Feel free to report them. I treat everyone the same. Enough with the off topic posts about your warning. Being banned for one day isn't the end of the world and it wasn't solely the result of that warning. If you must discuss it further, please do so via PM.
lol. the incredibly biased cherry picked history, a load of quotes taken out of context.
and ableism.
some of those aren't even related to vaccines, but outdated cell culture techniques.
i'm pretty certain you don't even understand half of that, would you care to explain this and how it relates to vaccine efficacy, given that it actually points out that most of these patients were not of an age where they would have been exposed to the contaminated batch from the 60s:
'SV40 T antigen (Tag) coding sequences were detected by PCR amplifcation followed by Southern blot hybridization in human brain tumors and tumor cell lines, as well as in peripheral blood cells and sperm fuids of healthy donors. SV40 early region sequences were found in 83% of choroid plexus papillomas, 73% of ependymomas, 47% of astrocytomas, 33% of glioblastoma multiforme cases, 14% of meningiomas, 50% of glioblastoma cell lines, and 33% of astrocytoma cell lines and in 23% of peripheral blood cell samples and 45% of sperm fuids from normal individuals. None of the 13 normal brain tissues were positive for SV40 DNA, nor were seven oligodendrogliomas, two spongioblastomas, one neuroblastoma, one meningioma, or four neuroblastoma cell lines. Expression of SV40 early region was found by reverse transcription PCR, and SV40-specifc Tag was detected by indirect immunofuorescence in glioblastoma cell lines. DNA sequence analysis, performed in four positive samples, confrmed that the amplifed PCR products belong to the SV40 early region. Sixty-one % of the neoplastic patients positive for SV40 sequences had an age excluding exposure to SV40-contaminated polio vaccines, suggesting a contagious transmission of SV40. The possible role of SV40 Tag in the etiopathogenesis of human brain tumors and the spread of SV40 by horizontal infection in the human population are discussed.'
just show you understand it.
also i thought you guys didn't believe in PCR amplification?
Stephen Gundry (the author of that paper) claims you shouldn't eat many fruit and vegetables. fruitloop.
To avoid arguments that no one reads you need to see your text as it reads to everyone else. You dont come off as the don juan of communication. The piece above reads as follows:
Emotion: insult, opinion.
Intellectualism
Vague reference, insult, dismisive
Self preening, insult, loaded question (we all know you won't change your mind on anything, this makes you religious), vague reference to material and your opinion (this is the only tiny piece of value in this post).
Huge piece of unreferenced material. (I can assume rather than look at it you want someone else to prove they have before you waste your time, so you have little clue what it says and it feels like a waste of time to read, which is fine. Unless anyone makes sense of a quote and you want to verify it, I wouldnt read it either.)
And in closing you cherry pick something that may or may not even be in the link (I don't care to check), insult the author.
So what were you saying?
As a moderator replying with I think the author is a quack and I'm not reading it could be easily done couldn't it? Do we all care you want to call some names?
I mean all the insults and stuff kinda kill my concern for your opinion on anything frankly. You really are not adding anything that I dont need to go get a degree to decipher (you dont need to, youre choosing language that allows you to control the narative in a tiny way).
I don't care to prove you wrong about anything and you haven't said anything that isnt emotionally charged and opinionated.
When covid first happened I made a remark about it seemed like it was being made to look man made in the media. At the time yiu responded rather rudely that it was impossible because of (some words about spike protein) quoted some random unreferenced name and said even he said it wasnt, therefore for sure completely natural and you referenced your own specialty and how that makes you know.
Good insults and sarcasm have to be veiled in the lace of good intentions. Clever people can insult someone and the person never knows they were insulted. We have a few clever ones on here. One just has to read between the lines.
Fuck. And here's me thinking that this thread had gotten quiet (eerily so) since yesterday. Meanwhile: ya'll been going at it hammer and tongs.
Well the good news for this thread is that we've "officially" entered our fourth wave of this. I say that because given our small numbers (relatively speaking) and the fact that we have this sparkling new variant being found in over 75% of new infections could be this (we) could serve as proof of concept i.e. a sort of data verification trial (for want of a better phrase) or a real time study type of thing. Bearing in mind that at this time: the vaccination rate is very low. And at this time (thus far anyway): there's no talk about hard lock downs (like as in REAL hard lock downs as has been the case up until now) although there are indeed some big events (again relatively speaking insofar as the meaning of "big" is concerned) being cancelled for fear that they could end up as super spreader events. At this time: the only things that are mandated is mask wearing in public places and spaces and social distancing and hand sanitizer being liberally dispensed (sometimes too fucking liberally) when you enter stores or shopping malls etc.
