lowenz on 16/6/2020 at 21:22
Please, don't say "PATTERNS" to Sulphur, he gets mad :cheeky:
nbohr1more on 16/6/2020 at 21:29
Quote Posted by faetal
Except the paper I linked contains a cogent and correct analysis of a publicly available nucleic acid sequence.
You have no credibility, and you haven't been able to raise a single argument against the research paper I linked, other than to make some batshit statements about the production values of the website of the lead researcher.
Also, what Sulphur said. You are a cartoon-grade conspiracy theorist.
It's hilarious that you, a species of ape evolved enough to travel in space and communicate with people all over the world using pulsed electrical signals, find the idea of a virus which can do 2 things at once inherently impossible in nature. How do you expect to be taken seriously, when you're so easily convinced by specious concepts that probably only occur to you after your fifth tube of post bong hit pringles?
More cogent than this:
(
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527/S2633289220000083a.pdf/biovacc19_a_candidate_vaccine_for_covid19_sarscov2_developed_from_analysis_of_its_general_method_of_action_for_infectivity.pdf)
?
At least the above doesn't contain dozens of hedge worlds and repeated statements about the same topic matter.
It is far more detailed than that paper from nature.
faetal on 16/6/2020 at 21:41
Yes. And I say that as someone with a PhD in immunology.
You quite obviously have zero science training.
It isn't even really the same topic as the Nature paper - it is focused on the challenges off designing a vaccine and talks about several novel properties in the context of coronaviruses. Nowhere does it support your claims for the virus being unnatural or engineered. Did you not expect me to read it or understand it? I'm not sure what you think you are demonstrating, other than that you don't really understand the topic.
Say deep state a few more times - that might make me change my mind and ignore over a decade of training and experience.
nbohr1more on 16/6/2020 at 21:53
Quote Posted by faetal
Yes. And I say that as someone with a PhD in immunology.
You quite obviously have zero science training.
It isn't even really the same topic as the Nature paper - it is focused on the challenges off designing a vaccine and talks about several novel properties in the context of coronaviruses. Nowhere does it support your claims for the virus being unnatural or engineered. Did you not expect me to read it or understand it? I'm not sure what you think you are demonstrating, other than that you don't really understand the topic.
Say deep state a few more times - that might make me change my mind and ignore over a decade of training and experience.
I guess I am just supposed to believe what you claim about your academic credentials since you typed the letters PhD on a gaming forum?
Correct the Record spent over 1 million dollars astro-turfing reddit ya know.
Nevertheless, as an "expert in immunology" answer this:
"Why didn't Obama institute quarantine lockdown measures during H1N1 (swine flu)?"
faetal on 16/6/2020 at 22:19
That isn't an immunology question - it is a public health policy question. Do you think that Obama's actions are somehow an outcome of his immune system?
I don't care if you believe that I have a PhD in immunology. There are people on here who can probably back me up though, as I have been a member for quite a while and I've been pretty consistent over the years.
It doesn't really matter though, since you probably don't have sufficient immunology understanding to test my knowledge, or understand why yours is lacking. I probably wouldn't know how to test someone's knowledge of astrophysics.
You seem to overestimate your own abilities, and you have some pretty bizarre and cartoonishly romantic ideas about science. Most scientists (certainly not the decent ones) are not searching for "the one true answer", they are fully aware that science works more like a coin slider - you chip away at unanswered questions with iteratively developed hypotheses and experiments and if you are persistent, hard-working, or sometimes even just lucky - you hit something big enough to keep you going for a while. We also don't do science to the exclusion of everything else. I am a musician, plus I have dabbled in coding and web & app design. Scientists are just people like everyone else. Some of them even have fancy websites, as you have found out. Still curious how that proves anything other than that one guy wanted a fancy website. Are fancy websites a dead give away for deep state involvement now, or are you clutching at straws?
Science is hard. It takes years to not only learn the theory behind such a large subject, but also to develop the most important skill of all - the art of setting aside bias in favour of rigour.
Exactly what you aren't doing. Confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and classic Dunning-Kruger over-confidence in your ignorance, coupled with the cognitive dissonance which comes with any hint of a notion that you might be mistaken.
You have every right to believe what you want, but you can't expect other people to adopt your beliefs if your arguments have all the quality of human genitalia daubed on a dungeon wall in human feces.
lowenz on 16/6/2020 at 22:47
Well, people don't share someone's beliefs by the quality of his arguments, but by fascination.
