1

Technology / Waterproff headphones?

« on: 11/05/2021 20:11:50 »

Has anyone developed headphones so you can listen to music while swimming?

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 11/05/2021 20:08:48 »

Sorry Kryptid but the links I posted were from the independent newspaper and the Nation newspaper. So I really dont get what you are talking about.

The quote came directly from the page and the word "conspiracy theory" is in the web address. I don't know what there isn't to "get".

Again I have never seen what you suggested on either 'The Independent' or 'The Nation' news sites so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Or understand why they have been removed considering that both are main steam news sources are you now suggesting the Independent is  a fake news site?

I removed them specifically because you were restricted from posting links as a part of the compromise to allow you back on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less.

Disagree, the official narrative has holes in it,  the suppression of the scientists finding which MEPs amoung other are protesting, also is highly suggestive.

In this background to expression an opinion isnt a conspiracy theory,  to label someone that offers a dissenting opinion as a conspiracy theorist however just serves as a way to dismiss them, and in a baseless way, no service to truth and just a defence of a clear false narrative.

Claiming that the official narrative is wrong and that the truth about it is being covered up by powerful people is exactly what makes it a conspiracy theory: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

Definition of conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public

Just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't fit.

Disagree again, it is now not clear, people suggesting a hoax should be allowed to put forward that hypothesis without these labels, labels which simply serve the America agenda funnily enough but which also could be labelled a  conspiracy theory.

Again, just because you don't like the label doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

What makes it wrong is that CNN and wikipedia dont know, as such they have no right to decide the truth.

Nobody gets to "decide" the truth. Jimmy Dore thinks that the government is hiding the truth about what happened on 9/11 as well. That alone makes him a conspiracy theorist.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I was under the impression I couldn't, and was suprised when they went up. You're the one that have repeatedly asked me to post links, I thought you'd be happy.

That was before I knew you had restrictions imposed upon you by the other mods.

You've removed links from the independent and Nation newspapers, they are highly controversial sites.

See above.

As above

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 11/05/2021 13:06:14 »

Jimmy Dore has been listed as a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia for reporting this information, seems to be a successful campaign afterall you just called him one.

The very link you posted states, "The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack". That certainly sounds like they are proposing that there is a cover-up. The web address of the page itself has "conspiracy theory" in it.

Sorry Kryptid but the links I posted were from the independent newspaper and the Nation newspaper. So I really dont get what you are talking about. Or understand why they have been removed considering that both are main steam news sources are you now suggesting the Independent is  a fake news site?

So this very much sounds like a conspiracy theory. If Jimmy Dore promotes it, then that makes him a conspiracy theorist.

Disagree, the official narrative has holes in it,  the suppression of the scientists finding which MEPs amoung other are protesting, also is highly suggestive.

In this background to expression an opinion isnt a conspiracy theory,  to label someone that offers a dissenting opinion as a conspiracy theorist however just serves as a way to dismiss them, and in a baseless way, no service to truth and just a defence of a clear false narrative.

As such, Wikipedia is not in the wrong for calling him one.

Disagree again, it is now not clear, people suggesting a hoax should be allowed to put forward that hypothesis without these labels, labels which simply serve the America agenda funnily enough but which also could be labelled a  conspiracy theory.

If you're going to convince us that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy, you're going to have to do way better than that. Wikipedia isn't unreliable simply because Jimmy Dore doesn't like being called a conspiracy theorist. Plenty of fat people don't like being called fat either. Being offended by a label doesn't make it wrong.

What makes it wrong is that CNN and wikipedia dont know, as such they have no right to decide the truth.

Also, why are you posting links again? Weren't you told not to?

I was under the impression I couldn't, and was suprised when they went up. You're the one that have repeatedly asked me to post links, I thought you'd be happy.

It's like nothing has changed at all. You are pretty much right back where you started pre-suspension. Due to this, I have removed the links from your posts.

You've removed links from the independent and Nation newspapers, they are highly controversial sites.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 11/05/2021 12:46:28 »

You must be mad.
Because we can not prove that the cylinders were dropped from a helicopter, you assume they must have been put there by locals who, presumably, wanted to gas themselves.

