I’m not saying that mutations are not important or essential. I’m just saying that the unique feature is the segmented genome. It’s what makes the transitions in pathogenicity so sudden.
1 Like
H1N1 is a much larger subtype. It includes both “Spanish” and “swine” flus.
Your claim is just wrong. Please stop misinforming people because you have too much pride.
1 Like
Yes, it is.
Spanish flu is a subset of H1N1. In the graph you don’t understand, most of the points are for swine flu. Spanish flu is the baseline. The circled points are described as the variety of H1N1 called “swine flu,” which includes the biggie in 2009 (H1N1pdm09).
H1N1pdm09 is still with us today.
You have absolutely zero rational and evidentiary basis for your claim that H1N1 only applies to the Spanish flu of 1918.
2 Likes
You’re right, that’s why I would never make that claim. The 1918 strain disappeared in 1957, then reappeared in the same form in a different place in 1977 (indicating it was released from storage), and then went extinct again in 2009. That is what C&S are talking about when they say “Human H1N1”. You keep saying that swine flu is also called H1N1, and that’s true. But irrelevant.
Yet you did. Your utter refusal to look at it critically is not merely unethical, but IMO is crossing over into immorality, given that influenza H1N1 has killed ~75000 human beings since you claim it became extinct.
You keep trying to draw bright white lines were there aren’t any.
No. The circled points in the graph you keep misrepresenting are from H1N1pdm09, which is not extinct.
H1N1pdm09 is still with us today.
No, it is not. If they were excluding swine flu, Carter’s article is wrong:
“The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions.”
Let’s go through Carter’s creation.com article’s figure legend to see where you’ve gone wrong. It’s a frothy mix of fuzzy, true, and false:
Figure 1. Mutation accumulation in human H1N1.
The use of “human” is fuzzy here. It should be “human isolates.”
The published Brevig Mission strain from 1918 was used as the baseline (bold line) for comparison with all available
“All” is objectively false, as the article is dated 2014. There were many available sequences that became available between 2009-2014.
Wanna know how easy that is to falsify?
…human-infecting H1N1 genomes.
At least Carter clarifies here, sort of, that what he means by “human” in this context is “human-infecting.” But you haven’t done anything of the sort.
There are two distinct trend lines in the data. The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions.
So, Paul, why is it that Carter calls those “swine H1N1 versions” while you are trying to claim that the graph only shows Spanish? Both of you can’t possibly be correct.
a second disappearance in 2009.
This is objectively false, as it is dated 2014.
So, what is YOUR evidentiary basis for YOUR claims about what is and isn’t in the databases? It took me literally seconds to falsify Carter’s and your claim.
2 Likes
As Dr. Carter clarifies in the text below where you quoted, the datapoints shown also include some non-human H1N1 strains, so I do think that would be better titled “Mutation Accumulation in H1N1” to avoid confusion. I’ll pass that along to him. You’re very good at spotting typos, I’ll grant you that much. In C&S actual paper, “Human H1N1” is used to refer to the Spanish Flu–the strain that circulated among humans for 90 years. Not “any H1N1 that could infect a human”.
No. The points in the circle are from the outbreak. They were isolated from humans. Carter calls them “swine flu,” because they are.
It’s not a typo. No amount of redefinitions can reconcile these.
Wrong. they also use “human H1N1” to refer to H1N1pdm09, aka the swine flu:
The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions.
I notice that you didn’t address Carter’s false claim that the strain represented in the 2009–2010 outbreak samples [H1N1pdm09] and additional samples from 2011–2012 [that] are circled disappeared.
That’s objectively false.
3 Likes
When? Where? Nothing you’ve quoted here has demonstrated C&S using “human H1N1” to refer to swine flu. That would be totally contrary to their whole paper.
In 2014, in Carter’s online article.
Figure 1. Mutation accumulation in human H1N1… The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions.
Therefore, using your reasoning, I should be correcting this on your web site, correct?
Yep, that’s the typo I just mentioned. But that is not part of the peer-reviewed paper, now is it? I’ll let him know about that.
Falsely claiming in 2014 that H1N1pdm09 (circled in the graph) “disappeared,” or that it “disappeared from the databases,” or in 2018 claiming that H1N1 is extinct, are not typos.
They are not interpretations of the evidence.
They are grossly misleading misrepresentations of the evidence itself.
You don’t have to defer to Carter, you can correct the record yourself.
(The C&S claim in the 2012 paper that H1N1 (circled in the graph) was “apparently extinct” is now clearly wrong; it was not a typo either, but it should be corrected.)
1 Like
There’s no way you’re still honestly this confused.
I’m not confused, Paul. You’re trying to justify misrepresenting the evidence.
Please tell me the databases YOU and Carter searched before claiming that subtype H1N1, which caused the epidemics of 1918 and 2009-10, is “not detected in the databases after 2009.”
I’m muting you because you’re either unable or unwilling to understand what I’ve explained to you more times now than I can count.
Congratulations Paul! Right now the topic of genetic entropy is being discussed on at least 6 separate threads and you’ve managed to ignore evidence and dodge questions on all 6 simultaneously! That is definitely a board record. 
2 Likes
Sorry about that. We’ll try to contain any further mention of H1N1 into this thread…
1 Like
You haven’t explained anything. You’ve obfuscated very well for someone with no expertise, I’ll grant you that…
1 Like