On my recent thread on conspiracies, it was posted in the politics section, and it was about politics. As I said in the intro, SOME conspiracies are true, eg, Bay of Pigs, Watergate, plots to kill Castro, etc. All accepted history, fully documented and undisputed. A full list would be huge.
So why is this SUBJECT treated as rubbish, when some of it is verified history? Some are rubbish, some are not.
Today we have a journalist murdered in the Saudi Embassy being discussed on the news. Is it rubbish because it implies a conspiracy?
So there's this gene, IDH1. It's responsible for the production of the protein IDH1.
An c.395G>A mutation in IDH1 leads to p.R132H IDH1.
So if a tumour is IDH1-mutated, can I say IDH1 is mutated? Or is "aberrant" more preferable?
What do I call "p.R132H" if it is not a mutation?