So why bother with this? Because this thread has had me perplexed to no end.
For all of the resident data specialists and anti-government measures peeps maybe somebody could explain the graphs on the below to me (particularly the "Daily new... blah, blah, blah" graphs (not the line graphs).
South Africa Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
www.worldometers.info
What I'd like to know is how come those peaks and troughs on the graphs just happen to coincide with hard lock downs being applied and then relaxed? And almost all of the data is pre-vaccines are not a factor here insofar as the graphs are concerned. I think the point I'm trying to make is pretty clear no?
And in spite of my previous comment about being careful with Africa's data: there's a few things here in South Africa that we've manged to NOT fuck up. Those being our research and state laboratory facilities, our medicines control council (our FDA equivalent), and virology and communicable diseases institutions, and last but not least (arguably the most functional of all) the internal revenue service (tax collection). My point being: I trust the figures and have no reason to question them.
I've quoted numbers on here a few times from stats canadas web site but for no reason I can see all the last 14 years of death sratistics have been replaced by pages of "provisional numbers" all rounded to the nearest 5 all locations.
If anyone from Canada on here has time to search the site for a why I'd love to hear it.
It was one of the last few places I was actually trusting for un biased raw data.
Actually, I think it still needs a bit more subtlety and tact. It isn't just the avoiding a warning, but dissing the bitches in a way they don't realise they are being dissed.
Not just jokingly/semi-seriously openly cussing in good spirit, that's different too, and can squeeze some jam in that way as well.
But you are in Africa so you are probably just a Zebra anyway. A birdie told me Zebras can only learn at a certain pace.
go look for yourself. i've spent nearly a week arguing with people in here when i should have been doing work and not one of the anti-vax/covid denialist claims has stood up to scrutiny. usually their own sources ccontradict them. yours are the same.
i've heard of VAERs, its been frequently trotted out by antivaxxers since before the pandemic, and references to it have provided much amusement but i'm bored of it now. try harder.
Oh come on mate, please don't tag me like that is all I ask ok?
I'm sure you understand me by now, I'm for total liberty & freedom for everyone, if people want to take this Mrna they are 100% FREE in my view to do so, I get upset when people bend the truth & figures to fit their fetid "Woke" agenda like Chinup.
but i do question whether you actually quoted the right post? where is the self preening- the only use of the word 'i' was in 'i thought you guys...' is self reference not required for self preening?
it is valid to query whether people understand the sources they quote.
it is reasonable to point out that the author of the paper grimes posted is viewed as a peddlar of pseudoscience, and i am entitled to state my opinion that he is a fruitloop. it is not cherry picked, it is what gundry is most famous for.
When covid first happened I made a remark about it seemed like it was being made to look man made in the media. At the time yiu responded rather rudely that it was impossible because of (some words about spike protein) quoted some random unreferenced name and said even he said it wasnt, therefore for sure completely natural and you referenced your own specialty and how that makes you know.
believe it or not, i have actually changed my opinion on this. because i update my beliefs in the light of new evidence and was able to have a respectful discussion with someone who provided references that actually backed up his claims. i still don't believe it is man made because we do not see the genomic signatures of mutagenic processes or forced evolution through a model with a similar respiratory system to us, but am willing to accept that it is not as cut and dried as i had first believed and certainly think the WIV is hiding a lot.
if you have looked at recent literature you'll see people from japan to south east asia have been sequencing random shit from lab freezers and finding close relatives to SARS-COV2 though, as of when I last looking, nothing as close as the bat strain. what i conclude from that is that something like this has been floating around over thousands of miles for over a decade, and it was just a matter of time until it jumped over to humans.
and yes, i know things that i have studied for a long time and specialise in. i am not confident in many areas of my life but when it comes to things i've worked my arse of for and am consistently told i do 'excellently' then i'm not afraid to have courage in my convictions. i am sure you have studied things for a long time that i have not, and i would respect your opinion in those more than my own.
Nor even "with" which is how it is classed and recorded.
