5 Filters

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical briefing 17 #PHE

“There are 4 current variants of concern and 9 variants under-investigation (Table 1). This report has been published to continue to share-detailed surveillance of Delta (VOC-21APR-02,B.1.617.2) and Lambda (C.37, VUI-21JUN-01). A separate report is published covering our outline data on all the variants of concern and variants under investigation. These additional specialist technical briefings represent early data and analysis on an emerging variant and findings have a high level of uncertainty. Principal changes and findings this week are:
•the Delta variant accounted for approximately 95%of sequenced and 92% geno-typed cases from 7 to 21 June 2021
•an operational issue at a sequencing facility resulted in a reduction in genome coverage for specimen dates 10 to 15 June 2021 (sequenced between 14to 18 June) and may impact variant sequencing counts in figures and tables for this limited period; geno-typing was not affected (see Note 1)
•C.37 (Lambda), previously a signal in monitoring,was designated a new Variant Under Investigation on 23 June 2021 based on global spread and a novel combination of mutations; further data is provided
•very preliminary results for live virus neutralisation of AY.1 (a lineage of Delta with K417N), with a small number of sera from vaccine recipients are reassuring, however further testing is required (data provided by Genotype to Phenotype consortium)
• PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values appear to be persistently lower in Delta than Alpha cases based on routine national testing data. The risk assessment for Delta is published separately and was last updated on 25 June 2021. As Delta is now the dominant variant in the UK, epidemiological data in the weekly surveillance report is highly relevant and available here.” Go to: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf for full report.

“62% OF ALLEGED COVID DEATHS are people who’ve been VACCINATED”

I thought variant meant the spin was varying…what’s it all mean Gerard? :slightly_smiling_face:

This is interesting

“62% OF ALLEGED COVID DEATHS are people who’ve been VACCINATED”

This seems to be referring to the table on page 13-14.

Deaths within 28 days of positive specimen date. Total 117. Unvaccinated, 44.
So vaccinated=73/117, or about 62%.

I saw this kind of stat early on and I think PHE said it reflected the age of those dying with covid, as the elderly were the most vaccinated. Not sure this explanation will wash now.

I wouldn’t have thought so many of those vaccinated would die of actual covid though - but they have had a test. That makes them breakthrough cases.
They should not be vaccinating people who have covid or a positive covid test. Several leading medics have mentioned this concern(*) but common sense says you should have protection from having had covid, and also that it is likely to be risky to make your immune system react to two virus situations at once.

(*) Edit: For example this from ChildrensHealthDefense
"Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a surgeon, immunologist and patient safety advocate said it’s a colossal error to vaccinate people who have previously had COVID and reactions like Greyson’s are a totally avoidable harm. “Why are we rushing to vaccinate people who we know are immune and don’t stand to gain any benefit? If I do anything medically unnecessary to someone as a doctor, I’m opening them up to potential harm. If you’ve had a recent infection and you have viral antigens in your tissues, you can literally and immunologically cause tissue damage.”
Link: Latest CDC VAERS Data Show Reported Injuries Surpass 11,000 in Ages 12 to 17 Following COVID Vaccines • Children's Health Defense

I have since the beginning considered the manufactured (re: Fauci/AIDS etc.), nature of Sars Covid to be evidential of the opening of Pandora’s box, to a “layman” like myself the notion of genetic manipulation suggests that any virus so created will be more likely to be able to change its nature and may show signs (as Sars Covid would appear already to have done), to react in ways that natural viruses do not…hence more infectious and more deadly variants…natural strains do not (I believe), normally do this…same is true of reaction to the vaccines, certain gene-types being more susceptible to adverse reactions (of which my own is almost certainly one, knowing as I do the unusual nature of my family genome re: UV sensitivity etc.), regardless though introducing foreign genes whilst by-passing the normal protective filtering system of the body is an absolute no-no…!

I think the whole situation can be summed up as demonstrating why vaccination against the SARS-2 virus is undesirable, unnecessary and dangerous - and ALWAYS to those who have actually had COVID. Because that confers general T-cell immunity which is long lasting and broad spectrum, mutant strains should cause milder disease in those who have natural immunity, while possibly proving less effective against specifically tuned vaccines, necessitating a gravy train of booster shots and annual top ups.
Didier Raoult considered some months ago that new variants were effectively new organisms, combining many mutations together. He had some evidence to show that the use of Remdesevir may have been responsible for this development, as a mutagen.
I long said that vaccinating under 20s and children was a red line, even if they didn’t have exposure to the virus, as it is their immune reaction that creates the basis for the development of herd immunity - as the Great Barrington declaration states. Yet this obvious fact, known to so many, continues to be ignored.
The vaccination - of people who have to have it - should be preceded by a “reaction test” like they used to do for ?TB. Those who have no reaction get the jab. In those days when vaccines were expensive it was done to save money. Nowadays AS vaccines are expensive, it is NOT done so as to MAKE money! How far have we fallen!

2 Likes

Agreed…you’d be mad to have the jab…sadly there’s a lot of it about, I Tweeted Hanks who’s had Covid: “What on earth…etc.” when he Tweeted that he and his wife were going to get vaccinated…

Hi @Dimac , just a petty point - as I understand it a virus is not a living thing - it is wholly dependent for its chemical reactions on living host cells. At the same time an organism is regarded as a living thing, ergo a variant virus is not an organism.

The msm love to scare us with images of corona with spikes and an evil cartoon face - and distinguish variants with vivid colours again with faces. If people believe viruses are live things like bacteria then it becomes easier to present them as evil little buggers we have to evade to stay alive -it’s how they sell most toilet cleansers!
If I’m wrong then I’m reading the wrong stuff so I need to correct that!
cheers

NO of course you’re absolutely right, and Raoult probably didn’t say “organisms” either, being quick to distinguish the characteristics of viruses from those of bacterial infections. One of those being of course that you can’t use antibiotics against viruses, but you can use anti-virals!
The point is also that the spike protein has become an entity all of its own, more like a prion, against which even anti-virals mightn’t work. But how much do the pharma and GE companies know about all these details? A lot I imagine.
As for depiction of the virus - always somewhere between purple and red, and with various lengths and numbers of spikes - the whole thing is a fictional recreation with a loose relation to the reality. Because the virus can’t be ‘seen’ other than with an electron microscope or X-ray diffusion, it can’t be said to have a colour at all, leave alone legs and a face!

1 Like

Aaah but CJ…if the Universe is conscious these are “living things” in that sense…more they are vectors or nodes of interaction that nevertheless appear to be living things in their reactions because of the environment they represent…you follow?

Aaah but GKH There are doctors out there who still refuse to accept that “they” [EDITED OUT -“do not”] actually exist since no-one has isolated and photographed “them” to prove it. There seems to be evidence that what “they” are could be endogenous substances produced by the human body - Kaufman, Cowan and the Virus Mania authors like Sam Bailey

I can’t go down the “in the beginning there was the Word ( or message)” path - the subject is not researchable by mankind, imo.

cheers

Well I’m proper confused now because I vaguely remember school biology lessons 40+ years ago in which we copied sketches of viruses off the board. They were rather spindly looking things, rather like a transistor or them off War Of The Worlds. They didn’t have wicked evil grins and they were in black and white. As was everything else of course.

The very same:

bacterial_virus

I love how the image is called bacterial_virus.jpg - it came from

https://web.augsburg.edu/~capman/bio152/diversity2-viruses-bacteria/

Which helpfully explains that they are exceedingly small.

Muz Murray would disagree with you; "In the beginning was Prajapati, the Brahman

In whom was the Word

And the Word was verily the Supreme Brahman"

He’s taught people how to access the Logos all his life… and might say; “I am not the word but the word and I are one” or something very similar… #Zen #Existentialism etc.

“Extra-extension-ism? It’s a conservatory doctrine!”

Nb. I was being topical actually… "Caroline Delbert

June 10, 2021·6 min read

Photo credit: PM Images - Getty Images

“Hearst Magazines and Verizon Media may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.”

  • Is the universe a conscious being, like a gigantic widely dispersed human brain?
  • Scientists have long questioned how consciousness and science mix.
  • Two mathematicians have turned one theory into a crunchable math model.

In upcoming research, scientists will attempt to show the universe has consciousness. Yes, really. No matter the outcome, we’ll soon learn more about what it means to be conscious—and which objects around us might have a mind of their own.

:arrow_right: You think science is badass. So do we. Let’s nerd out over it together.

What will that mean for how we treat objects and the world around us? Buckle in, because things are about to get weird.

What Is Consciousness?

The basic definition of consciousness intentionally leaves a lot of questions unanswered. It’s “the normal mental condition of the waking state of humans, characterized by the experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, awareness of the external world, and often in humans (but not necessarily in other animals) self-awareness,” according to the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology.

Scientists simply don’t have one unified theory of what consciousness is. We also don’t know where it comes from, or what it’s made of.

However, one loophole of this knowledge gap is that we can’t exhaustively say other organisms, and even inanimate objects, don’t have consciousness. Humans relate to animals and can imagine, say, dogs and cats have some amount of consciousness because we see their facial expressions and how they appear to make decisions. But just because we don’t “relate to” rocks, the ocean, or the night sky, that isn’t the same as proving those things don’t have consciousness.

This is where a philosophical stance called panpsychism comes into play, writes All About Space’s David Crookes:

“This claims consciousness is inherent in even the tiniest pieces of matter — an idea that suggests the fundamental building blocks of reality have conscious experience. Crucially, it implies consciousness could be found throughout the universe.”

It’s also where physics enters the picture. Some scientists have posited that the thing we think of as consciousness is made of micro-scale quantum physics events and other “spooky actions at a distance,” somehow fluttering inside our brains and generating conscious thoughts.

Photo credit: PM Images - Getty Images

The Free Will Conundrum

One of the leading minds in physics, 2020 Nobel laureate and black hole pioneer Roger Penrose, has written extensively about quantum mechanics as a suspected vehicle of consciousness. In 1989, he wrote a book called The Emperor’s New Mind, in which he claimed “that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and a product of quantum effects.”

Let’s quickly break down that statement. What does it mean for human consciousness to be “algorithmic”? Well, an algorithm is simply a series of predictable steps to reach an outcome, and in the study of philosophy, this idea plays a big part in questions about free will versus determinism.

Are our brains simply cranking out math-like processes that can be telescoped in advance? Or is something wild happening that allows us true free will, meaning the ability to make meaningfully different decisions that affect our lives?

Within philosophy itself, the study of free will dates back at least centuries. But the overlap with physics is much newer. And what Penrose claimed in The Emperor’s New Mind is that consciousness isn’t strictly causal because, on the tiniest level, it’s a product of unpredictable quantum phenomena that don’t conform to classical physics.

So, where does all that background information leave us? If you’re scratching your head or having some uncomfortable thoughts, you’re not alone. But these questions are essential to people who study philosophy and science, because the answers could change how we understand the entire universe around us. Whether or not humans do or don’t have free will has huge moral implications, for example. How do you punish criminals who could never have done differently?

Consciousness Is Everywhere

In physics, scientists could learn key things from a study of consciousness as a quantum effect. This is where we rejoin today’s researchers: Johannes Kleiner, mathematician and theoretical physicist at the Munich Center For Mathematical Philosophy, and Sean Tull, mathematician at the University of Oxford.

Kleiner and Tull are following Penrose’s example, in both his 1989 book and a 2014 paper where he detailed his belief that our brains’ microprocesses can be used to model things about the whole universe. The resulting theory is called integrated information theory (IIT), and it’s an abstract, “highly mathematical” form of the philosophy we’ve been reviewing.

In IIT, consciousness is everywhere, but it accumulates in places where it’s needed to help glue together different related systems. This mans the human body is jam-packed with a ton of systems that must interrelate, so there’s a lot of consciousness (or phi, as the quantity is known in IIT) that can be calculated. Think about all the parts of the brain that work together to, for example, form a picture and sense memory of an apple in your mind’s eye.

Photo credit: Biwa Studio - Getty Images

The revolutionary thing in IIT isn’t related to the human brain—it’s that consciousness isn’t biological at all, but rather is simply this value, phi, that can be calculated if you know a lot about the complexity of what you’re studying.

If your brain has almost countless interrelated systems, then the entire universe must have virtually infinite ones. And if that’s where consciousness accumulates, then the universe must have a lot of phi.

Hey, we told you this was going to get weird.

“The theory consists of a very complicated algorithm that, when applied to a detailed mathematical description of a physical system, provides information about whether the system is conscious or not, and what it is conscious of,” Kleiner told All About Space. “If there is an isolated pair of particles floating around somewhere in space, they will have some rudimentary form of consciousness if they interact in the correct way.”

Kleiner and Tull are working on turning IIT into this complex mathematical algorithm—setting down the standard that can then be used to examine how conscious things operate.

Think about the classic philosophical comment, “I think, therefore I am,” then imagine two geniuses turning that into a workable formula where you substitute in a hundred different number values and end up with your specific “I am” answer.

The next step is to actually crunch the numbers, and then to grapple with the moral implications of a hypothetically conscious universe. It’s an exciting time to be a philosopher—or a philosopher’s calculator." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-believe-universe-conscious-130000832.html

I truly believe (as Rhis does), that if we can grasp this concept we can avoid a whole host of nasties without the need to go reductio ad absurdum on the “causes”…sounds like superstition… eh?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tgnz6Qp-wQ

Hi @KarenEliot - I removed a negative above which didn’t help.

I was not subjected to biology at school or anywhere else - until my kids started classes, and they quickly left me behind!

All I can say is I too am totally confused by the “experts” on the whole of this subject! But I can sometimes detect rodent smells and if so I jump in with both feet. Here there are so many conflicts of interest and motives for bias which are supporting a whole culture of business and “science” that it’s difficult to find a base line we could all agree upon - I personally found Andrew Kaufman very convincing in the 1st link I posted above.
I listened again to the long spotify Darkhorse podcast with Malone Weinstein and Kirch and I felt there were egos, reputations, $$, just below the surface which everyone was skating around and then I realised their lives were inextricably linked to virusism and so the Kaufman hypothesis never touched their antennae.
Things are not adding up and that means no-one wants to simplify the issues for the man in the street to understand or germ theory could suddenly implode.

Very soon we won’t have a problem because no-one will want to discuss anything which is not on the official truth list.

cheers

2 Likes

CJ1:
“All I can say is I too am totally confused by the “experts” on the whole of this subject! But I can sometimes detect rodent smells and if so I jump in with both feet.”

Yes! And the rest

3 Likes

The theory put forward about the genome-mapping would seem to be that a full description would be too revealing re: Fauci & AIDS etc…

I still reckon Tom Campbell’s simple, elegant, occamistic Big Theory Of Everything, outflanks all these efforts to keep the materialist worldview afloat, although it’s clearly sinking, as idealism comes out of its eclipsed state yet again.

And, the Campbell Big TOE also offers the best elucidation I’ve yet seen - again, simple, elegant, occamistic - of the materialist-freaking, but inescapable, experimental results accumulated from investigating quantum phenomena. I think future historians of science will conclude that the double-slit experiment results were the rock on which materialistic science did it’s slo-mo foundering, across the whole length of the 20th century. The materialists have beaten themselves to a frazzle trying to accommodate those - absolutely non-accommodatable - results into their fading worldview.

But… the Campbell Big TOE absolutely requires certain conclusions: that reality is fundamentally probablistic, not deterministic; that free will is not just possible, but essential to the theory; that Big Mind is the basis of everything we see in our reality; and that it renders the whole of our physical, material reality as a holodeck, in which our individuated units of consciousness (our minds, or souls) get repeated “experience packets” - aka lifetimes - in which to exercise our individual free-will, in the choices we make. All this as essential service to the imperative, self-preserving Great Purpose of Big Mind: constantly driving down entropy, by growing towards love…

The theory also requires that when no sentient creature is in a particular part of the holodeck, demanding its own individually-tailored information feed from the rendering-engine function of Big Mind, then - nothing is rendered: “There is no tree; there is no forest; nothing falls, no sound of falling is audible, because nothing is rendered.”

But of course all of that’s a radical step too far for materialist thinkers still trying desperately to find some exotic formulation that allows consciousness to be somehow an emergent function of material action, instead of being the foundation and renderer on which all ‘material reality’ - the entire ‘physical universe’ - stands.

It’s going to take some time - “one death at a time” - before the younger, unencrusted, upcoming minds in theoretical physics will have established this radically idealist worldview as comfortable, and perfectly realistic (in the non-philosophical, popular usage of that word). :wink: :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

1 Like

“somehow an emergent function of material action” Hmmm we could get into a huge debate about this one…esp. re: retro-causality…what most of us experience imho is the potential for consciousness…a state of unrealised dreaming…effort is required to become truly conscious…as the Rev. Mother Gaius Mohiam said to the young Paul Atriedes “…you may be human!” A connection must be made between past and present to allow the future…that is the “emergent” system… :crazy_face:

The zany-face is appropriate, G. No feckin’ idea what you’re talking about. :slight_smile:

What is and what is not “emergent”… if we presume we are conscious it’s not such a problem but the effects of the assumption merely indicate what the law is… our true consciousness only emerges when we realise the potential of the past…this is the system by which the future can come to be…something mankind will have no choice but to realise (as a species), very, very soon… and the realisation of inception is the realisation that choice is the creative principle (as you said), …

Nope, sorry G. Still no inkling of what you’re saying. I know it must be irksome to hear me keep saying it, old soak, but you really must do some small amount of exposition on what your concepts mean - in plain, simple, layman’s language - if you want readers to follow your reasoning. It’s really pointless to keep speaking in allusions, when practically no-one gets what you’re alluding to.

I operate by this rule of thumb: About half the time, what G says is comprehensible, and seems to make interesting sense, at the very least. For the other half… simply impenetrable.

Sorry! I know I’m coming on all hob-nailed, but I really would prefer to grasp what you’re speaking about - if you wouldn’t mind… :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

1 Like