothing to do with genetics.
``

I don't want to argue with you, so we'll have to just wait and see, IMHO. Some of the things I've addressed you're kind of ignoring, or maybe I'm not explaining myself well. And as I've said multiple times, I'm not wedded to the idea, I certainly could be wrong. Hell, I very likely am wrong, but I'm willing to keep it in the realm of possibilities.
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Really long article. This is the relevant part.

This matters because all the dogs in the world actually descended from a few gray wolves. And their evolution occurred relatively recently. While dogs lived with humans for tens of thousands of years, all these lines died out—except for one or two gray wolves in Asia. They made, according to UCLA biologist Robert Wayne, a “profound adaptation” by mutating to digest grain as well as meat. (This revelation was published earlier this year by Swedish geneticist Erik Axelsson.) Wayne established that every dog’s mitochondrial DNA is 99.9% the same as a gray wolf’s—so close they are the same species. One-third of that 0.1% difference is in the genes for fat and carbohydrate digestion. Half is in the brain and the tiny remainder—so little it surprised even Wayne—controls the time and rate of physical development and accounts for the vast differences in size and shape between breeds. Basically, dogs are wolves that adapted to eat rice and be nice.
 

BadMedicine

Would *I* Lie???
Well, my understanding was we were discussing humans. Lol.
Are you being intentionally dense? Ever seen a dog give birth to a litter of kittens? Ever wonder why white couples have white babies? Eugenics is saying "genetic-guided planning." It's the EXACT same in plants/animals. You kill or don't breed or render infertile those you do not want to contribute to the FUTURE gene pool. Just. like. farming.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
``

I don't want to argue with you, so we'll have to just wait and see, IMHO. Some of the things I've addressed you're kind of ignoring, or maybe I'm not explaining myself well. And as I've said multiple times, I'm not wedded to the idea, I certainly could be wrong. Hell, I very likely am wrong, but I'm willing to keep it in the realm of possibilities.

I don't consider honest debate to be arguing so I'm not going to get my nether regions in a twist just because we don't think in lockstep. LOL

What we are doing is discussing and debating and isn't bad at all. Some of the science forums have people on them that act like their privates have been shut in a screen door over a simple different of opinion on whether to mark something with a red pen or blue. They act like they've lost their frelling minds over stuff that simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Open minds are good. Hysteria over stuff that is only a theory is bad. 'Nuff said. [grin]
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
A teacup poodle is closer related to a wolf than a swedish person is to an Australian aborigine.
People are not as alike as scientists once thought
How copy number variation is changing genetics

By Dr. Barry Starr, Stanford University
Dec 8, 2006p

You may have heard that humans are 99.9% the same as each other. Well, not anymore.
New research is showing that we are less alike than this. There isn't an exact number yet but the new number is probably somewhere between 99.0 and 99.9%.
What happened? What have scientists been finding that makes us all less alike?
They've been discovering that we don't just have differences within our genes. We also have differences in the number of copies of our genes as well.
This forces us to rethink how genetics works, how we do genetic testing, what makes us different from a chimpanzee, why some of us are more prone to illness and some of us more resistant, etc. This new research is changing how we think about how our DNA works and why we are who we are. This is huge.





Larger view, larger differences
The idea that we are all 99.9% the same came from looking for differences in our DNA letter by letter. We see the newly discovered differences by looking at big chunks of our DNA all at once.
Let's use a cookbook analogy to show you what I am talking about here. Our DNA has 6 billion letters cut up into 46 different strings of "text" (called chromosomes). Imagine that this DNA is a library of 46 cookbooks.
Just like cookbooks, our chromosomes have recipes too. The recipes are made of sets of instructions called genes. And the genes are written in three letter words called codons.
Until recently, most scientists focused on small changes within a gene. For example, imagine this set of instructions:
Get a glass. Fill the glass with milk. Add 2 tbsp of chocolate powder. Stir.
Here are a couple of single letter differences that completely change the meaning of this recipe:
Get a glass. Fill the glass with silk. Add 2 tbsp of chocolate powder. Stir.
Get a glass. Fill the glass with milk. Add 2 tsp of chocolate powder. Stir.