Is that really how your mind works?

No, the scientists on the ground, in their now suppressed report, suggested the barrels were most likley placed at the location. Robert Fisk who visited the town in question reported quoting a doctor at the village

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

The white helmets were created by James Le Mesurier a "Former" Mi6 agent incidentally.

The cylinders were not dropped from a helicopter, considering that America listed the use of chemical weapons as a red line, and that the Assad government was winning the civil war in the country at the time, the use of chemical weapons by the Assad administration which was used as justification by America to attack the country makes little sense.

Repeated American administration's since 2002 have claimed a desire to change the regime inside Syria.

There is also the hilarious story published by the Los Angeles Times, where terrorist groups funded by the Pentagon actually ended up fighting with other terrorist groups funded by the CIA inside Syria. Which also opens the possibility that one of these proxy groups were involved.

Bit of a casino really, but while Assad using chemical weapons makes little sense,  the Hoax makes more.

5

COVID-19 / Re: Should we have tried the inactivated virus approach to vaccines for Covid-19?

« on: 10/05/2021 23:16:50 »

Would producing a deactivated virus to the Brazilian strain be faster or can a Genetic engineered vaccine cover much more all in one.

It looks like the sinovac method of inactivating the COVID virus is a generic technique that binds up the viral RNA so it can't replicate in a human cell.
- This method should be just as effective at inactivating all strains of COVID-19 (including Brazilian, South African and Kent varieties)

What they need to do is to start bulk-manufacturing multiple strains of COVID virus, inactivating them, and producing a "polyvalent" vaccine that works against multiple strains.

This sounds easier than genetic engineering the Wuhan virus to look like all these other strains, and then bulk-manufacturing that hybrid...

It will require an extensive clinical trial (in multiple countries) to test the polyvalent vaccine against multiple different strains...
- All of the vaccine manufacturers are now calculating the odds on what will be the dominant COVID variant(s) in 6 months time, so they can start developing polyvalent vaccines/boosters.

Are you suggesting they will give a polyvariant inactived virus vaccine as a booster to people vaccinated with the mRNA shots?

Wont the antibodies gernerated from the original vaccine be called in to fight it, and therefore interfere with the actual effectiveness?

If I was in a country that hasnt yet started a vaccination program,  I would be looking for a polyvariant inactived virus vaccine for all those not having natural immunity. to be the first vaccine program deployed. But in countries where mRNA vaccines have already been used I'm not sure it would be as effective, simply because the now present antibodies might interfere.

We need effective treatments.

6

COVID-19 / Re: Should we have tried the inactivated virus approach to vaccines for Covid-19?

« on: 10/05/2021 23:12:49 »

Given that the technology is tried and tested and  Chinese inactivated vaccine appears to work, should we have been persuing àn inactivated virus vaccine in march 2020.

I would have gone with an inactivated virus vaccine over an mRNA, simply because it should elicit a wider range of immune response, and potentially help those vaccinated against mutations as a result. Still people that have had covid maybe shouldnt get the vaccine as they now have immunity, should maybe start a thread to discuss the implications of vaccinating someone with aquired immunity as the vaccine will trigger the activation of the reserve antibodies from the original infection,  and potentially interfere.

Would it have been quicker?
Would it have been faster?

Arnt they the same question? The mRNA and Chinese vaccines all started trials at more or less the same time, its apparently cheaper to produce mRNA vaccine but atleast for the current vaccines doent appear to be any quicker.

Would it have been easier to produce?

Cheaper for the mRNA not sure it's easier. Rather simple process to produce a virus and then deactivate it maybe more time consuming as you have to wait for the virus' to develop. Not sure it's as easier to produce an mRNA strand and wrap it in a nanoparticle plus the mRNA is still a novel treatment.

Found this link from politics everything you need know about the Chinese Inactivated virus vaccine. https://www.politico.eu/article/everything-you-need-to-know-china-coronavirus-vaccines/

7

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 10/05/2021 12:55:34 »

OK, lets' have a look at what they say.
"It is possible, the OPCW said, “that the cylinders were the sources of the substances containing reactive chlorine”. Testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and toxicological and ballistic analyses, “provide reasonable grounds that the use of toxic chemical as a weapon took place.” In other words, the canisters had fallen from the sky."

