Study: Covid-19 Mutations are NOT Helping the Virus Spread

Coronavirus disease cells, 3D rendering. new 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection outbreak occurs from Wuhan, China

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to study author Professor Francois Balloux, a plausible explanation for why mutant Covid-19 strains are not more infectious than the original is “we missed the early window when it adapted to humans”.

Coronavirus mutations do not appear to be helping it spread more rapidly, study says

Sam Meredith

LONDON — A global study of more than 12,000 coronavirus mutations has found that none of them appear to have made the virus that causes Covid-19 spread more rapidly.

Researchers at University College London assessed coronavirus mutations in over 46,000 samples taken from people in 99 different countries and concluded the mutations all appeared to be neutral when it comes to speeding up the virus’ spread.

The peer-reviewed study, published Wednesday in the Nature Communications journal, identified a total of 12,706 mutations. Of those, 398 strains of the coronavirus were found to have occurred repeatedly and independently.

“This raises the question why #SARSCoV2 is so well adapted for transmission in humans. A plausible answer is that we missed the early window when it adapted to humans,” Balloux said via Twitter on Wednesday.

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

No evidence for increased transmissibility from recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2

Lucy van DorpDamien RichardCedric C. S. TanLiam P. ShawMislav Acman & François Balloux 

COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which jumped into the human population in late 2019 from a currently uncharacterised animal reservoir. Due to this recent association with humans, SARS-CoV-2 may not yet be fully adapted to its human host. This has led to speculations that SARS-CoV-2 may be evolving towards higher transmissibility. The most plausible mutations under putative natural selection are those which have emerged repeatedly and independently (homoplasies). Here, we formally test whether any homoplasies observed in SARS-CoV-2 to date are significantly associated with increased viral transmission. To do so, we develop a phylogenetic index to quantify the relative number of descendants in sister clades with and without a specific allele. We apply this index to a curated set of recurrent mutations identified within a dataset of 46,723 SARS-CoV-2 genomes isolated from patients worldwide. We do not identify a single recurrent mutation in this set convincingly associated with increased viral transmission. Instead, recurrent mutations currently in circulation appear to be evolutionary neutral and primarily induced by the human immune system via RNA editing, rather than being signatures of adaptation. At this stage we find no evidence for significantly more transmissible lineages of SARS-CoV-2 due to recurrent mutations.

Read more:

In a way Professor Balloux’s hypothesis seems reassuring. While it cannot be ruled out that a more dangerous strain may emerge in the future, the virus has not shown tangible signs of progression into a more dangerous form to date, despite plenty of opportunities.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2020 6:24 pm

Presumably we missed the early window where the virus adapted to humans because it happened in a lab in Wuhan.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 1:58 am

From the study, it is clear that the experiments occurred in the University of North Carolina’s BSL3 facilities:

Biosafety and biosecurity.

Reported studies were initiated after the University of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee approved the experimental protocol (Project Title: Generating infectious clones of bat SARS-like CoVs; Lab Safety Plan ID: 20145741; Schedule G ID: 12279).

It is also clear that both the USA (NIH) and China (NNSF) funded the experiments!

Reply to  Scott W Bennett
November 28, 2020 3:10 pm

From what I’ve read on the subject, it would seem that the experiments started in the US but were banned there, so Fauci moved them to Wuhan.

Odd coincidence that The Corona first appeared in Wuhan and Fauci became the US Corona Tzar.

Reply to  MarkG
November 28, 2020 5:59 pm

No, the study was allowed to continue in the US during the moratorium:

The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says. – Nature | News

From the study:

These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses ( This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.

November 27, 2020 6:50 pm

They mutate. Occasionally it seems one mutates that kills about 1/3 of humanity, others kill 2/3 of those who catch it. CoVid19 isn’t even close to that. Maybe we should look on it as a practice run.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 4:19 am

Eric Worrall
November 27, 2020 at 7:00 pm

I think you know something about computer code and programs.
Adding a piece of code randomly somewhere just renders the whole thing to crap.
Meaning it is non functional.