Now instead of a glass of chocolate milk, you get a glass of chocolate silk. Or in the second case, a very weak glass of chocolate milk.
This is how DNA works too. A change in a letter can cause a change in how a gene gets used. Or whether it gets used at all.
The newly discovered changes, called copy number variants (CNVs), are different than this. They are more like repeats of the same instructions. For example, imagine the recipe now says:
Get a glass. Fill the glass with milk. Add 2 tbsp of chocolate powder. Add 2 tbsp of chocolate powder. Stir.
Now you're going to get a stronger chocolate milk. Or imagine the whole recipe just repeats. Now you get twice as much chocolate milk.
Until a few years ago, scientists thought that most of our differences came from small changes in our DNA. The idea was that every 1000 letters or so, you and I have a different letter. These 6 million differences made me distinct from you.
But over the past few years, scientists have started to notice changes where big chunks of DNA are repeated. Or missing.
As they looked harder, more and more of these changes became apparent. As of November 2006, more than 600 of these CNVs had been identified that covered 104 million DNA letters (called bases). That's 4% of our DNA!
Now a new paper in the journal Nature shows there are even more than this. The researchers found 1447 of these big changes that spanned 360 million letters. Now we're up to 12% of all of our DNA.
And because of how they did the work, this is probably an underestimate. In other words, even more of our DNA probably has changes like these.
A lot of this repeated DNA includes genes. Which means people not only have differences within their genes, but also in the number of their genes. We are definitely not as alike as we once believed.

More Information
Humans show big DNA differences
Global variation in copy number in the human genome
ch1_gene_a_8.jpg


Chromosomes are like cookbooks.
And genes are the recipes.
Why these findings are important
So what? So some of us have 10 copies of a gene and others us of have two--what's the big deal?
The big deal is that these changes can have profound effects on our health and who we are. And no one was looking for these changes before.
Let's look at Down syndrome to give you an idea about how profound these effects can be. Down syndrome happens when someone has an extra chromosome 21.
Now it isn't the extra chromosome 21 that causes the problems...it is the extra 225 genes that are found on the chromosome. And in fact, you don't need to have extra copies of all these genes to have Down syndrome symptoms.
There are some people with Down syndrome who only have an extra piece of chromosome 21. By looking at many of these patients, scientists have narrowed the region that causes Down syndrome to 33 genes.
In other words, when your body has an extra copy of 33 genes, you can end up having Down syndrome. And the new changes we're talking about involve hundreds of genes.
Of course, any repeats with symptoms as severe as those of Down syndrome would not have been passed down in the past. So we are looking at a set of repeats or missing DNA that is tolerable or even enhances survival.
But the Down syndrome case shows how extra copies of even a few genes can have huge effects on our bodies. So there are bound to be some of these changes that affect our health too.
And like I said, scientists weren't looking for these changes before. Which means we may need to look back at a whole lot of our older genetic studies to see how these changes might influence the scientists' conclusions. Their previous conclusions might have been incomplete. Or even wrong.
Let's look at an interesting case to show you what I mean. Some people are naturally resistant to being infected by the virus HIV. This means they are less likely to end up with AIDS.
Studies looking for smaller DNA changes turned up one in a gene called CCR5. CCR5 is important for letting HIV into our blood cells. Some people have a small 32 letter change called delta 32 that makes it so HIV can't get into our cells as easily.
But this doesn't explain all of HIV resistance. Some people without this version of the CCR5 gene are resistant too. And some of these folks are resistant because they have extra copies of a gene called CCL3L1.
Now older studies would have missed this. They would have looked at the DNA of resistant and sensitive people for the smaller DNA differences. Because of how these studies are done, the CCL3L1 gene would not have looked different.
In other words, they would have missed this gene as a cause for HIV resistance. Scientists might have proposed something in the environment or that lots of genes are involved or any number of other possibilities to explain why these people are resistant. None of which would be right.
Let's take it a step further. Imagine someone was going to make a genetic test for HIV resistance.
Using the old way, the test would only look for the CCR5 delta 32 gene version. And would miss the people with extra copies of the CCL3L1 gene. In other words, lots of people who were actually resistant would come up as potentially sensitive in the test.
This genetic test would not give us the best possible results. A new genetic test would need to be designed that looks at changes within CCR5 and in the number of copies of CCL3L1.
Now repeat this process for all of the studies we've already done looking for breast cancer susceptibility, diabetes, autism, etc. I think that gives you a feel for the magnitude of change we are talking about here.
So we need to look over all of our old experiments and see whether we need to reinterpret them in light of CNVs. And we need to redesign genetic tests to look for and find them. And that's not all.
These changes might help us better understand some seemingly unexplainable diseases. They might also show that genetics plays an even bigger role in disease than we thought.
And it makes us rethink how similar we are to other animals as well. Looking at changes within genes, we are somewhere around 96% the same as a chimpanzee at the DNA level. What will it be if we include big changes as well?
As you can tell, scientists have their work cut out for them. The existence of CNVs shines light on areas of the genome that were dark before. They may help us understand ourselves better and explain why we are the way we are.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Are you being intentionally dense? Ever seen a dog give birth to a litter of kittens? Ever wonder why white couples have white babies? Eugenics is saying "genetic-guided planning." It's the EXACT same in plants/animals. You kill or don't breed or render infertile those you do not want to contribute to the FUTURE gene pool. Just. like. farming.