So, the testimony, the environmental samples the toxicology and the ballistics say it was a gas attack.
On the other hand the report which isn't that repressed since it's reported in the Indy... says
"engineering sub-team cannot be certain that the cylinders at either location arrived there as a result of being dropped from an aircraft".

That's not saying "they are sure that they were not dropped"- just that they can't be sure if they were dropped or not.

So, the evidence is that the people were gassed with chlorine. we can't be sure if the gas was dropped from a helicopter.
But it sure wasn't sent by post.

So the evidence still completely supports the story.
Someone gassed these people.


And yet you somehow read that as

Ergo the chemical attacks were a staged event to gain support for the bombing of Syria.

Well that's absurd.
There is no logical way to get from the evidence to your claim.


However, it might be possible if there was a massive conspiracy.

You have already been warned about implausible conspiracy theories.
Posting them is trolling.
You are one of the trolls running amok.
Why shouldn't we just ban you?

You really enjoy defending horror dont you chemist. You should get a job with Mi6.

<<link removed>>

You can watch Jimmy Dore as he reviews discussions in the European parliament and the United nations
<<video removed>>

8

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 10/05/2021 12:25:07 »

Jimmy dore is a perfect example he has been complaining about false information about him on the site as have other journalists and wikipedia refuses to remove it,

What, specifically, is the false information that has been posted about him?

He appears to be a conspiracy theorist, so I'm already suspicious of his reliability.

seems clearer by the day that wikipedia is a site that is being used by those in power to impose what is and what is not accepted to be true. Just seems to be a tool of power now.

Please support this extraordinary statement with reliable evidence. Not that Wikipedia is the be-all-end-all of sources anyway. It's supposed to cite sources itself.

<<link removed>>

Report from the OPCW showed that the Barrels claimed to have been dropped by a plane or helicopter by the Assad regime were actually placed at the location, probably by the white helmets.

Ergo the chemical attacks were a staged event to gain support for the bombing of Syria. And those hurt in these false flags were hurt by western powers. Nothing new here as Chomsky loves to point out "what happened in 911 is no different to the kinds of attacks America Carries out routinely around the rest of the world"

It was this act that caused Trump to change his non interventionist stance and actually his daughter that convinced him to attack Syria in retaliation
<<link removed>>

Marking a striking U-turn from the anti-interventionist stance Mr Trump took during his campaign, on Friday he ordered the firing of 59 cruise missiles at a military target in the war-torn country

Jimmy Dore has been listed as a conspiracy theorist on wikipedia for reporting this information, seems to be a successful campaign afterall you just called him one.

It's Jimmy Dore Vs the war machine, and the war machine has a lot more influence over wikipedia then you might imagine. They play everyone they play the fish. It's honestly shocking how every country that has resources the west wants always manages to be ruled by a monster, there is clearly some monster university somewhere in the world just ready to provide 3rd world nations with horrible leaders.

9

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How long should a Vaccine Trial take?

« on: 09/05/2021 10:28:28 »

No, if the initial study was retracted because of the bad science involved repeating it is rather rediculas.

So then why would you trust that it works if you claim that it's bad science?

As I stated before, HCQ has to be given earily

How do you know? Where is the replicated study that showed such to be the requirement?

But HCQ need to combined with Zink to allow that process to function. Vitamin C also.

Based on what follow-up study? Aren't you the one claiming that no one successfully replicated that study (and as such, no one verified whether this was true or not)?

No I was claiming all the current studies have been bad, not just the initial study that was retracted but also the studies that followed, sadly who pays the study somehow has a huge impact on the results, if you could find a study that gave HCQ early in the infection and combined it with zinc and high dose Vitamin C please share it, sadly you'll find none of them do.

Wikipedia is a false information site,  there are countless examples today of fake information on there especially about individuals and groups who have all tried to get this bad information removed or changed and failed to do so. Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site.

