Has anyone developed headphones so you can listen to music while swimming?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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".
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%20theoryQuoteDefinition 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.
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.
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.
So this very much sounds like a conspiracy theory. If Jimmy Dore promotes it, then that makes him a conspiracy theorist.
As such, Wikipedia is not in the wrong for calling him one.
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.
Also, why are you posting links again? Weren't you told not to?
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 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?
Quote from: PetrochemicalsWould 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.
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.
Would it have been quicker?
Would it have been faster?
Would it have been easier to produce?
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 asErgo 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?
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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...
or the pressure
No. What pressures do is select for mutations. It doesn't change the probability of the mutation coming into existence.
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.
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...
Quoteyour 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?Quote"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:QuoteBy the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others
An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.
Maybe for an anti-vaxxer, but not to people who actually accept science.
That's one perspective
It's the correct perspective.
It's a fundamental matter of logic that things mutate less when they replicate less.
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.
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:QuoteBy the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to othersAnd 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.
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.
an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
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
and thus have given the virus an opportunity to reach more hosts. That represents a bigger threat for generating mutants than vaccines do.
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.
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:
Perhaps read that reply as well as that from @evan_auQuote from: Jolly2do 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!
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.”
Quote from: Jolly2do 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:
- 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!
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Jolly2We 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,
and completely ineffective.
Wow, using Jordan Peterson as an example may not be a good move.
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.
Quote from: Jolly2What 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.Quote from: KryptidRed 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_proteinsQuote from: Jolly2clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNAI agree with this.Quote from: WikipediaSARS-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 envelopeSo 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.