In genetics a non functional virus,
(code non functional-non reproducible by cells)
is far more dangerous then a life one, especially in consideration of pulmonary diseases.

In a big enough dose it blocks significantly for a long enough time only the counterpart life virus, not the rest of the other viruses that can infect the same tissue, influencing a significant jeopardy in the symbiotic equilibrium
(the “symbiotic” immunity)…
when and where a very dangerous but suppressed virus may get a chance to blossom. (it blocks one “disease” and offers an opportunity for another more dangerous.)

Genes can not be added to diseases… 🙂 That is an impossibility.


ak in vt
Reply to  whiten
November 28, 2020 12:05 pm

Viruses cannot mutate unless affected by extreme doses of radiation. A virus is NOT a living organism. Only living organisms can mutate. This is plain and simple biology. BTW when organisms mutate it creates a defect which typically renders that organism unviable to function well much less reproduce. Slight changes within the genetic code capability happen all the time in living organisms.

It is the insanity of “mutating” viruses that causes such inhumane disasters as the culling of the mink at mink farms in Denmark.

Look it up — viruses are the leftovers of a disease, not the disease itself. The “corona virus” is not the problem; it is the solution the body has made when it kills or destroys something else such as chemical toxins, bacterial overload, fungal infections, or even just the discarding of dead DNA and RNA from cells. Virus is part of the immune system (even Pasteur thought so).

Let’s not forget that a “mutation” in the “corona virus” might just be one of the 381 IDENTICAL (yes, you read correctly, “identical” meaning 100% the same) genome parts found on the BLAST biochemist/geneticist research tool that match the markers on “covid” the rt-PCR is looking for:

Dr Andrew Kaufmann among others founda sequence on human chromosome 8 to be identical to one of the rt-PCR markers being looked for”covid:”

I will state again that viruses cannot mutate as they are not living, but can be mutated with extremely high doses of radiation. Therefore, anything you hear about mutating viruses is biologically impossible and a bunch of baloney.


AK in VT

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2020 4:58 am

Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 at 2:17 pm

Viruses (in life) do not attack, especially living systems, unless you meant it colloquially.
Pneumonia is a pulmonary disease caused by many different pathogens.
IDS is a immunodeficiency syndrome, condition, caused by many different diseases or other health conditions… in given circumstances… like in heavily overloading the immune system.

COVID-19, of hospitals, is actually pneumonia, that has a very very small (percentile) connection to SARS-CoV-2 infection… according to the data gathered from
very well established confirmation protocols-procedures… which many nations, especially in Europe, do not care to rely on… at all.

Point made is,
that an altered virus genetic code in a given virus could lead to the same disease, but with the added and very dangerous flavor of potential IDS.
AKA a dud virus could lead to and inflict the same… especially in the case of pneumonia and flu.

In critical health conditions due to a bacterial infection-disease or/and else,
a potential but the wrong antibiotic applied or administered can lead to or inflict IDS too.


Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 4:32 am

Sounds like a variant of HIV? Did they intentionally use that?
With no proof, Nobel Prize recipient, Montagnier, for HIV, said the COVID19 had segments of HIV, and they were playing like “sorcerer’s apprentices’. He has a totally different approach to the whole subject.
Looks like the Aussies were the sorcerer’s apprentices.

It is time to listen to Montagnier’s results. He proposes a really cheap detect-and-treat paradigm, that will drive Big Pharma through the roof – they would be bankrupted.
He got into such a fight in France he had to work in China.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 27, 2020 7:01 pm

P2 – the pathogen returns to inoculate humanity

Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 28, 2020 3:09 am

But is it the virus that is killing us or our immune system overreacting. Because it looks more like an ALLERGIC reaction than a proper common cold.

It is this overreaction that is blocking the lungs with our own defensive cells. Once the wall is built not even ventilators can help you. So the only thing that helps is calming down our immune system.

