Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

The place to discuss the flu
It is currently Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1835
Location: germany
If I made no mistake here, I conclude from your blasts, that

Z0 and Z2 both have the unusual segment 3, but Z2 with some additional mutations.
They share one mutation in segment 1, one in segment 2, one in segment 7.

But Z2 has one additional mutation in segment 1,4 in segment 5, one in segment 7, 4 in segment 8,
while Z0 has one additional mutation in segment 1,3 in segment 6,1 in segment 8.

Hard to tell how close they are, whether one can be descendent of the other.

Making and printing and looking at the mutation-table would be useful.
(even with position-numbers blacked out)

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
gsgs wrote:
seems to increase transmission inside humans

But the question was:

> Do the red bits encourage H2H transmission?


it looks like E627K, as well as D701N and Q226L and L226I
all develope or are selected for in the specified humans.
We have no molecular evidence for H2H here (IMO)

Yes it is clearly your OPINION and requires EVERY human case to undergo a change that is not found in birds. It is an EXTREME position that has no scientific support. ALL seven of the human cases have a PB2 change not found in any of the recent poultry sequences and two of those cases ALSO have L226I, so to get the same changes to happen at TWO distinct functional positions in addition to SILENT changes since both sequences are IDENTICAL for H7, N9 and MP, is a CHALLENGE.

In the absence of clonal expansion, these changes in HUMANS clearly heads into the EXTREMELY unlikely category, which is why your "no" is well into the UTTER NONSENSE category which dovetails nicely with your WISHFUL THINKING aka as IMO.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1835
Location: germany
it's the position that is shared by most scientists,
including e.g. Fouchier.
And WHO,
I haven't found other scientists yet that share your interpretation.

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
niman wrote:
gsgs wrote:
no

Are you trying to claim that H7 L226I and PB2 E627K don't increase HUMAN transmission??????????????

Here is a quick summary of gsgs' position, so you can see how desperate he is you maintain his unsupportable position. He clams that EACH tie a human contracts H7N9 9other than the few confirmed clusters), the virus changes in the patient so EVERY time the PB2 changes at position 627 or 701 to create E627K or D710N.

Moreover, for the two cases with L226I they also have to change this position as well as EVERY other position in H7, N9, and MP that are in the 38M and 45F and not in poultry since the two sequences are IDENTIAL. Moreover a full sequence for Jiangsu/1 would identify more sequence shared by these two cases that are not in any chicken sequence.

Of course clonal expansion (both cases infected by a with a matching virus) is a much simpler example, but that would require SUSTAINED H2H since the two cases had no contacts with each other.

WHO and the CDC rely on posters like gsgs and reporters sho have no clue to keep this "No sustained transmission" fairy tale alive, and gsgs is all too happy to spread the word with his nonsense posts.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
gsgs wrote:
it's the position that is shared by most scientists,
including e.g. Fouchier.
And WHO,
I haven't found other scientists yet that share your interpretation.

Please. Fouchier comments were when there were fewer human sequences with E627K and only ONE case with L226I. Now there are two UNRELATED human cases with IDENTICAL sequences!

WHO has to maintain the fairy tale to deny SUSTAINED H2H and they need your help to post the nonsense, which is NOT supported by ANY scientists familiar with the latest DATA.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1835
Location: germany
which 2 ?

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
gsgs wrote:
which 2 ?

Jiangsu/01/2013 (45F) and A/Hangzhou/1/2013 / A/Zhejiang/1/2013 (37M/38M/39M chef) - patient #1 in Lancet.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
gsgs wrote:
which 2 ?

You have a VERY short memory. You just claimed that the IDENTITY shared between Jiangsu/01/2013 and A/Hangzhou/1/2013 was also found in POULTRY, which was demonstrably FALSE, but you made that comment THIS WEEKEND!

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1835
Location: germany
we only have segments 4,6,7 of Jiangsu/1 = J1 (?)

J1:--,--,--,03,--,01,00,--

J1-H1:--,--,--,00,--,00,00,--

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
gsgs wrote:
we only have segments 4,6,7 of Jiangsu/1 = J1 (?)

J1:--,--,--,03,--,01,00,--

J1-H1:--,--,--,00,--,00,00,--

The three genes are IDENTICAL. That was the reason this thread was started and in the second post you claimed that the IDENTITY was not unique to the human cases and was shared by POULTRY.

You SERIOUSLY have know idea of what YOU post.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9481&start=1

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group