Given that we are discussing the Wikipedia issue elsewhere, then please address the other links I supplied.

Really cute you know I'm not allowed to share links currently.

No I was suspended last time for a joke.

That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I see what goes on behind the scenes. Your conspiracy theory posts about COVID absolutely contributed strongly to your suspension.

What conspiracy theory post?

That covid came.from a laboratory isnt a conspiracy theory, it's one possibie hypothesis amoung others, a hypothesis that many scientists subscribe to today. Concerns about the mRNA vaccine also are comming from the scientific community, they are concerns not conspiracies. And to label legitimate concerns conspiracies, is just being dismissive with no legitimacy to do so. We need more discussion not less by throwing around the conspiracy theory label wildly Nilly you are making the situation worse not better.
If someone has a concern that's incorrect you can correct them and not simply label them a conspiracy theorist, much more helpful.

10

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 09/05/2021 09:41:36 »

Clearly some debate that.

Some people debate whether the Earth is round or not. Big deal.

Things mutate when they have the opportunity

Which is exactly what allowing it to infect more hosts does...

Honestly I find these replies from you rather ... umm what's the word...

or the pressure

No. What pressures do is select for mutations. It doesn't change the probability of the mutation coming into existence.

Yes and those mutations are going to be more infectuous, better able to avoid the immune system, easier to transmit, even if the numbers of infected are low the pressure are going to make a worse virus, this entire pandemic started with one person, my point that quantity of infected isnt the issue here. Even if its just a 100 people only need 1 to develop a more deadly strain to start a new pandemic.

lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations.

It absolutely does. If a single infected individual ends up with 1 million viral replications on average (just a random number to show the point), then two people getting infected will result in an average of 2 million viral replications, ten results in 10 million, etc. The more replication events there are, the more mutations there will be.

As above.

But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense

Then let's take all of the vaccines off the market for diseases that are endemic. They are obviously pointless and won't keep anyone from dying...

No one is suggesting that, vaccination isnt useful. I would vaccinate in a different way generally and always try to mimic the natural mode of transmission, while allowing the body to see the whole pathogen, but vaccines are a preventative,  great at stopping a pandemic, but using them during a pandemic is a risk, why countries should have invested far more funding and research into treatments.

your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.

Limiting spread is a form of prevention.

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

I'm sorry, but this post appears to lack the quote from Dr. Fauci that I requested of you. Where is it?

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it.

And so, once again, you didn't read the link I posted where it says there is evidence that the vaccines limit spread. Either that or you read it and subsequently ignored it or forgot about it.

A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks.

No, because, for the third time:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

Which won't matter because anyone that did would also just go to the pharmacy and get a tablet, either because the person they met tells them they have covid or because they start expressing symptoms themselves.

An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

Maybe for an anti-vaxxer, but not to people who actually accept science.

What? Not an anti vax position to suggest an effective treatment is superior to vaccination. Especially if the treatment has no risk associated, it would be a matter of risk analyse in the end as to pick between then if both had risks attached. Nor is it an anti vax postion to suggest one type of vaccine is superior to another.

11

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 09/05/2021 04:02:48 »

That's one perspective

It's the correct perspective.

Clearly some debate that.

It's a fundamental matter of logic that things mutate less when they replicate less.

Things mutate when they have the opportunity or the pressure to do so, lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations. Not logic its assumption.

The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.

I never said anything about preventing it from entering countries. What we can (and should) prevent is more people from catching the virus.

But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense, your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.

Not if they have effectively social distances.

Which is why it has been so strongly advised. It obviously isn't fixing everything on its own, though. There are scenarios where it simply isn't practical to stay 2 meters apart from everyone else at all times.

Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.

Ahem:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks.

When you brought this up elsewhere, I posted a link that showed that the vaccines do, indeed, reduce the likelihood of transmission. Did you not read that? When did Dr. Fauci make the statement that you claim he made? What did he say exactly? According to this source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/08/instagram-posts/misleading-video-suggests-dr-anthony-fauci-said-va/ what Dr. Fauci actually said was that he "wasn't sure" whether the vaccine would prevent infections or not (apparently, he must have made that statement before the studies of viral load in vaccinated people were completed). That has very different implications than your claim that he said it won't prevent transmission.

So unless you can supply a direct quote where Fauci stated that the vaccines won't prevent transmission (and it had better be more recent than this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-vaccines-may-decrease-spread-of-covid-lower-viral-load-2021-2), cut it out with the misinformation.

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

12

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 09/05/2021 03:30:57 »

and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations

I've already explained that isn't how that works. More vaccinated people means fewer opportunities for the virus to replicate and therefore fewer opportunities to mutate.

That's one perspective, but immune escape is still a potential issue.

an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.

You'd end the pandemic far more quickly by keeping people from getting sick in the first place than you would by waiting for them to get sick and then treating them. By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

Not if they have effectively social distances. Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.

and thus have given the virus an opportunity to reach more hosts. That represents a bigger threat for generating mutants than vaccines do.

And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks. A treatment would mean taking the treatment and then having no risk of transmission.

13

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 09/05/2021 02:36:10 »

Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.

One of the Harvard videos is very much simplified for layviewers. What really happens is that the vaccine makes the cell create both spikes and spike fragments inside the cell. The spikes migrate to the cell surface where they protrude and activate the immune system. At a later time the cell will die releasing any remaining spikes or fragments and these are mopped up by the now activated immune system.
When you quoted the BW video you didn’t follow up on the primary source which was a Salk study, not Berkley. If you had followed up the primary source rather than quoting the secondary you would have got a lot more detail. One thing to note is that the spikes have 2 forms, a prefusion (prior to infecting a cell) and this changes to the postfusion form on attacking a cell. The vaccines produce prefusion spikes and stabilise them into this state, so they do not attack body tissue as the viral spikes in the Salk study do. There are other ways in which the mRNA vaccines can change the spikes which makes them harmless which is one of the big advantages of this method.

So, did BW imply that the vaccine spikes will attack body tissues? Or did you fail to follow up and assume it would? Either way it’s false news.

What's fake news? The study that found the S proteins damaged cells in hamsters?

BW was discussing this again today, there is an anchor built into the S Protein that is meant to prevent it entering the blood stream. However as Bret pointed out this is a novel treatment and it's not clear these anchor will always function as they should, so defenders of the technology are arguing from a best case scenario.  I suppose your position is that the S proteins will never come into contact with an Ace2 receptor hence there is no need for concern. Which isn't 100% clear, when the cells die they will release the proteins or could and if the anchors fail to work they will also release them. Bret also raised concerns about the level of damage as it appears the telomeres of the hamsters are possible longer then normal thus allowing the hamsters to have greater cell regeneration, which would show Lower amounts of damage compared to using normal hamsters with normal telomeres.

I really wish you wouldn't jump on fake news as a way to dismiss a point of discussion.

Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

You have already asked this before:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81480.msg627477#msg627477
Perhaps read that reply as well as that from @evan_au

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

It’s also worth reading up on the dangers of using killed virus, a lesson learnt the hard way. It’s why you can’t rely on a technique just because it has been around a while.

“In 1966, a decade after RSV was discovered, US National Institutes of Health researchers began testing an RSV vaccine made of a virus killed with formalin—an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. The trial was a disaster, McLellan says. Although infants who got the vaccine developed antibodies against the virus, they were not protected from infection. Instead, the vaccine seemed to make the disease worse. Some 80% of infants who got the shot were hospitalized after an RSV infection, compared with 5% of infants in the control group. Two vaccinated babies died from the infection. The tragedy tainted the RSV vaccine field for decades.”

Rather a moot point when we now have inactivated virus vaccines that are showing the lowest side effects or all the current vaccines available, if I saw clear evidence to the contrary I would raise concerns.

Anyway as I was suggeting before the best way to vacinate would be to extract a persons blood expose that blood in a laboratory to the pathogen you seek to give immunity to, monitor that macrophages Bcells etc have responded and killed the pathogen, then to reinject the educated blood into the person, in theory you induce an immune response with  no side effects at all, as they are simply receiving their own blood, with cells that are now aware of the virus that can then educate the rest of the immune system.