Reply to  Robertvd
November 28, 2020 5:20 am

Most people, as I understand it, die of organ failure due to microthrombi that are activated by various inflammatory mediators. The infection causes lung inflammation that worsens gas exchange via interstitial edema which can gradually cause alveolar collapse that requires recruitment with a ventilator (opening collapsed alveoli with air pressure and keeping them open with PEEP).

Unfortunately, many (and virtually all doctors early on) jump the gun and intubate patients too early when lung volume and compliance are good, and recruitment is not feasible because alveoli are not collapsed. High ventilator PEEP on compliant alveoli can cause endothelial leakage (barotrauma), causing more edema and inflammation, and activates systemic inflammatory pathways (biotrauma) that mediate thrombosis.

So in these cases it’s very hard to separate how much damage is done by the virus and how much is done by mechanical ventilation. The facts that numerous doctors are having good success by holding off on intubation, and mortality started dropping after the cover was blown off of the intubation scandal, tell me the role of mechanical ventilation in disease progression is significant.

Reply to  icisil
November 28, 2020 6:41 am

Forgot to add that it’s hard to calm down the immune system when the treatment itself is causing significant inflammation.

Reply to  icisil
November 28, 2020 7:10 am

Does anyone here live above 3500 m (11,500 ft)? If yes, I’m wondering what your SpO2 is (blood oxygen saturation). Early covid symptoms sound very much like HAPE symptoms (high altitude pulmonary edema), and the HAPE entry in Wikipedia says that expected blood sats between 3500 m and 5500 m are 75-85%. If you showed up at most hospitals with that low of a sat and tested positive for covid, you’d be on a ventilator faster than the latest weather anomaly is blamed on climate change.

Reply to  icisil
November 28, 2020 10:44 am

November 28, 2020 at 7:10 am

As you seem to be concerned about the Hypoxia.

In consideration of an IDS (Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) condition, fast severe one, as per the cold viral pneumonia disease, the most fatal one,
hypoxia is the first and the least consequence due to wrong treatment,
as a result of misdiagnoses.


November 27, 2020 7:05 pm

P2… returns to inoculate humanity against its own hubris. Well, we know how the story progresses. Then comes P3 – Rise of the Electoral Press.

Joel O'Bryan
November 27, 2020 7:53 pm

For the virus to mutate and pass on a mutation to higher prevalence, selective pressure must be exerted to enable those “fitter” drug-resistant (DR) mutants to spread.
There is almost always a “fitness cost” to a mutation away from the original “wild-type” that was first observed, collected and then sequenced.
For example: in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, HIV’s polymerase enzyme was greatly hindered by common nucleotide inhibitors (NTIs) such as AZT, ddI, ddC. The HIV infected could use those drugs to push the virus down to near zero levels. But the viral polymerase, even though slightly slowed, was still able to select for amino-acid sequences that helped it discriminate against these RNA polymer chain terminating nucleotides. With its high enough mutation rates HIV overcame those barriers and evolved to fitter mutants to keep the transmission going and thus evolve against the selective pressure of those early generation single therapy NTIs.

SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors, if they are found (Remdesivir is NIT one of them, it barely works, if at all vs. SARS-2) , will need to employ a multi-inhibitor approach to prevent escape mutants from evolving into a DR SARS-2.

November 27, 2020 8:17 pm

This virus is an example of intelligent design. /sarc

Reply to  Phil
November 28, 2020 3:15 am

Just like a smartphone or a smart meter or any other device with ‘smart’ written in front of it.

ak in vt
Reply to  Phil
November 28, 2020 12:18 pm

Like the viruses found in in the ocean that control massive growths of bacterial blooms? How about the virus therapy used to control severe bacterial infections in humans when antibiotics are not working?

Sounds like intelligent design to me.

Viruses can be helpful. When they seem to be destructive, it is most likely they are the solution to some kind of infection (be it chemical or microbial), not that which causes damage.


