Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

You really have some SERIOUS data analysis abilities. As noted, the ONLY sequences at Genbank or GISAID with both tandem polymorphisms are the 2011 sequences listed.

Texas/03/2010 was isolated almost a YEAR ago (June) which was 2010. It is a precusor to the 2011 sequences. Influenza EVOLVES and accumulates NEW polymorphisms over time.

You are wasting eveyone's time if you can't understand why Texas/03/2010 is in the Chihuahua sub-clade because you have no clue. It is the early sequence which shows the gene constellation in mid-2010, which is UNCHANGED in 2011 indicating NO ressortment.

Please go back to the babble board, where your nonsense posts won't be quite as glaring and annoying.

You are just mangling real data and proving you are clueless, which has been obvious for some time now.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

big mutation table of "pre-chi" here:
http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=408010

we called
Texas/03, NJ/AF21791,FL/AF21771,NC/AF21796,SC/AF21803,AZ/AF21768
"chi1"

while InDre were "chi2"

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

I didn't consider that to be an analysis; I was asking you a question.

As far as the other issue, I have in my notes that there were 12 InDRE chi as of April 28. So you might understand my confusion of why you kept saying "8" when you listed 12, which is what I also have on my list. It would have been easy to just say you made an error and corrected it.

I accept that I'm a clueless internet babbler who makes errors; but your analysis is confusing sometimes. Without going back to GISAID and double-checking, I'm thinking all 8 of the US and 3 of the InDREs have full HAs. So when you singled out PA, Maryland and Texas, which have all 8 segments (except for PA), I assumed that was what you meant.

Beyond clueless

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

You are clearly clueless. As noted the 8 sequences for Mexico posted yesterday were corrected in a matter of minutes. You may be confusing 8 sequences with 8 segments. The number of sequneces in Mexico was corrected quickly (to 12), so they should not be a source of your confusion. If you are confused by the 8 segments, then you will remain confused.
Moreover, your comments on the Texas/03 sequences indicates you have no idea of how to confirm or verify that there was NO reassortment, so the difference between 8 or 7 gene segments for PA/02 is of little import. The Texas and Maryland sequnece alone prove no recombination. The PA sequneces just confirms the VERY clear data showing no reassortment.
You just don't know how to use the data, which is why you can't distinguish between what is important and what is not, like the utility of the 3 sets of chihuahua sequences which show NO reassortment (which is confirmed by sequences that are quite real, but not yet available).

This is somewhat like the US saying the DNA match showed that bin Laden was bin Laden. You would say that there were difference between his DNA and his father's DNA and then claim that his father wasn't a bin Ladin. You would also say that the US claim of a match wasn't valid because you couldn't see the DNA at GISAID.

That is why you are clueless and wasting bandwidth as far as real data is concerned, although your comments do have a high entertainment value.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

You are confusing me with someone else. I have never made a reassortment claim. I know nothing about that and it has nothing to do with my posts.

I was only trying to clarify what you posted; I know exactly what I saw before you went back and corrected it. Too bad I happened to see it in those "few minutes".

And I think I'm pretty well satisfied with our discussion. Thank you.

I made ONE correction today (in a post with a quote). All other corrections were made yesterday, long before your post today and the pedigree was posted yesterday and SEVERAL DAYS ago.

GSGS posted the reassortment nonsense (and you act as his gopher for GISAID). You asked about the MATCH between TEXAS/03 from 2010 and the 2011 sequences, and you clearly missed the point of the acquisition of the two VERY recent markers in the 24 sequences noted (which are NOT in the 2011 Air Force sequences).

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

For me, and I would imagine most of the lay public who might be following this, I don't think we really care what the underlying process is that is at work. What we care about is whether what is being seen now can be used to predict what may come, and what impact the changes that are occurring now may have in the future of human health.

I understand that significant brain-barriers exist, which pretty well extinguishes any hope of the uneducated public from grasping any significance over the current debate. And each side of this debate seems to be so cemented to their position that no amount of talking will convince the other.

It is unfortunate there isn't a method or experiment that could be deployed to unambiguously prove or disprove one theory over the other so the combined intelligence of those who do have the brain-power to interpret the complexities involved could cooperate to help solve the issues that are more fundamentally important to human health.

This is my worthless 2-cent opinion of uneducated blather. Now, back to the show...

that "experiment" could be the upload of full-genome
US-sequences to genbank, which usually happens in fall...


or the publishing of a paper at pubmed/medline ...

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

No PAHO update for week 17 yet

http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option ... temid=2469

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman