[Bored chemist]

which now made no sense.

It made perfect sense; it showed that Alan messed up.

Alan told the same bit of story twice.
I skitted him for it- I quoted both versions and the word "Snap" as a comment.
There wasn't any need for Alan to delete his post; he chose to. That's his right.
But, unlike a normal rank and file member, Alan was able to delete my post too.- in order to make it look like he hadn't made the mistake in the first place.

Imagine that he had chosen to do that with some of his other absurd claims- like the one where he says that the conservation of angular momentum doesn't work.
Would that look to other members (who can't delete other people's posts to cover their own embarrassment) like abuse of power?
Would it look honest?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

What do you think about Robert F Kennedy jr and his claims?

How about "ignorant parasite?"  That puts him one evolutionary level below malaria, and just as dangerous.

Just as dangerous are those who don’t understand the problem with claims like this and pass them on without any health warnings.

Can I ask how exactly can person not knowing the "dangers" possibly post a warning about them?

I find the thrust of your statements rather elitist. Are you suggesting only people qualified as yourself should be allowed to share information? Seems like a dangerous road to go down, the whole.point of a forum is to discuss these things.

[alancalverd]

Imagine that he had chosen to do that with some of his other absurd claims- like the one where he says that the conservation of angular momentum doesn't work.

which is why I haven't.

[Bored chemist]

Imagine that he had chosen to do that with some of his other absurd claims- like the one where he says that the conservation of angular momentum doesn't work.

which is why I haven't.

Yet.

[Colin2B]

I find the thrust of your statements rather elitist. Are you suggesting only people qualified as yourself should be allowed to share information? Seems like a dangerous road to go down, the whole.point of a forum is to discuss these things.

I’m not sure why you consider that my comment might be aimed at you or your post.
You quite rightly raised this as a discussion topic giving the full information, which as @evan au points out contains editorial warnings.

There are, however, those who would seek to present the information in a falsely positive light by excluding any warnings and extracting only parts of the information favourable to their point of view. These are to a great extent more dangerous than the originator.

Can I ask how exactly can person not knowing the "dangers" possibly post a warning about them?

By taking the trouble to examine sources, bias, and alternative views. Interestingly this critical examination of evidence is now being taught in French schools following some of the terror incidents there, the objective is to reduce the incidence of false news.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I find the thrust of your statements rather elitist. Are you suggesting only people qualified as yourself should be allowed to share information? Seems like a dangerous road to go down, the whole.point of a forum is to discuss these things.

I’m not sure why you consider that my comment might be aimed at you or your post.
You quite rightly raised this as a discussion topic giving the full information, which as @evan au points out contains editorial warnings.

There are, however, those who would seek to present the information in a falsely positive light by excluding any warnings and extracting only parts of the information favourable to their point of view. These are to a great extent more dangerous than the originator.

Can I ask how exactly can person not knowing the "dangers" possibly post a warning about them?

By taking the trouble to examine sources, bias, and alternative views. Interestingly this critical examination of evidence is now being taught in French schools following some of the terror incidents there, the objective is to reduce the incidence of false news.

The trouble is that Fact checkers are often partisan to those seeking to impose a narrative.

"Fake news" is becoming a tool for establishment misinformation or a way to try an discredit legitimate points of concern, or truth about corporate or government mis-behaviour or dishonestly.

There is an endless example of the media, businesses and governments gas lighting their populations as a means to a political end.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour,  as such vigilance is needed especially when it comes to government and business claims.

[evan_au]

because they can no longer be cured simply by removing toxins from the human body, just as a person with a genetic defect like Down syndrome, ..hemophilia., etc.), because the genetic defect is forever!

I may have been a bit harsh on him.
At first reading, I thought that he (or his friends) were trying to peddle a treatment for severe genetic diseases.
- On rereading, I think he was saying that germline therapy affects the whole body, and is effectively untreatable. And that is a reasonable comparison.

The point he missed is that mRNA vaccine is not germline therapy, and does not contain reverse transcriptase, so it can't take any form of RNA, and insert it into DNA.
- And the editorial correction is written in such technical terms that it sounds like it is supporting his argument