AK in VT

November 27, 2020 8:40 pm

One wonders how these imminent “vaccines” are effective given all these mutations. Hmmm?

Reply to  eck
November 27, 2020 9:38 pm

Effective for what?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  eck
November 28, 2020 2:26 am

The spike proteins used by the virus to enter a cell are highly conserved. This is because they are strongly adapted to the host, that is changes need to be accompanied by corresponding changes in the surface structure of the host cell. Highly unlikely. That means that any mutation in the spike proteine code most probably disables the virus. Therefore that part of a viral genome is highly conserved. It is also the reason that vaccins target that proteine or section of the relevant viral DNA or RNA.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 28, 2020 7:26 am

I think we should all stop making comforting predictions of how well the vaccines work until we actually see them in action. Flu vaccines average 30% actual effectiveness in preventing disease in those vaccinated. I find it hard to believe in the magic bullet wishful thinking of the “public health experts” who have been wrong about everything so far in this epidemic.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
November 28, 2020 9:06 am

Well, the “experts” have so much faith in the vaccine they’re saying we’re going to have to continue with the masks, distance, and lockdowns even after getting them…

November 27, 2020 10:52 pm

This confirms that the virus isn’t likely to mutate to become more infectious from straight human to human transmission. But there is already examples of human/animal/human transmission where at least on one occasion the virus appeared to become more transmissible. . This appears to have happened 5 times on Danish mink farms and the the “cluster 5” version caused the culling of 17 m minks in Denmark. Mink farms in Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, US have also reported minks catching the virus from humans. What is seriously concerning is that it will spread from minks to badgers, ferrets, otters, wolverines, etc will catch it from minks and then it gets back to humans again giving nature a double chance of getting a mutation that is seriously dangerous to humans. Incidentally dogs, domestic cats, lions and tigers have all been reported as catching it from humans.
I wrote an article about this for Actuaries Digital The article also discusses the latest science on how the virus invades human cells. It seems it has several ways of infecting us and not just through the spike protein locking onto the ACE2 receptor.
By the way given this experience with minks there is an increased probabality that it did come from bats via another animal (pangolins) via the Wuhan wet market. Although this doesn’t discount the lab theory.

Reply to  Brent
November 28, 2020 3:38 am

But It is not the virus that is killing us but our own immune system overreaction like in an allergic attack blocking the lungs with our defensive cells.

A properly functioning immune system has no problem with coronaviruses .

Reply to  Brent
November 28, 2020 3:44 am

China has noticed the virus on imported frozen fish (Norwegian Salmon, I think).
Thanks for the post, I did not know there were Mink farms in Italy.

My tomcat has a bad cold. I hope this virus does not jump to cats.
Just imagine if the government ordered a cat cull!
But as I said below, virus species transfer is actually their role in the biosphere.

There is a report somewhere that the chloroplast of photosynthesis was a viral genetic material transfer, and look what that did. The O2 atmosphere thus produced like “a firehose” eliminated most species in a geological blink of an eye. It brought a tsunami of new species.

As they say “works as designed” for hundreds of millions of years.

Russ R.
Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2020 9:42 am

Cats are in danger when they start forming a colony that hides from predators during the day and hunts at night. So we may have to wait several hundred millennia for that to happen.
Minks on the other hand are closely related to ferrets a known target mammal that has been used in “gain of function” experimentation to allow mutations to take advantage of strains that are more effective at attaching to different cells. And mink farms are a perfect environment for the virus to spread. It is a “man-made” bat colony.

Russ R.
Reply to  Brent
November 28, 2020 10:15 am

There is no evidence that bats were sold in the Wuhan Seafood Market. If thee were bats they would have been fruit bats, not Horseshoe Bats. Fruit Bats are large and have “meat” to eat. Horseshoe Bats eat insects and have the body mass of a mouse. They are mostly skin, bone, and internal organs. Not a viable food product considering they are a tropical bat that cannot survive the winters around Wuhan. Closest sources are over 500 miles away.
So the “wet market” source has zero probability of being the source of the virus. It is the equivalent probability of the rest of China’s equally unlikely possible sources. They have had plenty of time to come up with more likely lies, and have failed completely to come up with anything that makes sense.
They are just making stuff up, that have zero probability, but continues to muddy the water for propaganda purposes.
Multiple zero probability sources, and one 100% probability source: Wuhan Institute of Virology, or the disease research facility that is also in Wuhan. It is difficult to delete all the existing evidence that points to specifically the WIV facility as the source. The only real question is whether this is the result of an accidental release or was done on purpose. And the fact that there is little to no public curiosity about which is correct shows a deference to a regime that is either incompetent to be responsible for their research or is a rouge nation willing to unleash destruction on the world to advance their agenda.

Reply to  Russ R.
November 28, 2020 12:29 pm

I ate at some buffets in Wuhan that regularly had chicken and duck feet on the menu. Their meat to skin and bone ratio is very low. Never saw bats being eaten anywhere near there, though saw quite a few flying about at times.

Several markets sold fried rat on a stick and all kinds of other goodies.

Russ R.
Reply to  Scissor
November 28, 2020 1:03 pm

Which makes it a “plausible” cover for people that are unwilling to investigate further. And the CCP knows this, and takes advantage of it. We used to have a thing called “investigative journalism” that was actually curious about how logically coherent, government statements fit with known facts. Pravda standards are now the norm, and if it does not advance the chosen narrative there is no interest in doing anything more that regurgitating today’s propaganda.
The Seafood Market in Wuhan is actually one of the better ones in the area. It specializes in “seafood” not exotic animals. Chicken and duck have been on our menu for tens of thousands of years and is still a source of viral infections. But we have substantial immunity to those strains and there is no evidence that they played a role in this recent outbreak of a NOVEL virus. This is not a “freak, bad luck” occurrence. There is more than a million man hours of costly viral work by experienced viral specialists that produced this end product. You can not erase that from public knowledge, no matter how much you try. But you can force those involved to be silent, or be silenced.

Russ R.
Reply to  Scissor
November 28, 2020 1:50 pm

Sorry, I got sidetracked from your “meat to skin and bone” ratio comment. The difference between fowl feet and tiny bat menu products is the incentives of the seller. Fowl feet are locally sourced and essentially waste products from the profit product.
An Intermediate Horseshoe Bat would have to provide the profit product by itself. And it makes a very poor product. It is not local, so it would require a round trip of people to hike into the jungle trap bats, transport them from a remote location far from Wuhan, to the market and then stored, and fed “insects” in some manner. And then provide a tiny fur ball of skin, bone, internal organs, and maybe a gram or two of low fat meat. It is not economical in any remote sense.
But this was done, and it was done frequently, but not by the market. By the Wuhan Institute of Virology that had financial means much greater than the sellers at the market. And the end product was not the bat. It was the virus strains that they were willing to pay dearly for.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Russ R.
November 28, 2020 2:09 pm

We know that the lab in Wuhan was doing research on bat viruses and had bats, the theory is that a worker illegally sold lab bats at the market, not that the market sold wild bats.

Russ R.
Reply to  Russ R.
November 28, 2020 3:45 pm

Selling goods stolen from people that have the power to make you disappear is foolish. Doing it in a public market for a product that is not in not a good product is not rational.
If the market wants chickens or ducks, do you think you are going to do well selling sparrows? Are you willing to risk your life for that?
And the virus that was native to the bat populations would not infect humans. It needed to go through several intermediate species to gain that functionality. That is what they were doing at the lab. If all they needed was the virus they had that through samples brought back from the bat colonies. They needed it to mutate through many infections of similar species to give it the ability to be contagious between humans. It is not a trivial distinction. It is in fact the reason we banned this type of research in the USA. It has the potential to produce the very pathogen that you want to avoid, in a misguided attempt to “master” it before it spontaneously springs out of the wild. Which it has not done in the past that we know of, and may never do in the future. Or happen so far in the future it would be trivial to irradiate it.

Russ R.
November 27, 2020 11:30 pm

The virus has been evolving for millions of years by mutating to strains that are resistant to the antibodies produced by its host the Intermediate Horseshoe Bat. Bats get infected in the cave by other bats with active infections. Each individual bat produces antibodies that eventually defeat the virus, but not before it is passed on to other bats. If the infection rate is too high, the bats will all produce antibodies too fast and the virus will not have mutated enough to fool the current antibodies. If the infection rate is too low, there is a risk of the virus dying out through lack of transmission.
So we have a virus that is optimized to spread within a cool, dark, moist environment with crowded conditions creating a rate of contagious infection that is enough to maintain infected bats, but not burn through the hosts before the virus can mutate enough to re-infect bats that were previously infected with the pre-mutation version of the virus.
This gives the virus very specialized features that can be exploited by vaccines. The virus is “tuned” to infect a very specific creature in a very specific environment. Even though the S-Proteins have been modified through gain of function experimentation, the core attributes of the virus are still specialized for reproduction in bats. Which means we can attack that specialization ant defeat it, before it has a chance to mutate enough to defeat our vaccines. The potential disaster is this is not the only “problem virus” cooking in Hell’s kitchen. And if anyone yanks on Xi’s chain we will probably have another “accident”.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Russ R.
November 28, 2020 12:28 am

The bats are likely tolerant of the coronoa virus… as carriers usually become. Not clearing the virus. A reservoir.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 28, 2020 4:54 am

So they are the asymptomatic spreaders. Mink too.

Russ R.
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 28, 2020 8:44 am

A minority have active virus infection, most do not. It is not a workable evolutionary strategy to be a parasite to a minority of individual hosts within a closed environment. There is no indication this virus in wide spread within multiple bat colonies. On the contrary it is specific to a small number. And most of the members of those colonies have antibodies. So who does the carrier spread the virus to? The bats live roughly 18 years so birth rates are low. They have a fixed food source. In your scenario the virus strain would die out.

November 28, 2020 1:02 am

This is mostly true since any major mutation of SarsCov-2 makes it a new different virus, not more virulent.

a happy little debunker
November 28, 2020 1:33 am

Proof then that the South Australian health authorities have not got a clue about science.

Reply to  a happy little debunker
November 28, 2020 3:05 am

did you have any doubt they were up sh*tters ditch anyway?
made spurrier look pretty dim

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 28, 2020 8:49 am

“Up sh*tters ditch”

Been years since I heard that, visited OZ in 2004

Love it

Craig from Oz
Reply to  a happy little debunker
November 28, 2020 4:09 am



For those playing at home the SA government believe the virus is a grave danger if you consume alcohol standing up in a licensed venue, but that you are completely safe if you consume the same beverage in the same location sitting down.

Also, while the spirit of this seating based rule is to stop strangers gathering at bars (with 1.5m nominal clearance) we are seated with strangers at tables (with 1.5m nominal clearance). I have spent more time seated around a table socialising with strangers under these restrictions than I have ever done is any other period of my life.

Prevent the Spread. Sit down and chat with strangers! Brought to you be the SA Government.

Speaking of the ‘nominal’ clearance, this was also impossible to enforce when paired to the ‘One person per 2 square metres’ rule they brought in for venue max capacity.

The square metre rule allows people to be the square root of 2 metres spacing from each other – ie 1.414m.

The 1.5m ruling is NOT spacing, it is clearance. Spacing is centreline to centreline. Clearance is edge to edge. To convert them both into apples to apples we need to take 95 percentile width of an adult male across the shoulders which gives us a bit over 2m spacing.

Hence if a venue is allowed to punters at one per 2square metres it is impossible to enforce the ‘1.5m rule’ by roughly 600mm per person.

Implications? 1.414m spacing is considered a safe distance, and we can completely ignore the entire 1.5m rule, OR, 1.5m is the minimum safe distance, and by allowing 1 person per 2 square metres the government has being knowingly placing the lives of the population at risk.


Yet the government claims they have ‘World Class Expert Advice’.


very old white guy
November 28, 2020 3:22 am

How long ago was it when you first read about viruses mutating?

November 28, 2020 3:35 am

Species jumping is still going on – Denmark just this month had to cull 17 million Mink at the worlds largest mink-farm – someone obviously declared crisis, and did not want to be labeled the “Danish did it!”.

It is not just mutations, but this kind of jumping.

The question is why the definite presence in Italy in Sep2019 in blood samples did not produce an overloaded hospital emergency? Are we missing a jump? Will someone say the “Italians did it!”? Hey, maybe the Europeans did it, again?

And that is the role of viruses in the biosphere – genetic transfer. It has been going on for aeons.

And here stands Homo-sapiens, made an absolute fool of by the biosphere.

Steven Fraser
November 28, 2020 6:44 am

@All: An study of outpatients treated with a 3-combo of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin, for your reading pleasure:

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Steven Fraser
November 28, 2020 8:54 am

As HCQ is a toxic substance in canada (but safely used by millions every day in the real world, and no Trudeau’s canada is not the real world, I take daily zinc and vitD supplements and use my soda stream to create industrial strength Tonic which I drink with OJ (sadly allergic to alcohol).

November 28, 2020 7:11 am

Forgive me for breaking it to you, but science has nothing to do with the lockdown or the tier system in the UK

Why, for example, can one only go to a public house or bar (Tiers 1 & 2) and have a drink on the proviso that they eat a substantial meal, not just a plate of chips or a salad?

It’s way beyond parody now.

Reply to  fretslider
November 28, 2020 9:09 am

Quite clear it never was about the virus.

November 28, 2020 7:11 am

A map of the Pentagon’s bio-weapon labs, in 25 countries, funding and agents :

Still, the biosphere “works as designed”.

That explains the huffing and puffing, and harrumphing about “Wuhan”.

John VC
Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2020 7:39 am

thank you for that link, Bonbon

November 28, 2020 7:33 am

“A global study of more than 12,000 coronavirus mutations…” That’s strange, I heard someone on the MSM say that the new vaccines *will* work because the virus has *not* mutated.

November 28, 2020 7:52 am

As a comment here at WUWT explained, RNA viruses are “error prone”, i.e., have no error-correction system unlike DNA.
Whether to call these “errors” mutations, or just noise, a kind of background “hiss” of the biosphere would be very interesting to research, for flicker noise or cyclical modulation. I wonder if anyone has done it….

Russ R.
Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2020 10:44 am

Mutations are random attempts to specialize for specific adaptations that increase the likelihood of reproduction and the continuation of a strain. It is a “trial and error” methodology that results in a high failure rate, but a few successful variations on the current theme. Virus mutations are the secret to their success and they have been very successful for a very long time exploiting opportunities and maintaining successful strains, even though most fail. And even the successful strains are replaced by a superior strain at some point, that is better adapted to the current environment.

Allen Stoner
November 28, 2020 10:20 am

It is not that deadly. So what if it spreads, people will build up immunity to it over the course of three years and then it will be just like H1N1. An old boogeyman that is still out there.

ak in vt
November 28, 2020 12:25 pm


(this shows that above 25 PCR cycles does not culture in more than 30% of patients, and at 35 PCR cycles does not culture in more than 3% of patients)

This would mean that mutations don’t matter even if they could occur.


AK in VT

November 28, 2020 1:41 pm

A reason, why we missed SARS-CoV-2’s early evolution could have been that initially it ‘evolved’ in a laboratory.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  drreaf
November 28, 2020 6:37 pm


November 28, 2020 8:01 pm

“When the bomb goes off, there’ll be a thousand mutations! Andromeda will spread everywhere! They’ll never be rid of it!”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights