• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Covid-19 Who's planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine? (Poll)

tubgirl.jpg said:
Just janking your chain with that one, bro. Research is always of interest!
Click to expand...
For example,
why I say this might be AIDS-like? do you know who Luc Montaigner is? research about what he researched with a bio-mathematician about the virus.
And then read this:

That it complements very well with this chinese study...:
www.frontiersin.org

Frontiers | Exogenous Coronavirus Interacts With Endogenous Retrotransposon in Human Cells

There is an increased global outbreak of diseases caused by coronaviruses affecting respiratory tracts of birds and mammals. Recent dangerous coronaviruses a...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org

If you want a rejoinder, there's one here, that I consider not good, but is the only one I know.
science.thewire.in

Why the Study Claiming SARS-CoV-2’s RNA Is Fused Into Human DNA Is Flawed – The Wire Science

science.thewire.in science.thewire.in
His argument is false in when he says that LINE1 does not happen in "such quantities" in the human body, cause in fact what they were proving is that human immune response to coronavirus causes that LINE1 increment, so he's wrong at least on that part.
 
Last edited:
Vastness said:
That's funny because those methods are usually the most accurate ways of explaining facts, but OK, sure.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I'm not explaining myself properly or what.......
I repeat the idea differently:
That such events occur accordingly can be tested in a probabilistic mathematical manner, with a high scientific certainty when such methods are used.
If tested with such methods it would be immediately proven that the probability of such events occurring randomly is tremendously low, practically impossible.
Therefore it is reasonable to think, supported by the fact that a random probability is statistically enormously improbable, that there is a causal event and a direct relationship between AstraZeneca's mass vaccination trials in such places and the appearance of the mutations in those same places at analogous times and not so in other places in the world.
Therefore, it is at least reasonable to think that it would be necessary to seriously investigate the possibility of such an explanatory factor for the appearance of these mutations.

This is how I would explain it in a scientific article, do you understand?
 
@Neuroborean

The problem with posting links and names of people is you're being selective. There are many qualified people that disagree with your position and I can post at least 5 links for every one you post... Research doesn't mean finding links. That takes three seconds on Google. If you've researched it - and you fully comprehend what you're posting - you need to explain why the majority of scientists are wrong. You need to establish why your links contain "the truth".
 
birdup.snaildown said:
@Neuroborean

The problem with posting links and names of people is you're being selective. There are many qualified people that disagree with your position and I can post at least 5 links for every one you post... Research doesn't mean finding links. That takes three seconds on Google. If you've researched it - and you fully comprehend what you're posting - you need to explain why the majority of scientists are wrong. You need to establish why your links contain "the truth".
Click to expand...
Ok, start doing it.
You probably will be selective as well.
 
I’m a scientist and many Nobel prize winners turn into cranks, unfortunately. Well, I don’t believe that DNA emits electromagnetic waves.
I posted the article for information, but Montaigner is obviously off the rails.
 
Neuroborean said:
Ok, start doing it.
You probably will be selective as well.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. I'm not going to start posting links. It's the internet equivalent of throwing books at people during a face-to-face conversation. Posting links is not an argument. It doesn't prove anything. It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.

Back when the alleged election fraud stuff was happening in the US, there were multiple forum members posting links. The same thing happens with climate change and every other topic.

I can post some links about the Earth being flat, if you like?
 
cduggles said:
I’m a scientist and many Nobel prize winners turn into cranks, unfortunately. Well, I don’t believe that DNA emits electromagnetic waves.
I posted the article for information, but Montaigner is obviously off the rails.
Click to expand...
And do you believe in string theory?
There's many others that I guess are not "off the rails" (including his partner) but you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?
 
Neuroborean said:
you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?
Click to expand...

Weak diversion tactics?
 
birdup.snaildown said:
You're missing the point. I'm not going to start posting links. It's the internet equivalent of throwing books at people during a face-to-face conversation. Posting links is not an argument. It doesn't prove anything. It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.

Back when the alleged election fraud stuff was happening in the US, there were multiple forum members posting links. The same thing happens with climate change and every other topic.

I can post some links about the Earth being flat, if you like?
Click to expand...
I'm putting links because is what intelligent people do, read articles, compare arguments and draw their own conclusion, if you don't do that way then I give up with you.
 
Neuroborean said:
And do you believe in string theory?
There's many others that I guess are not "off the rails" (including his partner) but you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?
Click to expand...
I believe string theory is a distinct possibility. I know more about viruses.

I don’t listen to talks unless it’s a researcher. I read research. Unfortunately Montaigner can’t publish anymore because no one will fund his batshit ideas, which I’m guessing you believe is because they don’t want THE TRUTH known.
Scientists start out skeptical. Any other scientist knows that.
 
Neuroborean said:
I'm putting links because is what intelligent people do
Click to expand...

Bots post links all the time. Any moron can go on Google and copy and past some links. The internet is full of people doing what you're doing here.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok let's start with this SHIT of article that was one of the first ones "implying" that "probably" the sars-cov-2 was natural,
they were so outrageously unscientific that in the same article they said is "probable", "is very likely" and they even claim that is natural without not an real evidence but just based on preassumptions, is just... amazing that is published and it appeared everywhere as a big evidence, so outrageous and shameless:
www.nature.com

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com www.nature.com

And then read this, and tell me which of them do you think it is really scientific in the most basic sense: following a premise properly and correct logic when trying to follow the steps of scientific discussion:

China owns Nature magazine's ass: Debunking "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" claiming COVID-19 definitely wasn't from a lab - Harvard to the Big House

An accessible YouTube summary of much of the report below below by a Professor of Neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh’s Medical School is available here. Read the peer reviewed research paper published by BioEssays that this paper seeded, as well as its addendum which conclusively...
harvardtothebighouse.com harvardtothebighouse.com
Here you have some BRAVE scientists, who don't copy others words just cause is easier to paraphrase or copy variations of methods that go to the same place, as if it were the same riff of a rock band played with a couple of notes more by the band of imitators, to make a resume (anyone who has gone to college knows that this is true in a large number of cases).

An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of...
arxiv.org arxiv.org
 
birdup.snaildown said:
Bots post links all the time. Any moron can go on Google and copy and past some links. The internet is full of people doing what you're doing here.
Click to expand...
No, the differences comes when reading, and understanding, and relating to other material, and that's what I've done for a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top