• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

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

Are you planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

  • Yes, as soon as possible

  • Probably but I'm going to wait a while first and see how others tolerate it

  • Probably not but maybe

  • No, never


Results are only viewable after voting.

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
74
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.
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?
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,943
Location
Somewhere
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?

Weak diversion tactics?
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
74
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?
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.
 

cduggles

⚥ Male Model Maven ⚥ Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,357
Location
A chromatically corrected world
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?
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.
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,943
Location
Somewhere
Neuroborean said:
I'm putting links because is what intelligent people do

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.
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
74
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.
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:

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:
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).
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
74
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.
No, the differences comes when reading, and understanding, and relating to other material, and that's what I've done for a year.
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
74
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.
You're skeptical? Do you have doubts about the origin or not?
because I clearly stated that I cannot prove anything but I'm sure at a 80-90% due to my investigation.
 

cduggles

⚥ Male Model Maven ⚥ Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,357
Location
A chromatically corrected world
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:

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:
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).
I can’t even.
 

aemetha

Bluelighter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
126
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:
Since @cduggles tapped out in frustration, I'll try and take this one.

Let's start with the word "natural", which is used precisely 10 times in the article, 9 of which as a part of the (unless there have been some significant developments since I last did a biology class) very much empirically supported term "natural-selection". The other instance of its use is in the term "natural evolutionary process" - hardly as particularly contentious claim to make given all the references to natural selection.

The term "very likely" occurs exactly zero times in the article. The term "probable" occurs a similar number of times, zero (unless of course you want to deconstruct the word improbable, but really that's pushing it).

On the pre-assumptions part. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but all science is based on assumptions. Identifying and stating those assumptions is an essential part of the research process. For example, let's say I wanted to research the theory that 1 + 1 = 2. What I'm going to do is get a set of 100 1's and another set of 100 1's, randomise them and run the following equation on it for (i=0;i<100;i++) Set A(i) + Set B(i) = datapoint. On the face of that, it looks sound. I add 1 + 1 100 times and check how many times that the answer is 2. There are assumptions here. In this case, I am assuming that all of set A and all of set B are the value 1. What if they aren't? What if there is a 2 in there? These things happen. These things happen ALL the time.

To deal with this issue we use two main methods - first, we clearly state our methodology, including our assumptions, so that someone else can repeat the work and check their results against ours. Secondly, we don't ever (as in big science no-no, as in stop reading if you see a purportedly qualified scientist do it) state things with certainty. We state things in terms of probability, statistical probability in our results. In our discussion we use terms like "The evidence suggests..." "The evidence strongly points to..." "The overwhelming result...". We don't ever say "We have proven...". You see, it's the media (largely influenced by procedural courtroom drama) that goes out asking for and frequently misquoting scientists as saying they have proof, or that things are proven.

Scientists, like @cduggles so valiantly tried to explain to you are skeptical. Even when everyone else is out there triumphing over the solving of the great mystery, scientists hedge, because they aren't police detectives. They aren't in the business of closing cases. They are in the business of leaving them open so that they can be questioned, challenged, expanded upon and debunked as new information dictates they should be.

The paper you've posted there doesn't appear particularly outrageous or shameless to me. It seems to be appropriately written, and given its context as an early investigation into the origins of this particular coronavirus is well considered and reaches reasonable conclusions, while clearly stating in its limitations section that further research is required. The counterpoint to this article that you've posted is a youtube video with the word ass in the title, and in my previous research on such videos the evidence supporting the assertions made in such videos has been weak (n=toomany, CI = 99%).
 

cduggles

⚥ Male Model Maven ⚥ Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,357
Location
A chromatically corrected world
Since @cduggles tapped out in frustration, I'll try and take this one.

Let's start with the word "natural", which is used precisely 10 times in the article, 9 of which as a part of the (unless there have been some significant developments since I last did a biology class) very much empirically supported term "natural-selection". The other instance of its use is in the term "natural evolutionary process" - hardly as particularly contentious claim to make given all the references to natural selection.

The term "very likely" occurs exactly zero times in the article. The term "probable" occurs a similar number of times, zero (unless of course you want to deconstruct the word improbable, but really that's pushing it).

On the pre-assumptions part. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but all science is based on assumptions. Identifying and stating those assumptions is an essential part of the research process. For example, let's say I wanted to research the theory that 1 + 1 = 2. What I'm going to do is get a set of 100 1's and another set of 100 1's, randomise them and run the following equation on it for (i=0;i<100;i++) Set A(i) + Set B(i) = datapoint. On the face of that, it looks sound. I add 1 + 1 100 times and check how many times that the answer is 2. There are assumptions here. In this case, I am assuming that all of set A and all of set B are the value 1. What if they aren't? What if there is a 2 in there? These things happen. These things happen ALL the time.

To deal with this issue we use two main methods - first, we clearly state our methodology, including our assumptions, so that someone else can repeat the work and check their results against ours. Secondly, we don't ever (as in big science no-no, as in stop reading if you see a purportedly qualified scientist do it) state things with certainty. We state things in terms of probability, statistical probability in our results. In our discussion we use terms like "The evidence suggests..." "The evidence strongly points to..." "The overwhelming result...". We don't ever say "We have proven...". You see, it's the media (largely influenced by procedural courtroom drama) that goes out asking for and frequently misquoting scientists as saying they have proof, or that things are proven.

Scientists, like @cduggles so valiantly tried to explain to you are skeptical. Even when everyone else is out there triumphing over the solving of the great mystery, scientists hedge, because they aren't police detectives. They aren't in the business of closing cases. They are in the business of leaving them open so that they can be questioned, challenged, expanded upon and debunked as new information dictates they should be.

The paper you've posted there doesn't appear particularly outrageous or shameless to me. It seems to be appropriately written, and given its context as an early investigation into the origins of this particular coronavirus is well considered and reaches reasonable conclusions, while clearly stating in its limitations section that further research is required. The counterpoint to this article that you've posted is a youtube video with the word ass in the title, and in my previous research on such videos the evidence supporting the assertions made in such videos has been weak (n=toomany, CI = 99%).
Thank you for such an eloquent explanation.
 

Foreigner

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
6,963
Location
The Cosmos
Oh, Christ. Yes, those sheeple, dumb humans other than you, oh enlightened person.

I'm not enlightened. Most people wallow in their own ignorance though, it's true.

I'm gonna abstain from wading into the COVID vaccine argument after this for the sake of my own wellbeing, but what almost no-one critical of the vaccines available seems to get is that the actual science behind how they were developed is not new - the only difference is that governments worldwide spent unprecedented amounts of largely holographic money to speed up the usually glacial pace of pharma research and approval. Sure there are financial incentives. There always are. We live in a capitalistic world. It doesn't mean that governments globally have somehow conspired to create a mirage of fake science where these vaccines are just a ludicrously complicated conspiracy. Most actual scientists understand the reasons for concern. The ones who aren't or are vaccine sceptics generally have no understanding of the science.

I'm aware the science isn't new. Again, you're assuming what I don't know. The zika virus vaccine uses mRNA tech.

I know the science better than you do, trust me. That's why I have valid concerns. People who are stuck on pro-vax/anti-vax tribalism are too stupid to discuss nuances because their opinions are socially informed and not scientifically informed.

No, and no! This is factually untrue! mRNA research has been going on for decades, with fairly extensive research on animals, and mRNA vaccines have been researched for multiple other diseases in the past several years. It might be true that a human mRNA vaccine is new - but there is no reason, by which I mean, no believable hypothesis supported by scientific evidence - to think that there is anything magically bad about an mRNA vaccine. Quite the opposite in fact, an mRNA molecule is, biologically speaking, far less dangerous than the traditional method of using a carefully neutered variation of the actual pathogen.

COVID vaccines are not going to mutate into the T-virus.

It's new in the way that it's being implemented at this time, with nanotech cholesterols, and in this particular fashion. We are seeing ADRs that do not conform to standard ADR templates, like some people having strokes and neurological failure. It's possible that the nanotech versions are causing auto-immune reactions because of their synthetic cholesterols, we don't know yet. There's simply not enough data. No new drug has ever been implemented en mass like this in our history without going through the full 4 year trial process. Even with regulatory truncation, it's too quick, leaving many unanswered questions. The public is essentially phase IV. It's why you have to sign a liability waver to get the vaccine, so that you can't sue them!

This isn't about mRNA vaccines being "magically bad". The way you reduce your opponent's arguments to that of school children really says a lot about your own arrogance. People who have serious, valid concerns about the vaccines, based on scientific information, are not quacks. We used to be able to have these conversations without people pointing fingers. Now suddenly vaccines are the sacred cow of modern medicine and we aren't allowed to say anything about it without being called anti-vaxers or hacks. This kind of anti-intellectualism and anti-science mindset really benefits the big corporations, who are raking it in right now with no legal repercussions whatsoever. They have foisted products on our society under emergency powers that under any other circumstance would be rejected.

Look at what happened during the H1N1 scare. The pharmaceutical-media-industrial complex terrified the public about a new form of flu that could cause cytokine storm. People believed them, even though now we know their data was insignificant from the mean of most flu viruses. TamiFlu got pushed through and hurt a lot of people, and the ADR reports were measly during the peak hype of the "pandemic" because doctors were told to do the right thing and make sure everyone got vaccinated. It's only now that we know the truth.

PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS. They don't study history and they don't see how it repeats itself over and over. These big pharma shills are taking the public for a ride and making hundreds of billions of dollars, scott free. I'm not saying SARS-CoV-2 isn't a threat, I am saying that the reaction - taking away civil liberties, locking down society, and pushing improperly trialed vaccines - is insane. They are taking us for a ride! How do I know? Because they aren't listening to most of the scientific concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines. Scientists are muzzled -- they don't even get a voice in the media or in the hearings. It's fucking BS.
 

Vastness

Moderator: PD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,183
Location
iterating through cyclic eternities
@Foreigner - I concede that my reduction of certain arguments to a schoolchildren's strawman or however you put it is indeed arrogant, in bad form and just plainly rude. I preach often about the problems of tribalism and acting divisively but often fail to practice it myself, so I apologise for that.

As far as the science - have you studied or practiced bioscience in anything other than an armchair capacity?

I'll make no assumptions here - and for the record, I haven't, although I have studied a physical science. It's just that when no-one in a discussion about some quite specific scientific nuances actually has any real education or experience in that field, claims about who knows the science better seem to be just dumb, pointless pissing contests that are destined to go nowhere. I'll admit to, probably, being guilty of the same though, I'm not a paragon of reason and goodwill to all at all times, so I forgive you for the same, not that you want it or need it, I'm sure. I would appreciate an answer to my above question though.

I happen to know a few practicing research scientists personally, one a specialist in viral respiratory diseases, the other a neuroscientist, and both of them assure me there is nothing to be concerned about. They are both very close to me and - one of them at least - heavily involved in COVID-related research, so I trust that they are not lying, ignorant, or less informed than the average random vaccine skeptic - or let's be specific - the average random mRNA COVID vaccine skeptic we see popping up so often nowadays.

I'm aware that me saying that I know someone who says this is roughly as good evidence for anything as someone who says their cousin knows someone who actually saw Obama metamorphosise into a Reptilian alien once and therefore it must be true, but whatever, I'm not really trying to convince anyone, just expressing frustration at perspectives that I believe to be just somewhat nonsensical.

Not referring to absolutely everything you said by the way, I could maybe agree with some of it - just not the vaccine skepticism bits. But maybe I'll pass on your elabourations to one of my friends out of interest and see if she has a solid rebuttal, or if maybe you're right! All the best anyway.
 

aemetha

Bluelighter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
126
People who are stuck on pro-vax/anti-vax tribalism are too stupid to discuss nuances because their opinions are socially informed and not scientifically informed.
First of all, I want to say I respect your determination to argue the merits of this without going down the anti-vax route. I agree with you about nuance. I have a favourite saying - "Nothing in life is binary except the numbers 1 and 0, and one of them is debunked". You're right that there should be room to discuss these issues.

Here's where I think you're on the wrong side of this debate though. It isn't the place of scientists to determine what level of risk the public is willing to accept, nor is it their place to present worst-case scenarios to influence that decision. That's why we have a system in which scientists advise politicians, but ultimately politicians, as the elected representatives of the public, make the final decisions. Basically, it isn't up to scientists to decide what population is used for the phase 4 trials. The ADR's you note are of concern, should be discussed, should be brought to the attention of politicians. They should also be apprised of the best and worst case and best estimates of prevalence until the data is available. An absence of data is not a justification for not proceeding in a circumstance where not proceeding will probably lead to greater harm.
 

PriestTheyCalledHim

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
13,051
It's simple. Who is planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

You must vote to view the results. Your answer is private.

If no (or yes) feel free to reply why, or which vaccine you prefer. I like the moderna vaccine.

What most people don't know is that the vaccines (except for the chinese one) also get you high for weeks so I'd recommend everyone get one.
What do you mean vaccines get people high? This has never happened to me, ever from any vaccine.

I will probably get the COVID vaccine but I am last on the tier.

I would prefer the J&J vaccine as I dislike needles and it is a single shot.
 

novaveritas

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
994
No, not with the new messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. The older vaccine technologies work like you described, but these newer vaccines work a bit differently, I'll explain in steps.
  • You are injected with the mRNA vaccine. This is basically a set of biological blueprints for your immune system to build a small, on its own harmless, protein which is a part of the COVID-19 virus called a spike protein.
Perhaps supply a link to any scientific evidence showing spike protein is harmless. Maybe something showing in vitro or in vivo toxicology for it.
I will accept evidence for either prefusion or postfusion natural spike or 2p prefusion stabilized spike protein and it can be animal not human data.

Spike has integrin binding motifs, it clearly can bind rather strongly to ACE-2 as well as other targets, so it has active pharmacology. Doesn't bode well for it being a benign harmless protein as you claim.
 
Last edited:

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,943
Location
Somewhere
@novaveritas

I'm glad to see you're still alive. I was concerned you might have died from a blood clot.

In all seriousness, I actually know one of the few people in this country that got blood clots after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. He is in his 40s. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. I haven't done the maths yet, but it seems like this is genuinely a side effect of the vaccine.

It's unfortunate because it's going to turn people off getting the other vaccines and contribute to this whole anti-vax movement... even though it's like one in a million.
 
Top