Do you know one day if civilisation actually sees it I'm not counting on it myself but that's another discussion although not entirely somebody will actually die "from" Covid!
So far everybody has only died with it because once again they can't have it both ways now they have gone down that line they have to shoot from that angle.
So whether you are ventilated to your end in a safe hospital bed and their safe hands or fall from a ladder 2419199 seconds after a PCR test suggested you were "with" Covid, or are by volition spontaneously combusted in a classrom experiment.
Or injected "with" Covid lol 8000 times and found very still the next day although that could not even be done because it hasn't been isolated right?
It's all still "with" surely. Because otherwise we need to start a discussion about where you draw the line between from and with and what these definitions actually really mean.
Nor even "with" which is how it is classed and recorded.
Do you know one day if civilisation actually sees it I'm not counting on it myself but that's another discussion although not entirely somebody will actually die "from" Covid!
So far everybody has only died with it because once again they can't have it both ways now they have gone down that line they have to shoot from that angle.
So whether you are ventilated to your end in a safe hospital bed and their safe hands or fall from a ladder 2419199 seconds after a PCR test suggested you were "with" Covid, or are by volition spontaneously combusted in a classrom experiment.
Or injected "with" Covid lol 8000 times and found very still the next day although that could not even be done because it hasn't been isolated right?
It's all still "with" surely. Because otherwise we need to start a discussion about where you draw the line between from and with and what these definitions actually really mean.
and yes, i know things that i have studied for a long time and specialise in. i am not confident in many areas of my life but when it comes to things i've worked my arse of for and am consistently told i do 'excellently' then i'm not afraid to have courage in my convictions. i am sure you have studied things for a long time that i have not, and i would respect your opinion in those more than my own.
This is the mentality of many professionals, not least doctors, who spend years of their lives studying and incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt. You are hamstrung by your own circumstances, and psychologically you are simply not going to consider alternative viewpoints or information that may shatter your paradigm.. because you're invested so heavily in it. It's quite simple. The same thing happens with institutions, with members relying on it for their salary and pension, and they will fight to protect the institution from what they perceive as an attack on their paycheck/reputation/safety.
The other point is specialization. The military uses 'compartmentalization', which is enforced specialization, to prevent any of its employees from piecing together the bigger picture. When you specialize in something you become an expert in one particular area, but again you're going to defend any attack on your very narrow paradigm because it is a perceived threat to your livelihood. Just because you studied hard and are an expert in one particular area doesn't mean your assessment of the bigger picture is correct.
The fact you can grind through a PhD and become an expert is commendable. But you have to concede your limitations - this is the self reflection I mentioned. We are human beings, our minds play tricks on us as much as we love to believe we're totally in control of our thought processes. I'm not singling you out here because most people do it. It's very difficult to strain yourself to the point of expert status in something whilst simultaneously remaining detached from your involvement in it - we want to feel involved psychologically, and not confront our robotic nature.
The reason why science as a whole has cornered itself is because of this failure to understand our own psychology. It started with noble intentions but has now become a parody of itself and like the very thing it sought to escape (institutional religion).
I somewhat agree with your comments about science, but this happens in every field. It even applies to art to some extent. Scientists are encouraged to challenge ideas. Proving something wrong is encouraged more in science than other fields. Pharma companies want to make a profit, sure, but the world is full of scientists who aren't biased.
I somewhat agree with your comments about science, but this happens in every field. It even applies to art to some extent. Scientists are encouraged to challenge ideas. Proving something wrong is encouraged more in science than other fields. Pharma companies want to make a profit, sure, but the world is full of scientists who aren't biased.
This is the mentality of many professionals, not least doctors, who spend years of their lives studying and incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt. You are hamstrung by your own circumstances, and psychologically you are simply not going to consider alternative viewpoints or information that may shatter your paradigm.. because you're invested so heavily in it.
my phd was fully funded, in fact i got an enhanced stipend so i was more comfortable than most PhD students and incurred no debt. so i'm not hamstrung by my circumstances, especially given that my PhD was in a totally different field to my current field.
there is no threat to my livelihood. i have outlined experience in other areas of bioinformatics. i have standing offers for 2 companies from when i did more normal programming, and 1 university. i am immensely lucky that as long as i don't relapse into serious drug addiction, i will never have to worry about my livelihood
i agree with this. i don't usually debate the bigger picture. its not where my skills or interests lie. if you notice in this thread, i mostly debate people on points of detail that can either be validated swiftly or that fall within my area of expertise.