You just supported what I have been saying. A "black" couple can give birth to a "white" child because both black and white humans have the 99.9% of the same genetic material and trying to build a virus that only affects "black" people or "white" people will never happen because there is too much matching DNA/genetic material between the two. Take this even further, you can have fraternal twins where one is "black" and one is "white" and yet they are genetically twins. And it has nothing to do with albinism.

It is what makes us all humans and not hippos and daisies.

But people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of what the science says. That might be a good thing on occasion. I'm not getting my panties in a twist over it. The likelihood is too low for such a possibility and a reality wouldn't survive in the wild. Not to mention the virus has already been shown to infect Non-Asians and potentially non-humans. Oh well.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________

This is the theory I was referring to in one of my posts. The percentage change in difference still isn't enough to make a difference and most in science-based theory still say the difference between humans remains close to 0.1%.

The problem with the above hypothesis is that it only uses examples of life-limiting genetics. AIDS, certain cancers, Downs (that I'm not knocking just pointing out the health issues with the condition), etc. Those are life-limiting mutations of the genome, not what is understood to be "normal."

The theory being presented by the "group think" is that it was a virus designed to go after a "normal" sector of the population, not a very narrow and life-limiting mutation. Asian DNA is far too prevalent in various populations around the world. You wouldn't be able to exclude enough of the world's population for it truly to be efficient enough to be called "limited to."

Additionally, the virus has already been proven to infect non-Asians and potentially other species therefore the argument moves even further away from the point that it is a weaponized agent … whether engineered or natural-origin … designed to go after only one ethnic group.
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
Believe it or not there are humans IMMUNE to HIV. Why? Because they lack a unique receptor site that allows the HIV virus to attach to cells and do their thing. Strange coincidence...the needed receptor site is the same one used by The Black Death, i.e. Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague. A disease that nearly wiped out half of Europeans during it reign in the Middle Ages.

As with every disease there are always 1-2% of the population that by a freak of nature, a roll of the dice are naturally immune. So the suggestion that this current threat is man-made specifically engineered to a specific group is not all that far fetched. As sick and evil as that thought may be.....we are dealing with humans and we know just how evil they can be.
 

willowlady

Veteran Member
"Please explain why 90% of American Indians died from diseases that only killed a small percentage of the European population at the time?"

What I was taught in school eons ago (which may or may not have been merely theory) was that those deadly diseases that Europeans imported were being carried by people who had already experienced generations of the disease and those that lived had developed natural immunity to them, but were able to infect others. IOW, the Europeans had sub-clinical cases of the diseases that never bothered them but when they brought those germs to the Americas, where there was no natural immunity, the unprotected populations were devastated. And then, too, there are the stories of people purposely giving infected blankets to native Americans.....
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Believe it or not there are humans IMMUNE to HIV. Why? Because they lack a unique receptor site that allows the HIV virus to attach to cells and do their thing. Strange coincidence...the needed receptor site is the same one used by The Black Death, i.e. Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague. A disease that nearly wiped out half of Europeans during it reign in the Middle Ages.

As with every disease there are always 1-2% of the population that by a freak of nature, a roll of the dice are naturally immune. So the suggestion that this current threat is man-made specifically engineered to a specific group is not all that far fetched. As sick and evil as that thought may be.....we are dealing with humans and we know just how evil they can be.
Which implies that the survivors of those historic plagues lacked that receptor and may have passed that immunity to their descendants. I would be curious to know how different blood types are affected by various diseases. For instance, does rh- factor infer any immunity.
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
Exactly Cardinal. If you inherit HIV immune DNA from one parent, i.e. half your DNA, then you may get sick....but it likely won't kill you and you are very likely to survive. If both parents have the immune DNA which you inherit, then you are most likely immune to HIV completely.
 
Top