Democracy shows us this thing every day (see the chloroquine supporters :D )
So, in reality, nobody cares about the arguments. They are always a posteriori to better pull themselves together.
It's why attacking the "idiocy" of an argument doesn't change nothing.
Starker on 16/6/2020 at 23:35
Looks like the US strategy of pretending the coronavirus doesn't exist is not working out all too well:
Inline Image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EafjlsnXQAE4_8e?format=jpg&name=smalland in Brazil things are made worse by the mendacious idiot in charge:
Quote:
(
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/world/americas/virus-brazil-bolsonaro-chloroquine.html)
RIO DE JANEIRO — The coronavirus was taking root in Latin America when President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil startled the medical community with a claim: A miracle drug was on hand.
“God is Brazilian, the cure is right here!” the president exclaimed in late March to a throng of supporters. “Chloroquine is working everywhere.”
Since then, the virus has ripped through Brazil. More than 41,000 people have died — Brazil has now passed Britain and has recorded more fatalities than any country other than the United States — and the daily death toll is now the highest in the world, bucking the downward trend that is allowing other major economies to reopen.
Experts point to Mr. Bolsonaro's rejection of the emerging scientific consensus on how to fight the pandemic — including his promotion of unproven remedies such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as one of the factors that helped tilt the country into its current health crisis.
Mr. Bolsonaro ordered the armed forces to mass produce it in the military's pharmaceutical laboratory and ordered a large supply of the drug's ingredients from India.
“Decisions are being made not based on evidence and empirical data but rather on anecdotal reports,” said Denise Garrett, a Brazilian-American epidemiologist who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for more than 20 years. “Bolsonaro invested a huge amount of money into an action that has not been proven to be effective at the expense of increasing testing and contact tracing.”
Between February, when Brazil identified its first coronavirus case, and June, when Brazil's coronavirus caseload topped 828,000, lagging only behind the United States, the country had months to learn from other nations that had been ravaged by the virus and prepare for the pandemic.
Instead, Mr. Bolsonaro has led the country down what health experts call a perilous path: He sabotaged quarantine measures adopted by governors, encouraged mass rallies and repeatedly dismissed the danger of the virus, asserting that it was a “measly cold” and that people with “athletic backgrounds,” like himself, were impervious to serious complications.
[...]
Sulphur on 17/6/2020 at 03:21
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
I have been visiting the websites of scientists since the early 2000's. Whenever a slashdot article has been posted.
I know the normal behavior pattern from 1000's of examples.
How many of these sites have you visited for comparison?
All that tells me is you've been stuck in a confirmation bias bubble for a very long time. 'I visit websites therefore I know everything about science and people.' Do you even realise how stupid that sounds? I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not the way the world works.
Renzatic on 17/6/2020 at 03:27
God forbid he ever look up Johns Hopkins website. It's got animated backgrounds of alleged doctors putting on surgical gloves and everything. It all looks like a scene straight from Grey's Anatomy or some other Hollywood type shit.
How stupid do They think we are to believe such slick, overproduced lies?
Are we supposed to believe that (
https://www.cdc.gov/) this is a real site for a real medical organization? Who are the people in those pictures? When were they taken? Is this really what they do? You'd think that if they were real professionals out saving the world, they'd be too busy to make a website that good.
Okay, on a serious note, wanna know why these labs and hospitals have such slick websites? Simple. It's because having a website that looks like it's some dipshit's first Geocities page won't exactly instill much confidence in their organization now, will it? What they're doing is advertising their competence, and having a strong, attractive web presence is a great way to do just that. You know what they say about first impressions and all that.
I shouldn't have to explain something this goddamn straightforward and common sensicial to someone who's probably in their mid 30's or so, but hey, this is the world we live in now.
lowenz on 17/6/2020 at 04:04
Meanwhile: (
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/cheap-steroid-first-drug-shown-reduce-death-covid-19-patients?rss=1)
Although much of the early hope for COVID-19 treatment focused on drugs that might directly attack the virus (like remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), there has also been considerable debate about medicines that dampen the immune system, like dexamethasone. In its fight against the virus, the body's defenses can overreact, eventually breaking down the thin barrier between the insides of the lungs and the surrounding tissue. That causes the lungs to fill up with liquid and triggers acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in which patients can end up essentially drowning in their own liquid.