The reason why science as a whole has cornered itself is because of this failure to understand our own psychology. It started with noble intentions but has now become a parody of itself and like the very thing it sought to escape (institutional religion).
i have said this before but i will say it again. working scientists aren't dogmatic, we work within the knowledge that we are almost always incorrect but the hope that our models at least approximate the truth.
within my PhD new experimental results destroyed a model i'd spent 2 years working on. i did not stick with the model, i had to start again from scratch. the amount of data we are getting on a single virus due to this pandemic has already contradicted many of our previously held beliefs about viruses, and i'm sure as time goes on more of our beliefs will be shattered. its a constantly updating process.
i will say that i have a strong personal investment, because of course everyone who puts time and effort into something is invested in it, and i am sure that it does blinker me at times. but i don't think that can be used a basis to dismiss what i say especially when i cite myself and argue clearly, otherwise we should dismiss everyone with any expertise, and i'm not fucking michael gove.
there is no threat to my livelihood. i have outlined experience in other areas of bioinformatics. i have standing offers for 2 companies from when i did more normal programming, and 1 university. i am immensely lucky that as long as i don't relapse into serious drug addiction, i will never have to worry about my livelihood
But you are still hamstrung by your involvement in it. This applies to everyone. We all fear destitution, so we always look for ways to ignore things that may change our vector to that direction.. even if it means doing immoral things (not saying you are).
i agree with this. i don't usually debate the bigger picture. its not where my skills or interests lie. if you notice in this thread, i mostly debate people on points of detail that can either be validated swiftly or that fall within my area of expertise.
This is the 'forest from the trees' point though. It is one of the key neuroses of western civilization, in fact one can argue it is the key neurosis that goes right back to ancient Greece where the myth evolved that the totality of something could be understood by examining the parts. We see this right down the line in science in all its branches. A practical example would be doctors who treat symptoms in isolation and miss the bigger picture (psychology, diet, fitness related muscle knowledge etc). The point being is that you can't just argue from an isolated point of view, because reality is one interconnected moving part, not the sum of many individual moving parts.
By not taking notice of things beyond a narrow frame of understanding you risk overlooking things outside of it that may show the paradigm is in error, or conversely you may miss things that actually enhance the paradigm and allow it to expand.
i have said this before but i will say it again. working scientists aren't dogmatic, we work within the knowledge that we are almost always incorrect but the hope that our models at least approximate the truth.
within my PhD new experimental results destroyed a model i'd spent 2 years working on. i did not stick with the model, i had to start again from scratch. the amount of data we are getting on a single virus due to this pandemic has already contradicted many of our previously held beliefs about viruses, and i'm sure as time goes on more of our beliefs will be shattered. its a constantly updating process.
i will say that i have a strong personal investment, because of course everyone who puts time and effort into something is invested in it, and i am sure that it does blinker me at times. but i don't think that can be used a basis to dismiss what i say especially when i cite myself and argue clearly, otherwise we should dismiss everyone with any expertise, and i'm not fucking michael gove.
I don't believe your first statement is true at all. You are forced to operate on dogma as a first principle of your actions as scientists - you don't start over from the beginning of science each day you walk through the door do you? You take on faith that all the work done by your predecessors is valid. You have to as a matter of practicality, we don't have time to go back and validate everything on our own. This is completely understandable, but again you have to acknowledge the limitations of this approach.
It is entirely possible therefore for a scientific discipline to go decades, or perhaps even a century, riding on a false assumption of validity and to build an entire concept structure that is essentially based on a lie. I believe this is exactly what has happened with virology since Ender's in the 50's, and I do believe this was done on purpose and not just an oversight or mistake. This doesn't necessarily negate all the empirical observations that a discipline has made; it could just spin things 180 degrees and be an epiphany moment where an entirely new perspective is seen. But with virology specifically, the verifiable visual empirical data is where the wheels come off and I will leave you with these two references to think about:
But you are still hamstrung by your involvement in it. This applies to everyone. We all fear destitution, so we always look for ways to ignore things that may change our vector to that direction.. even if it means doing immoral things (not saying you are).
i literally said i have 3 standing job offers not related to microbes (2 not even bioinformatics), meaning if i lose my job now cos i'm debating you in work time, i will walk into a job on Monday if I choose, and i will dictate the terms of my employment and compensation. i do not fear destitution.
i said i don't debate that because its not in my skill set or interests. as i'm autistic, it would take me an inordinate amount of time to get the whole forest because i need to know exactly what every tree looks like. and at the end, i wouldn't have a good picture cos i'd still be wanting to know why slightly more light hits one tree but it hasn't grown commensurately, or something. i play to my strengths, its what we all should do. i don't make policy decisions.
We see this right down the line in science in all its branches. A practical example would be doctors who treat symptoms in isolation and miss the bigger picture (psychology, diet, fitness related muscle knowledge etc). The point being is that you can't just argue from an isolated point of view, because reality is one interconnected moving part, not the sum of many individual moving parts.
you can argue from an isolated point of view. you just have to be aware of the fact you are doing it. this is how we abstract out the environment in physics, because we can't calculate the entire state of the universe every time we want to predict how a particle will behave. but we are able to make astoundingly accurate predictions.
whether or not sars-cov2 is man made or not, or you believe lockdowns are effective, has no relevance to, for example, whether or not the omicron variant will escape immunity.
By not taking notice of things beyond a narrow frame of understanding you risk overlooking things outside of it that may show the paradigm is in error, or conversely you may miss things that actually enhance the paradigm and allow it to expand.
we learn paradigms are in error when we start seeing data that cannot be explained by the model the paradigm is based on. at that point we will either start trying to tack shit onto the model or we will come up with an entirely new one. when we develop an updated or new model, all of the data explained by the old model must still be predicted by the new model. in the words of James Ladyman, a respected philosopher of science with expertise in maths and theoretical physics, 'the overall structure remains the same.'
I don't believe your first statement is true at all. You are forced to operate on dogma as a first principle of your actions as scientists - you don't start over from the beginning of science each day you walk through the door do you? You take on faith that all the work done by your predecessors is valid.
It is entirely possible therefore for a scientific discipline to go decades, or perhaps even a century, riding on a false assumption of validity and to build an entire concept structure that is essentially based on a lie.
The term “virosphere” describes both the space where viruses are found and the space they influence, and can extend to their impact on the environment, highlighting the complexity of the interactions involved. Studying the biology of viruses and the etiology of virus disease is crucial to the...
i expect that most people don't bother is because unless your research is on viral purification protocols, whch none of those papers in the table are, it doesn't really matter and it might save time and costly reagents.
the quote you posted was taken out of context and, the paper its from is predicated on the existence of viruses, and they are not arguing that EVs and viruses are the same thing. they explain how you can differentiate between the two under difficult circumstances.
there are many cases where you can easily tell the difference between a viral particle and an extracellular vesicle by looking at the bigger picture. you can almost certainly figure it out based on transcriptomic analysis of the nearest cells. and by taking into account evidence at the level of the system or organism under investigation, you will get further differentiation between the two. it is significantly more difficult in the case of EVs arising from viral infections, which was the focus of that paper.
Why doesn't the social anarchy revolution conspiracy get more of a mention online these days?
I was told in early 2002 that covid19 virus outbreak was planned by anarchists to help led to the collapse of all forms of government. And a system of society based on social anarchy would replace the government.
The hardcore leftist anarchists believe the whole covid19 virus pandemic is the perfect storm to destabilise the ruling classes.
Things will get bad real bad, millions will die but for the greater good.
The vaccines aren't as good as the ruling elite make out. The population will keep getting sick and the frail will die on a unprecedented scale. rioting will be widespread and looting eventually becoming the new norm as the banking system grinds to a halt. ATMs will stop spitting out cash. The lights will go out. The sharemarket will become worthless.
Essential services will fail, law enforcement will lose control and the masses will riot. the collapse is unavoidable.
However rising from the smouldering ashes will be the young, who will embrace this new opportunity and gallantly face the challenges of creating a new society free of a ruling elite blah blah blah. You know a world based on social anarchy principles.
The anarchists will rebuild everything necessary , hospitals schools universities powerplants retail outlets the whole kit and Ka poodle, But everyone will be equal. The new world will be fair, the poor no longer going without.
A member of Anonymous hacktivist group told me that pretty much 20 years ago.
The revolution will happen. Viva the revolution, Viva Covid19.
www.worldometers.info