Aside from that, we should be investing fair more money and research into effective treatments almost all the research funding has been dedicated to vaccine development currently, and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations, leading to more vaccines against the variants  an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.

14

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 09/05/2021 02:21:19 »

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

I agree that having COVID-sensitive antibodies and white blood cells patrolling your nasal passages and lungs for a COVID infection would be more effective at blocking infection ...
- than (say) just having them patrol your arm muscle
- Certainly the idea of vaccinating your gut against orally ingested viruses has been successful in the past.

But the effects of the vaccine doesn't just stay in your arm muscle; the antibodies and white blood cells sensitized by the vaccine do patrol throughout your bloodstream, and any tissues adjacent to capillaries (which includes lungs and nasal passages).

I disagree that an inactivated virus mimics the usual mode of transmission for COVID:

I wasnt suggesting that an inactived virus did, I was suggesting a nasal spray would mimic the natural form of transmission,  not the type of vaccine used to do it.

My preference to inactivated virus vaccines is based more on the point that there are as you stated more then one  s protein type and the dealing with the whole virus would cause a more varied immune response.

- The fundamental difference being that live COVID infects cells, while an inactivated virus does not
- Vaccine designers try to compensate for this essential difference by adding an "adjuvant" which causes cell damage and inflammation, mimicking the impact of a real infection.

You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

That's why we have trails.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 08/05/2021 22:59:32 »

Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Rather then simply citing wikipedia which is a highly politicized site that often distorts the actual truth about people, why not just make your point?

That's RationalWiki, not Wikipedia.

Since you brought it up, I'd like for you to point out what content of Wikipedia you think is politicized. What evidence do you have for it?

Jimmy dore is a perfect example he has been complaining about false information about him on the site as have other journalists and wikipedia refuses to remove it, seems clearer by the day that wikipedia is a site that is being used by those in power to impose what is and what is not accepted to be true. Just seems to be a tool of power now.

What wikipedia claims and how it actually behaves in reality are not the same thing.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How long should a Vaccine Trial take?

« on: 08/05/2021 22:27:44 »

All studies since have failed to combine HCQ with Zink and vitamin C and also failed to start the treatments early once the patients show symptoms.

So you are saying that the conditions of the initial study have not been replicated in subsequent studies?

No, if the initial study was retracted because of the bad science involved repeating it is rather rediculas.

If so, then that means that findings of the initial study have not been verified. Without successful replication, you can't say whether the treatment really works or not.

Exactly, yet some how every newspaper and media organisations is claiming it doesnt based on bad studies.

It was a French Doctor that first claimed he had very good results treating patients with HCQ, Trump was repeating what that French doctor had claimed, then there was this now retracted study claiming it didnt work and the media ran with it.

Feel free to say that we should be trying replicate the initially study more faithfully, but please do not say that we should be using it because we know it is effective. If the findings haven't been verified via replication, then we don't know that it's effective.

As I stated before, HCQ has to be given earily, almost all the studies are giving HCQ to patients at the end of the virus' activity, after the damage is already done,  HCQ needs to be administered earily, as earily as possible as it should interfere with Covids ability to infect cells. But HCQ need to combined with Zink to allow that process to function. Vitamin C also.

So doing a study late in the infection, and not combining with Zink and vitamin C is a waste of time in my opinion.

The Association American Frountline doctors

Should not be trusted as a reliable source of information: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/back-away-americas-frontline-doctors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

Wikipedia is a false information site,  there are countless examples today of fake information on there especially about individuals and groups who have all tried to get this bad information removed or changed and failed to do so. Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site.

Your prior post makes it look like you are trying to inject conspiracy theory thinking into the COVID-19 pandemic again. If I'm not mistaken, that's what got you suspended last time. You might want to tread lightly.

No I was suspended last time for a joke. Without explination, and without warning. I just found my account suspended with no explanation at all. But it clear on the joke thread, the mod that did this wrote after reading the joke, you need a break from the site, ofcourse I couldn't read it while suspended.

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How long should a Vaccine Trial take?

« on: 07/05/2021 01:34:32 »

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines.

