Tocky on 21/6/2020 at 03:57

---

Obamacare is a bioweapon in what deluded fools mind? Yours? It's a badge of honor for any thinking person to have you chime in against them. Thanks. Or were you trying to link anything I said with your looney tunes conspiracy theories? I hadn't said a thing against those. I didn't have to.

Nicker on 21/6/2020 at 08:55

---

The ACA specifically forbids refusal of insurance to people with preexisting conditions, meaning it would save the 400,000 people you claim it targeted. Are you wrong or lying?

It's like you are daring the ban-hammer to strike and thus prove the validity of your wettest, wildest fantasies.

nbohr1more on 21/6/2020 at 14:10

---

First, how is speculating about the motives to the DNC "lying"?

Second: How much money would the HMO industry save if most of the pre-existing conditions folks were simply "gone".
They can then simultaneously say they have a "compassionate policy" while still earning billions.

Just like Nike claims to support social justice causes but simultaneously employs sweatshop workers, this would be pinkwashing on a grand-scale.

Obviously, the HMO industry would prefer that the populace simply be for free-market solutions but they cannot figure out a way
to deny coverage to those who can't afford it. Their next best option is to have health insurance be mandatory by the government similar
to auto-insurance. Their worst nightmare is the "government option" that the progressives extol and that most of the DNC base wants.

So Obamacare is largely a that type of middle-ground. It makes the HMO industry happy because they are always guaranteed compensation from
the entire US populace.

If we had wisdom in the US, there would never be private Health Care businesses and there would never be private profit based Utilities (electricity, water, etc).
Some things are simply too critical to infrastructure to be left to "free market" forces.
Allowing free market companies to design policies and make it law that you "must pay for their services" is a next level of foolishness above that.

Nicker on 21/6/2020 at 19:43

---

When you stated it as a fact and then used that "fact" to strawman another person on this forum. You can assert it was just a speculation but that is asking me to both read and parse everything you post, combing it for nits of nuance. That is a colossal imposition which, owing to my advanced years, I decline to accept.

faetal on 22/6/2020 at 01:29

---

I used to work in actual gene engineering and understand this topic in great depth.
CRISPR is mostly good for knock-out (inactivation / attenuation of an existing gene) by introducing indels (insertion / deletions) in the middle of gene's coding sequences by breaking the strand with CRISPR, and then relying on a DNA repair mechanism called non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which is not very precise and hence results in either insertion or deletion of a few nucleotides. It is possible to do knock-ins (introduction of a new gene, or alteration of an existing one) with CRISPR, but it is very difficult and gets increasingly more difficult with the length or insertion difficulty of the sequence you want to insert at. Most notably, if you want to genetically engineer something in a stable and predictable way (you know, to be useful for ANYTHING AT ALL), then you need to typically use positive and negative selection cassettes (cassette in this context is basically a sequence of DNA which contains several components for performing a function - in this case, expressing a protein).

What are these? Positive selection uses cDNA (gene with intronic sequences removed - just has the coding regions) of a gene which allows survival when a toxic agent is incubated with your material of interest (usually an antibiotic of some kind). A typical example is a Neo cassette , which confers resistance to neomycin. Add neomycin to the medium and boom! Only units with your transgene inserted are able to survive. This brings to negative selection. Here you have a cassette which is in your vector (sequence being used to knock the gene in) but outside of your transgene, hence it will only be in the final unit's DNA if the transgene didn't insert correctly. An example of this would be a TK (thymidine kinase from herpes simplex) cassette. This means that you can add something like gancyclovir to the medium and anything which survived the Neomycin due to having the transgene, but with a random insertion containing the TK cassette, will die. Leaving you (ideally) with just the material which has your transgene of interest, correctly inserted. These cassettes are usually flanked with sites like LoxP or FRT so that they can be excised later by incubation with Cre (excises sequence between LoxP) or FLP (excises sequences between FRT). Obviously none of this applies to an RNA virus, but the techniques remain the same, as it is the only way we know how to do it.

But so what?

What this means is that genetic manipulation leaves a fuck tonne of exogenous sequences littered throughout the final material. This is why we can be so sure that COVID-19 is not engineered - there is zero evidence of any engineering sequences in the virus. There are only sequences from existing strains of coronaviruses, plus some mutations in the known mutation-susceptible regions of coronaviruses. The best current theory is that from a very sustained repository of coronaviruses in the bat population, it transferred to pangolins in wildlife markets, and then to humans, where it most likely mutated again to confer it's current hyper-virulence. This is something viruses do.

The idea that it's engineered because "wow it's so spicy" is intellectually empty, and is a basic argument from incredulity.
I hope that was interesting to some of you, but I assume that it won't land anywhere with nbohr, as I'm obviously an agent of the deep state.

I'm off to go and claim my fancy website as payment now.