Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

    i am not science averse. but i also dont give science credit just because you do. when science is proven, read again, PROVEN, then it is science. until then it is just theory or a hypothesis.

    scientists hypothesize and theorize. they dont say they have accomplished anything until they have.

    i simply doubted that were close to what you first called a "universal covid vaccine" anymore than we had successfully created any working covid vaccine. when we have any covid vaccine that doesnt need to be boosted every 4-six months, i could give a shit less how huge the initial immune response is. (that's not to say i wont use them). but i will not admit that they are vaccines anymore than i will admit the flu shot is a flu vaccine.

    sure, nothing is forever. but m sister recently applied for a job in healthcare and had to prove her titers from several vaccinated against diseases were sufficiently high. she is 59 years old and got all those vaccines as a young child. and ya know what? zero boosters in 45+ years and she still has immunity. THAT my friend is a vaccine. everything else is just a shot (whether it works or not)
    All your distorted understanding of vaccine science aside, I'll state it simply: I am placing my hope on the success of the upcoming generation of vaccines. If they arrive this fall, and are highly protective, and I don't contract long covid in the meantime, my current precautions will be justified. If they fail, I will accept that Covid is an inevitable fate and join the herd.

    You have to know when to say when. And now is not yet the time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Evan

      ***my current precautions will be justified.***
      Indeed.


      Click image for larger version

Name:	79EA413F-3BBC-40B5-9EF1-2AA6A232CCF4.jpeg
Views:	52
Size:	755.1 KB
ID:	1141062

      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • And now, Not_Orange El Presidente and the nations best precautions appear to have failed…oh the ironing.

        That being said, “symptoms are minor”. I thought CoVid was generally deadly and results in Long CoVid?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

          i am not science averse. but i also dont give science credit just because you do. when science is proven, read again, PROVEN, then it is science. until then it is just theory or a hypothesis.

          scientists hypothesize and theorize. they dont say they have accomplished anything until they have.

          i simply doubted that were close to what you first called a "universal covid vaccine" anymore than we had successfully created any working covid vaccine. when we have any covid vaccine that doesnt need to be boosted every 4-six months, i could give a shit less how huge the initial immune response is. (that's not to say i wont use them). but i will not admit that they are vaccines anymore than i will admit the flu shot is a flu vaccine.

          sure, nothing is forever. but m sister recently applied for a job in healthcare and had to prove her titers from several vaccinated against diseases were sufficiently high. she is 59 years old and got all those vaccines as a young child. and ya know what? zero boosters in 45+ years and she still has immunity. THAT my friend is a vaccine. everything else is just a shot (whether it works or not)
          I have no problem with your opinion, doubt or lack of hope regarding an universal covid vaccine, and I have said nothing against that.
          The problem is when you go ahead and use your flat-earther-style version or science to explain said lack of hope. You clearly don't understand science. For example, the post I quoted. Or implying that proposing that science may successfully develop a universal COVID vaccine is akin to proposing that science can beat mother nature.

          Very similar to the discussion we had some months ago where you were saying I don't remember what nonsense about artificial being bad and natural being good.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post

            All your distorted understanding of vaccine science aside, I'll state it simply: I am placing my hope on the success of the upcoming generation of vaccines. If they arrive this fall, and are highly protective, and I don't contract long covid in the meantime, my current precautions will be justified. If they fail, I will accept that Covid is an inevitable fate and join the herd.

            You have to know when to say when. And now is not yet the time.
            the problem as always is you make a statement like "UNIVERSAL COVID VACCINE" then without retracting said statement, change it to "Omicron vaccine" and now to "upcoming generation of vaccines."

            with ALL vaccines to date, you can still be infected and potentially still get long covid. i am vaxed and boosted (due for another now). i accept the risk as kind of an inevitability.

            i'd LOVE for a real vaccine to be developed so all the bullshit can be put to rest. i just dont have faith that pharma or science can do that in the near future, mRNA technology, viral vector, attenuated live, dead etc or not.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

              I have no problem with your opinion, doubt or lack of hope regarding an universal covid vaccine, and I have said nothing against that.
              The problem is when you go ahead and use your flat-earther-style version or science to explain said lack of hope. You clearly don't understand science. For example, the post I quoted. Or implying that proposing that science may successfully develop a universal COVID vaccine is akin to proposing that science can beat mother nature.

              Very similar to the discussion we had some months ago where you were saying I don't remember what nonsense about artificial being bad and natural being good.
              i am totally not a flat earther and i absolutely understand science and the scientific method. you dont have to have a piece of paper that says so for that. i studied and aced anatomy and physiology at the university level, and limited pharmacology at who knows what level to become certified as a paramedic. i maintained that certification for just over 15 years with tri-annual testing to assess knowledge and application. i am not and never was an expert at anything. but my experience in the field taught me more than most humans will ever know about their own bodies.

              no, medicine doesnt ever beat mother nature. at best it uses mother nature to beat herself. sometimes with outstanding success and sometimes with limited success. how many trillions have been spent trying to beat cancer? sure, we have treatments that are very often successful. my best friend is a testament to same. twice. still, we are a long way from winning that war.

              the development a working vaccine IN PRINCIPLE is a very easy thing. getting it to work is something entirely different, especially against a mutating organism. the ridiculously rapid development of the covid shots gave most people false hopes and talking about a universal covid vaccine at this point, IMO is irresponsible.

              you were probably thinking about my comments on the universal use of pesticides and gmo crops. 3WE knows more about that than both of us, but i'm gonna stick to my guns and keep on believing that they are not good for us. big biz told us Nemagon was safe. they intentionally hid from the govt that they had evidence that it caused sterility in men that were exposed to it. they also defended themselves after it was discovered, making up bullshit to protect their profits and insulate themselves from class action lawsuits. frankly, they should not have been sued for money, they (the executives) should have been jailed for very long sentences. but i digress...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                I am not and never was an expert at anything.
                Finally he says something we can all agree on!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  i am totally not a flat earther
                  I never said you were, counselor.

                  i absolutely understand science and the scientific method
                  What you say in these comments doesn't reflect that.

                  you dont have to have a piece of paper that says so for that.
                  Of course not. I judged what you said for what you said, not for who said it of for their credentials or lack thereof. Read my signature. I stay true to the best of my ability, it is one of my main guiding principles.

                  i studied and aced anatomy and physiology at the university level, and limited pharmacology at who knows what level to become certified as a paramedic. i maintained that certification for just over 15 years with tri-annual testing to assess knowledge and application.
                  I judged what you said for what you said, not for who said it of for their credentials or lack thereof.

                  my experience in the field taught me more than most humans will ever know about their own bodies.
                  I judged what you said for what you said, not for who said it of for their credentials or lack thereof.
                  Plus, I never said anything about your knowledge of bodies. My objection is in the was you portray science, as I explained in the post you are replying to, which apparently you have not read since NOTHING you are saying here is an answer to that post.

                  no, medicine doesnt ever beat mother nature.
                  That assertion is scientifically tautological and irrelevant. Replace medicine with any other word and the sentence remains true. EVERYTHING that happens happens in nature and according to the laws of nature. No exceptions.

                  at best it uses mother nature to beat herself. sometimes with outstanding success and sometimes with limited success.
                  No. NOTHING beats nature, including nature itself.
                  Science is an attempt to understand nature, and while its effectiveness is limited, it is BY FAR the best way that we have to understand nature.
                  Once we understand nature, we can find ways to use nature to seek an objective, if that objective is to beat nature, it is bound to fail.
                  For example, we can use our natural brains, naturally equipped with natural intelligence, to understand the nature of immune systems and design and produce, using natural physics and chemistry, an ingredient that stimulates the natural response to our immune system to a natural virus, thus defeating THE VIRUS, not nature. The level of effectiveness towards that goal varies. Sometimes it is a total success (polio), sometimes it is a total failure (I will list HIV with reservations*), and sometimes somewhere in between (COVID), and MANY times it is "it is not perfect yet but we are still working on it". (* No effective vaccine for HIV was found yet, although extremely effective treatments have been develop which, while they don't totally cure the disease, they keep it so well under control that people infected can live a normal life for an indefinite amount of years ending up dying of anything else unrelated with HIV, and with normal life I include the liberty to have sex with their stable partners without using condoms with ZERO risk of infecting their partners. Isn't that success?)

                  how many trillions have been spent trying to beat cancer? sure, we have treatments that are very often successful. my best friend is a testament to same. twice. still, we are a long way from winning that war.
                  Sorry, what is your point, again?

                  the development a working vaccine IN PRINCIPLE is a very easy thing. getting it to work is something entirely different, especially against a mutating organism. the ridiculously rapid development of the covid shots gave most people false hopes and talking about a universal covid vaccine at this point, IMO is irresponsible.
                  I totally respect your opinion. Whether your opinion is correct or Evan's opinion is correct remains to be seen. I am neutral: let's wait and see.

                  you were probably thinking about my comments on the universal use of pesticides and gmo crops. 3WE knows more about that than both of us, but i'm gonna stick to my guns and keep on believing that they are not good for us.
                  Define "good" and define "us".
                  Sure, using certain agrochemical have undesired effects. So does starving. "Good" and "bad" are in general not absolute binary values.
                  As for GMO's there is exactly ZERO evidence that they represent any risk for humans. And that's not because of a lack of case studies. Almost all of us (us like in world population) eat GMOs and animals fed with GMOs and still there is zero evidence of any harmful effect. The same cannot be said, for example, red meats, even "organic" "pasture fed" red meats.

                  big biz told us Nemagon was safe. they intentionally hid from the govt that they had evidence that it caused sterility in men that were exposed to it. they also defended themselves after it was discovered, making up bullshit to protect their profits and insulate themselves from class action lawsuits. frankly, they should not have been sued for money, they (the executives) should have been jailed for very long sentences.
                  So did cigarettes companies. Again, what is your point, again?

                  but i digress...
                  Yes, since the first sentence.

                  Because I thought that you were saying that "science cannot beat mother nature" and "doesn't work all the time" as arguments for why you don't believe that a successful universal COVID vaccine will be created. Because the is exactly what I was criticizing from you.

                  Let me explains how that sounds to me:

                  "United Sates could never win a soccer game against the Argentina because the Sun cannot be turned off and because the USA team doesn't win every match they play anyway".

                  If you think that that's stupid. I agree. That is how much sense you are making. To me anyway.

                  The Sun cannot be turned off is a fact and it is irrelevant to whether the USA can beat Argentina at soccer.
                  Mother nature cannot be beaten (and that is a stronger truth than "the Sun cannot be turned off") and that is irrelevant to whether a successful universal COVID vaccine can be developed.

                  The USA soccer team has not won every match but they have won matches and certainly thy can win one specific match.
                  Science has not been always successful developing vaccines, but there are success cases too and there can be more coming, including a universal COVD vaccine.

                  By the way, your analogy with the lack of success with the HIV vaccine is so off base. The HIV and the coronaviruses (in general, not just COVID 19) are SO different in every aspect. Sure, they both classify as viruses, as much as starfish and elephants are animals. Your use of science's failure to find a vaccine for the HIV to support that they will not find one for COVID is as ridiculous as using the success of a Polio vaccine to support that they WILL find a successful one for COVID. Both are ridiculous and both are a cherry-picking fallacy.

                  Again, my issue with what you say is not what you believe about the possibility of a universal COVID vaccine. It is in the way you portray science.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                    the problem as always is you make a statement like "UNIVERSAL COVID VACCINE" then without retracting said statement, change it to "Omicron vaccine" and now to "upcoming generation of vaccines."

                    with ALL vaccines to date, you can still be infected and potentially still get long covid. i am vaxed and boosted (due for another now). i accept the risk as kind of an inevitability.

                    i'd LOVE for a real vaccine to be developed so all the bullshit can be put to rest. i just dont have faith that pharma or science can do that in the near future, mRNA technology, viral vector, attenuated live, dead etc or not.
                    Alright....... clearly, you are going to go after me on specifics so allow me be specific. And pay attention because this will clear up your scepticism if you understand the science.

                    A) Highly effective vaccines were produced for the original strain of Covid-19. They provided very good immunity against that strain. But they were tuned to parts of the virus that most frequently mutate. If the pandemic had been contained, they might have ended it, but containment efforts were a boondoggle.

                    B) Normal mutations occurred and variants emerged. WIth the booster, the vaccines STILL provided very good immunity, however.

                    C) Omicron emerged. You have to understand that Omicron was a remarkably sudden leap in evolution for the virus, one that astonished scientists, with over 50 key mutations. That was the game changer. Vaccines tuned to the original variant proved to be weak in terms of immunity (humoral immune response) but still strong in preventing serious illness (cellular immune response).

                    Leaps such as Omicron are exceptional and rarely occur. No such leap has occured since then.

                    D) Every mutation variant since then has been much less profound. A vaccine tuned to the original Omicron vaccine would probably provide much higher immunity for all of these current variants.

                    So, we are told that labs are working on new, Omicron-tuned vaccines for the fall. That could be a game-changer-changer.

                    Furthermore, research is progressing on vaccines that target conserved elements of the virus, parts of the structure that rarely mutate. The difficulty, and therefore the trick, lies in getting the human immune response to focus on those less attractive parts of the protein structures that the vaccine produces. However, there have been successful in-vitro results using a number of techniques. So either a universal Omicron-variant vaccine or even a universal Covid-19 vaccine could be forthcoming. There is even serious speculation for a universal coronavirus vaccine.

                    Even if the next vaccines are only universal to the various mutations of Omicron, that might be enough to put this thing back in the cage.

                    ---------------

                    Now, what is working against this effort?

                    Time, specifically, mutation cycles accelerated by very high levels of infection and reinfection.

                    How can we help?

                    By not getting infected and reinfected so often, by taking reasonable precautions, especially by wearing masks in markets and other indoor, crowded spaces, and by avoiding such places as much as possible until the new vaccines arrive.

                    How can we make things worse?

                    By carelessly going about our lives while ignoring the threat and the civic responsibility we have to do our part in defending against it.

                    Capeesh?

                    Comment


                    • Gabe, you appear to be turning almost as black and white as evan, taking everything literally, or at least making it seem that way. very little in the universe is absolute. in fact MOST science is not absolute. proving something utilizing the "scientific method" merely means repeating something over and over and getting the same result. we know that noting has been proven ad infinitum and there are always exceptions that pop up, whether they are statistically significant or not is a another story.

                      "beating mother nature" doesn't mean changing mother nature or defying the "laws" of nature, most of which are not really laws anyway.

                      relating to you my educational background was not in an effort to prove that my paper makes me knowledgeable or a trusted source on any particular topic. rather, to show that i have more experience than just reading some random articles on the web and drawing conclusions based on my own biases. in fact other than a paramedic certification expires 18 years ago, i have no papers making me any more qualified on human physiology/biology than my 4 year old son.

                      Comment


                      • [Science tells us that the Earth may be spherical(ish) but very little in the universe is absolute so it may also be flat. Who's to say...]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          ***you were probably thinking about my comments on the universal use of pesticides and gmo crops. 3WE knows more about that than both of us, but i'm gonna stick to my guns and keep on believing that they are not good for us. big biz told us Nemagon was safe. they intentionally hid from the govt that they had evidence that it caused sterility in men that were exposed to it. they also defended themselves after it was discovered, making up bullshit to protect their profits and insulate themselves from class action lawsuits. frankly, they should not have been sued for money, they (the executives) should have been jailed for very long sentences.***
                          Here’s the deal: 1. It is ok to question me. 2. You SHOULD question me.

                          I will kick, scream and yell that we have a good risk:benefit ratio.

                          But, you are correct, we aren’t perfect. Bug sprays tend to turn off nerve functions and kill breathing animals. There is a long list of pesticides that a LOT of good science said WERE safe…just like 737s and rudder actuators and fat forward engine trim compensators… then these things had “oh shit” discoveries.

                          There’s a great, cheap corn herbicide…who knows how many millions of pounds are used in Nebraska, Iowa, Inidiana,, Illinois and elsewhere. After the spring rains, it’s detectable in the Mississippi in New Orleans. I can list MANY natural chemicals that cause more cancer, but I’m lying if I say it’s 100.00000000% safe…just like Bobby or Kent or ATL flying an airliner. They are very good, but not_perfect.

                          GMOs: Few understand the REAL risk, which is actually an ethics question more than safety…conversely, the risk:benefit is again pretty damn good, just like the risk:benefit of going 500 MPH, 7 miles up in the sky at 20 below and too thin of air to sustain any consciousness.

                          AND (oh no) politics and business and legalities come into play…sometimes.

                          PS: I actually have NO BUSINESS commenting on the safety of stuff, I am not_an MD, cancer researcher, nor animal toxicologist. But I have sprayed a lot of glyphosate and know about fertilizing and growing a lot of crops. I might also have a shred of pro-agriculture bias.

                          So, science is good. I wouldn’t dismiss it, but 1. It’s A-OK to ask questions, 2. Beware talking heads and politically appointed PhDs who speak with great confidence. 3. Pests are going to pest (reproduce like hell and tend to mutate). 4. Fear situations where questions are not_appreciated.

                          Nemagon/DBCP: WOW, THAT is a blast from the past. Ironingly, we continue to look for any kind of good nematocide…yeah, it was registered and then banned as one set of short-term controlled science said “good” and a later, larger dataset said “bad”. Gee manitly…could this be analogous to a particular CoVid vaccine?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                            Here’s the deal: 1. It is ok to question me. 2. You SHOULD question me.

                            I will kick, scream and yell that we have a good risk:benefit ratio.

                            But, you are correct, we aren’t perfect. Bug sprays tend to turn off nerve functions and kill breathing animals. There is a long list of pesticides that a LOT of good science said WERE safe…just like 737s and rudder actuators and fat forward engine trim compensators… then these things had “oh shit” discoveries.

                            There’s a great, cheap corn herbicide…who knows how many millions of pounds are used in Nebraska, Iowa, Inidiana,, Illinois and elsewhere. After the spring rains, it’s detectable in the Mississippi in New Orleans. I can list MANY natural chemicals that cause more cancer, but I’m lying if I say it’s 100.00000000% safe…just like Bobby or Kent or ATL flying an airliner. They are very good, but not_perfect.

                            GMOs: Few understand the REAL risk, which is actually an ethics question more than safety…conversely, the risk:benefit is again pretty damn good, just like the risk:benefit of going 500 MPH, 7 miles up in the sky at 20 below and too thin of air to sustain any consciousness.

                            AND (oh no) politics and business and legalities come into play…sometimes.

                            PS: I actually have NO BUSINESS commenting on the safety of stuff, I am not_an MD, cancer researcher, nor animal toxicologist. But I have sprayed a lot of glyphosate and know about fertilizing and growing a lot of crops. I might also have a shred of pro-agriculture bias.

                            So, science is good. I wouldn’t dismiss it, but 1. It’s A-OK to ask questions, 2. Beware talking heads and politically appointed PhDs who speak with great confidence. 3. Pests are going to pest (reproduce like hell and tend to mutate). 4. Fear situations where questions are not_appreciated.

                            Nemagon/DBCP: WOW, THAT is a blast from the past. Ironingly, we continue to look for any kind of good nematocide…yeah, it was registered and then banned as one set of short-term controlled science said “good” and a later, larger dataset said “bad”. Gee manitly…could this be analogous to a particular CoVid vaccine?
                            I 200% agree with all of that. Just a couple of clarifiers.

                            Nothing is 100% safe.
                            1- Are cucumbers 100% safe? How do you know. Even if there was something that was 100% safe, there would be no way to prove that it is 100% safe so we would never know that it is 100% safe.
                            2- When something is not 100% safe (which is always) one needs to compare with the not_something alternative. Pesticides are not 100% safe. Is having some pest in my food 100% safe? Is starving 100% safe? Because we (humans) would have not been able to almost eradicate famine (still exists, but it is not mainstream anymore) without the use o agrochemicals and other "non natural" practices.
                            3- Judge what is said for what is sad and not for who said it. And judge the safety of something for how safe the thing is and not for whether it is "natural" or not. "Nature" is full of darn non-safe things too. From bears to certain mushrooms to COVID. And there are also things that for a lot of time we thought they were safe and now we know they increase the risk of cancer. Like organic grass fed Angus.

                            And a question: "GMOs: Few understand the REAL risk, which is actually an ethics question"
                            Are you talking about labeling? (the right of people to know if they are eating GMO or not, and the risk that GMO can and does contaminate crops that were supposed to be non-GMO?

                            Because if it is related to that.... Let me see my ketchup.: Vinegar Which one? Grape? Apple cider? Artificial? (yuck!) Sugar. From corn or cane? Or beets? Species. Which ones? Natural flavors. Which ones? Where is the crowd demanding to know exactly what my ketchup is made of?

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 3WE
                              There is a long list of pesticides that a LOT of good science said WERE safe…just like 737s and rudder actuators and fat forward engine trim compensators… then these things had “oh shit” discoveries.
                              One of the biggest problems in amateur debates today is false equivalencies. You are comparing revelations of negligence to meticulous, decades-long, peer-reviewed laboratory scientific process in the realm of vaccine research and development.

                              The 737 rudder issue was the result of a lack of redundancy (a rather familiar malady at Boeing). The danger was in plain sight but overlooked. That doesn’t happen in modern vaccine science.

                              As Gabriel has pointed out, nothing is entirely without danger but some things are held to a far higher standard of ‘safe’. Vaccine science in the year 2022 is held to a higher standard of safety than empennage design of the 1960’s or pesticide safety of recent history.

                              You don’t get to logic by comparing apples to things that seem a bit like apples. You only get to folk wisdom that way.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                                One of the biggest problems in amateur debates today is false equivalencies. You are comparing revelations of negligence to meticulous, decades-long, peer-reviewed laboratory scientific process in the realm of vaccine research and development.
                                Sorry, I'm glad to know there was no hurry up on CoVid vaccines, and later discovery of negative impacts, including the Johnson and Johnson one.

                                Thanks for playing.

                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X