Notice the mundane reference to "10 population passages" in the 2010 article. It only took 10 cell generations to produce 100 "stable" mutations in vitro. Presumably by "stable" in that context they mean reliably able to produce mutations. Reliably mutating, funny that.
And these same researchers pretend they cannot produce the distinc…
Notice the mundane reference to "10 population passages" in the 2010 article. It only took 10 cell generations to produce 100 "stable" mutations in vitro. Presumably by "stable" in that context they mean reliably able to produce mutations. Reliably mutating, funny that.
And these same researchers pretend they cannot produce the distinctive features of Sars-Cov-2 while knowing they rely on serial passaging in the lab to reliably do what they cannot otherwise "engineer." It is "shake and bake" for them. The passaging takes care of everything.
Notice the mundane reference to "10 population passages" in the 2010 article. It only took 10 cell generations to produce 100 "stable" mutations in vitro. Presumably by "stable" in that context they mean reliably able to produce mutations. Reliably mutating, funny that.
And these same researchers pretend they cannot produce the distinctive features of Sars-Cov-2 while knowing they rely on serial passaging in the lab to reliably do what they cannot otherwise "engineer." It is "shake and bake" for them. The passaging takes care of everything.
I wonder how many times they passed these "concoctions" through the most "available" controlled population in the world? The Uyghurs.
And you wondered why the "research" was moved to China?
Check my Newsletter.