The current vaccines will reduce severe disease by more than 90% (for current variants).
- These vaccines have undergone extensive safety & efficacy trials
- So the priority is to deploy the vaccines we have approved
 
Meanwhile, the search for safe and effective treatments can continue
- There was a clinical trial of Hydroxychloroquine. It is not very safe,

On what basis are you claiming that Hydroxychloroquin isnt safe?.
It's a malaria medication licenced for decades and used by millions.

and completely ineffective.

Bad studies, the original study that said HCQ didn't work and started all this,  was retracted because it was based on bad science. All studies since have failed to combine HCQ with Zink and vitamin C and also failed to start the treatments early once the patients show symptoms.

Mainly the studies have been giving HCQ to people at the end of the Virus' activity after the damage is done then claiming its ineffective. Just bad science.

The Association American Frountline doctors, which is made up of doctors working in the A and E departments across America have been saying that they have seen good results using HCQ and are protesting the media behaviour in discrediting the treatment. Seems to be linked to Trump suggesting it was effective and the media determined to rubbish it simply to make Trump look bad.

Some have claimed this is simply about money as HCQ is a cheep option and big pharma want it out of the picture.

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 07/05/2021 01:19:56 »

Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Rather then simply citing wikipedia which is a highly politicized site that often distorts the actual truth about people, why not just make your point?

19

Just Chat! / Re: I'm a Troll

« on: 06/05/2021 21:57:44 »

I am new to the Forum and would like to ask for help in finding out what kind of bird is in the picture here.
I took the picture at a small zoo in Thailand years ago. A friend saw it, and would like to draw some pictures
of this same species.

Many thanks,

Soyokaze

Maybe it's best to describe it...

20

New Theories / Re: Misinformation about COVID vaccines.

« on: 06/05/2021 18:56:57 »

What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware...

Your body can potentially recognize any protein as an allergen (and sometimes even non-proteins, like sugars).
- A crucial part of "training" the immune system is to kill off any antibodies which cross-react with your own cells (part of this training occurs in the thymus gland)
- So any random protein that you may encounter in your lifetime could potentially be recognised by some antibodies (unless that antibody has already been eliminated during training)
- Fortunately, most foreign bodies, whether virus or cat hair or blood cells have many proteins exposed on their surface, so you probably have antibodies that can recognise some of these proteins, in at least one of many possible orientations.
- Whether they become an actual antigen depends on whether something alerts the immune system that this protein is a hostile invader.

Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface...

Red blood cells express many proteins on their surface.
- The A & B proteins are just 2 of them; and people with blood type O don't carry either of them.
- The Rh protein is another one. Rh- blood type doesn't have this one.
- in total, there are about 50 membrane proteins in a red blood cell
- About half of these are known to cause an immune reaction in rare blood types (ie if transfused blood carries one of these proteins, and you don't, that can cause a severe reaction to a subsequent blood transfusion containing this protein).
- So it wouldn't be right to say that Blood Type O don't have any antigens on their surface, or that everyone sees Type O blood cells as "self".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Membrane_proteins

clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore  inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNA

I agree with this.

SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known as the S (spike), E (envelope), M (membrane), and N (nucleocapsid) proteins; the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope

So a whole virus vaccine might generate antibodies against the E & M proteins, as well as the S protein.
- The partial virus vaccines would just generate antibodies to the S protein.
- Antibodies to the S protein would prevent the virus from invading a cell ("neutralising antibodies"); antibodies to E & M proteins would not prevent infection, but might alert the immune system that something suspicious is going on...
- Note that having 3 protein targets instead of just 1 possibly means that there will be 3 times as many side-effects to the vaccine. ie 3 times the chance that the vaccine could mess up some biological process when you are vaccinated.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Structural_biology

Thanks evan the statics I saw for the inactivated virus vaccine were lower then the flu vaccine, with 24 million people vaccinated.

What about regulatory B cells macrophages and cytotoxic B cells wouldn't they also be more involved with an inactivated virus, compared to simply the spike proteins presented by the mRNA vaccine on the infected cell?

Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.

Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?