Show Posts

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.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 406  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:13:47 PM »
The author of that Reuters article isn't a scientist either, and is unqualified to write that article or appropriately decipher the work or what the people interviewed are talking or complaining about

What are the qualifications of the author of the TFES Wiki?
Are they qualified to write those pages or decipher the work of the people it quotes?

It's a collection of quotes, explanations, and videos related to FE, collected and made by many FE'ers of no particular authority. I have added a lot of stuff to it, but I'm not actually the creator of the videos, UA Theory, EA Theory, models, many of the arguments, quotes, etc. You came here to discuss FE and talk to the FE'ers. You can either agree with it, argue about the interpretation, or leave. Since you have been having trouble significantly contradicting the articles I would suggest that it's time to graduate to the last option.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:28:00 PM »
I presume that we will get to the bottom of whether it was a lab thing or a nature thing. The jury is still out, as they say. In any case, how do we go from a possible accidental lab leak to Classen's "the vaccine could be a bioweapon"?

Simply, if COVID-19 was created in a lab then it means that someone wanted to deliberately create a highly contagious virus for some purpose.  Would you trust a group of people wanting to make a highly contagious virus to be implicitly good people? I wouldn't. Even if we don't know why they created it, that they would want to create it destroys all trust.

NIH was funding the lab. Why would the NIH fund a lab which was creating bioweapons? Merely an accident?

Sen. Paul says that Fauci's leaked emails show that he knew about the Gain-of-Function research at the Wuhan Lab. Fauci lying about that destroys trust. If we can't trust our highest health authorities, it means we can't trust them to do good with the vaccine either.

We can either trust them to do good, or not. And the level of involvement in this Coronavirus lab scandal destroys the trust.

Quote from: stack
This is an "Opinion" piece, as noted at the top of the article. I prefer facts over opinions.

An opinion of scientists consulting the WSJ, yes.

Quote from: stack
So all of your tfes wiki references to Wikipedia are of low value? I never said they were all untrue. I was asking you, since you claim it doesn't matter if they are true or not, what is your deciding criteria to include Wikipedia references if they are of low quality and perhaps untrue? As you seemed to disparage my use of of an "anonymous" Wikipedia article and you reference "anonymous" Wikipedia articles as well throughout your wiki. Why is my use not acceptable, but your's is?

I told you why I quote it. Wikipedia is decent at showing the RE groupthink on a topic, and the groupthink on a subject in general. That matters in a way other than truth. RE and heliocentric proponents maintain their own resources, and that is one of them. If you are a RE and have a differing position to the specific Wikipedia topic quoted in the FE Wiki it means that your own side is against you and you are actually in the minority with a belief that RE science may not even support.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 06:37:11 PM »
Quite the concern he has, closing with this:

"Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous. The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection."

One of his concerns is that the vaccine could be a bioweapon? Really? Coulda, shoulda, woulda. What kind of credible Dr/Researcher throws around that kind of a notion based upon zero evidence?

It's looking more and more like U.S. health authorities may have funded the creation of the Covid-19 virus. If these people are making bioweapons, lying about it, and orchestrating mass lockdowns, I would be concerned about their vaccines to 'save us all' as well.

NY Post - Sen. Paul: Fauci emails prove he knew of Wuhan gain-of-function research

“There’s a lot of evidence that he [Fauci] has a great deal of conflict of interest and that if it turns out this virus came from the Wuhan lab — which it looks like it did — that there’s a great deal of culpability and that he was a big supporter of the funding,” Paul said. “But he also was a big supporter, to this day, of saying, ‘We can trust the Chinese on this. We can trust the Chinese scientists,’ and I think that’s quite naïve and really should preclude him from the position that he’s in.”


WSJ - The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak- "The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus"

"In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses."


WIO news - Fauci admits Wuhan lab received 'modest' funds from US amid calls for probe into Covid origins

Quote
And as for a litmus on groupthink, do you mean tfes wiki entries like this:

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (Archive) echoes the same:
"This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula.”


So would you consider the above not true, but still a useful reference? How is something that is not true a useful reference in this context?

Or this:

From the Wikipedia section on Special Perturbations in celestial mechanics (Archive):

You bolded: “...special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.”

Is the above just another useful reference of groupthink low quality info that is not true?

I said that the quality of Wikipedia was of low value and mainly represented the internet groupthink, not that the content was always "not true". I consider this more of an English comprehension issue on your part.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2021, 05:32:37 PM »
Quote from: honk
An investigation that just happened to be focused on two of Trump's biggest critics in Congress and their families

No, it makes complete sense that radicalized Anti-Trump Democrats would leak classified information from the Whitehouse.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/under-trump-more-leaks-more-leak-investigations-n992121

Quote
Criminal referrals for prosecutions relating to leaks have surged in the Trump administration — likely the result of a big increase in unauthorized disclosures of classified information, a leading intelligence watchdog says.

The number of leaks that were reported as potential crimes by federal agencies reached record high levels over the last two years, according to data released by the Justice Department last week and reported Monday by the Federation of American Scientists, which monitors the intelligence community.

There were 120 leak referrals for possible prosecution in 2017 and 88 in 2018, up from 37 in 2016 and 18 in 2015, the data shows. Only a small percentage of the cases are likely to be prosecuted.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the federation's Project on Government Secrecy, says the uptick is almost certainly due to the fact that under Trump, there is a lot more leaking going on. There has also been a renewed focus by the Justice Department in ferreting out leakers.

"I think it's because there are more leaks," Aftergood, who publishes a weekly newsletter on secrecy, said. "Agencies have been serious about leaks forever — it's not like they decided, 'Oh, we're going to suddenly start paying attention to this.' So the fact that it has escalated so sharply indicates that there is something qualitatively different."

Aftergood and other experts believe discipline about classified information has been diminishing. Trusted, cleared individuals at the CIA and the National Security Agency, including Edward Snowden, have disclosed a raft of secrets in recent years, and that phenomenon continues.

Harold Martin, an NSA contractor who had been taking home classified documents for years, was sentenced to nine years in prison last month although that was not a leak case. Reality Winner, an NSA employee in Georgia, was sentenced to more than five years in prison for leaking a classified document about Russian election interference to a news organization, the Intercept.

FBI agent Terry James Albury was sentenced to four years in prison in October after pleading guilty to disclosing to The Intercept news site classified documents related to the FBI's use of informants.

Yet there is no doubt, current and former intelligence officials say, that there has been an outpouring of leaks meant to push back against Trump administration policies, including the sorts of disclosures rarely seen before.

Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner's security clearance to NBC News. It's not clear whether either case was referred to the Justice Department by a federal agency, although U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he filed his own referral on the transcripts.

The transcripts highlighted what many believed was bizarre and unsettling behavior on Trump's part, and the security clearance disclosures showed that career officials had been overruled, something that rarely happens.

"In some cases, these are not leaks from deep in the military bureaucracy ... they're right out of the Oval Office, and that's pretty much unheard of," Aftergood said.

The Trump administration has averaged 104 leak referrals per year. By comparison, the average number of leak referrals during the Obama administration (2009-2016) was 39 per year, the federation found.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 13, 2021, 04:28:38 PM »
Definitely head shake worthy as your own wiki seems to disagree with you:

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).

Hmmm, “identical effects”…

That quote is even more specific about it - "identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth".

So you can take your 'gotcha' argument about the earth collapsing into a ball and discard it into the trash.


Please explore the Wiki, it talks about that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

The mountains behave in the opposite way from what gravity predicts. The 'gravity' readings are negative rather than positive.

Incorrect. Isostasy and the gravity signal around mountain belts are completely compatible with gravity once you understand what is occurring in the subsurface and what has occurred in the geologic past.

As has been discussed:
Isostasy:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18098.0

Gravimeters and local variations in g:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16913.0

The scientists were expecting the gravity readings of the mountains to be greater than non-mountainous areas. It wasn't as expected, so they had to make up a hypothesis to explain it. They didn't come up with Isostasy before they made the readings. They came up with Isostasy afterwards to explain it.

Now you come here and claim that it is perfectly explainable if we accept that hypothesis. The situation is that we have something that needs to be proved (gravity) needing a explanatory hypothesis because the predictions were not as expected.

You may as well be claiming that the proof of reptilian overlords is that our guardian angels are hiding their existence for our protection, and that this "makes complete sense" ... "once we understand what is occurring", as that would provide a similar level of a confused mess of theories.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:59:16 PM »
Quote from: stack
Oh, so all your Dr Classen was saying in his article titled “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease”, was just about general risk of a vaccine. That’s all, that there’s some risk involved?

Well, it's right there in the title. Not every paper has to prove everything. Bringing up a concern is enough for a paper. I presented the document as evidence that some scientists are concerned about the risks. Pretty typical of your side to take that and move the goal post and demand that the author proves something out of the scope of the effort, building a strawman and 'debunking' something not stated (that the paper proves that the vaccine causes ALS).

Quote from: stack
So the tfes wiki is lousy with “basic low quality general information”? Good to know. I’ll let folks know whenever you refer someone to your wiki that they should beware of the basic low quality general info that you have wholesale deemed unworthy due to its anonymity.

I said low value, not no value. Quoting Wikipedia among other sources makes it harder for you to claim that the particular subject discussed is not a group consensus belief, as even your side of liberal internet RE neckbeards thinks that your position is wrong.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:59:02 AM »
Wow, for someone complaining that they didn’t publish the entire conversation with each highly qualified expert they cited, you sure have asserted that they “probably” said this and “most likely” said that.

Do you often make up what other people said without knowing what they said?

Seeing that they generally agree that there is risk, and that virtually none of them would say that there is zero risk or "risk-free", that is safe to assume. Feel free to find us one willing to say that it is risk-free. At best you will find them saying that it is low risk, in contrast to the ones above saying that it is impossible to know.

I see that you haven't even bothered to address the last two doctors, since you know that they do widely believe that there is risk.

Quote
And you still haven’t answered the question - Since you’ve deemed Wikipedia as an unworthy source, when are you going to remove all of the Wikipedia citation references and quotes from the tfes wiki?

No. Wikipedia has a purpose of providing low value and low quality basic general information on a subject, and is free to be scrutinized. It successfully provides a litmus on the groupthink, even if it does not provide a litmus on truth, making it a useful reference.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 09:23:42 AM »
Quote
I don't see how they "dumbly put a quote that they are unqualified". They asked the good Doctor for his response and they reported his response. Would you prefer they didn't ask the good Dr, or that they don't report what he had to say?

Reuters duplicitously did not cite or provide the conversations in whole, so who knows what they really said?

They probably didn't just say that the vaccine was risk-free in the full conversation. They most likely gave their criticism that he didn't prove enough and agreed with or otherwise submitted to the fact that there is risk to the vaccine, like many other doctors state.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/12/what-worries-this-physician-about-the-covid-19-vaccine.html

DALIA SAHA, MD

"The rushed nature of the clinical trials casts more uncertainty rather than assuaging it. Pfizer requested emergency use authorization from the FDA, which has given its approval for the vaccine administration. Health care workers take care of sick patients, so it is certainly imperative for them to be in the best health possible, but concerns about the vaccines’ safety are not unwarranted. Also, the long term effects of these are impossible to know for years to come. These issues could potentially replicate the problem, turning those aiding the sick into patients themselves. 

mRNA vaccines are relatively new, and there are many variables to contend with. Other downstream effects from using new technology for the virus and the uncertainty revolving around that definitely is a cause for concern. Because of the limited clinical data, there are no long-term studies to demonstrate effects down the road. Other concerns include inflammation and autoimmune reactions, which can be serious adverse effects from the vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are dependent upon reactogenicity, which are the body’s transient but intense side effects after administering the vaccine. These are supposedly not long-term issues; however, they’re quite severe, especially after the second dose of the vaccine series proposed for the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19."

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:33:12 AM »
It takes a special kind of stupid to pick on the reporter while ignoring the quotes from scientists delivering their qualified opinions.

The reporter is unqualified to report on this, and is liberally biased (See: Reuters). He is unqualified to understand the material, present it, or give a conclusion.

The scientists most likely didn't just give a single sentence and then disappear, firstly. Reuters doesn't give the full conversation. Deceitful.

The selected quotes say that the author didn't prove that the vaccine caused ALS. The author didn't claim that at all, however. He said that there were some things which gave a potential for future issues. Reuters found a sentence that sounded bad and cited it and claimed that the author has been debunked.

Regardless, experts disagreeing with each other wouldn't prove anything, would mean only that there are experts who disagree with each other, and the situation would still suggest that there may be a risk in taking the vaccine.

It is well admitted that there is risk with this vaccine:

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

“There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post.

When Moderna was just finishing its Phase I trial, The Independent wrote about the vaccine and described it this way: “It uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus.”

“In this case, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 is programmed to make your cells produce the coronavirus’ infamous coronavirus spike protein that gives the virus its crown-like appearance (corona is crown in Latin) for which it is named,” wrote The Independent.

Brosh said that this does not mean the vaccine changes people’s genetic code. Rather, he said it is more like a USB device (the mRNA) that is inserted into a computer (your body). It does not impact the hard drive of the computer but runs a certain program.

But he acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.

~

“We will have a safety profile for only a certain number of months, so if there is a long-term effect after two years, we cannot know,” Brosh said

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 08:01:38 AM »
The author of that Reuters article isn't a scientist either, and is unqualified to write that article or appropriately decipher the work or what the people interviewed are talking or complaining about:

Quote from: Reuters
When reached for comment via email, Classen told Reuters: “You should leave the scientific criticism to scientists” (which Reuters has done throughout this article) and that Reuters was “not qualified to criticize my work.”

The author of the Reuters article is simply unqualified. They even dumbly put the quote that they are unqualified into their own article. If they are unqualified to give an opinion they are also unqualified to correctly interpret and address a qualified one.

The paper Classen wrote only introduces potential issues for further study, and calls it a "potential risk". He says that it "may" cause harm. He does not claim that he proved that the vaccine causes ALS; and any criticism on the matter of what the paper does not provide evidence for is only pertinent in that further study is needed, as recommended by the author himself.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2021, 07:08:00 AM »
"WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration"

"The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress"

Leaking classified information is very illegal. Who would have thought that the government would try to stop that. That is a pretty wonky definition of corruption there.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 13, 2021, 06:18:31 AM »
There's actually evidence of it from an experiment you cite on the your own wiki.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Quote
Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase

The reason they give for this is
Quote
First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster

Not sure why you would think this supports UA or a flat earth or why you'd have it posted on your wiki.  According to UA, there shouldn't be any "unequal gravitational forces".

We talked about this before. Do you remember? Time Dilation at different heights is a prediction of the Equivalence Principle.

The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity

https://books.google.com/books?id=VY5yDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA116&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this book its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

Quote
however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner.

The Equivalence Principle predicts that clocks at different heights will be mismatched. See bolded above.

By “not sufficient evidence” what you really mean is it’s a result which doesn’t conform to your world view so you simply dismiss it. This is how you roll. If the result showed what you wanted it to then you’d accept it without question or scrutiny. Had the experiment been conducted in a vacuum chamber you’d simply find a different excuse or make up some ad hoc mechanism to explain the result. And thus you get to cling to your beliefs.

The Wiki doesn't just dismiss it. It addresses it. It shows how the atmosphere and environmental effects affects scales, showing that the experiment is uncontrolled.

There’s an entire field of study which uses variations in g to find minerals underground

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravity-survey

I’m sure you have some excuse to explain that too. UA doesn’t work as an explanation, it’s just one of the many ad hoc mechanisms you use to explain why the world appears to be a spinning globe.

Please explore the Wiki, it talks about that: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

The mountains behave in the opposite way from what gravity predicts. The 'gravity' readings are negative rather than positive.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 13, 2021, 06:11:25 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

Right, GR isn't mentioned. But defacto, if you're speaking of "Gravity" wouldn't you be talking about what our common main stream view of such is? That which is described by GR? So, in a sense, if you are relating to main stream "gravity" you are relating to GR as that is the common, deeper description/definition of what gravity is. In short, when you use the term "gravity", you are invoking GR. Just because your shit-all wiki doesn't use the acronym doesn't mean you are not playing in its playground.

How is this lost on you?

Actually Newtonian Gravity is used far more than GR, since the equations are simpler.

But the Wiki doesn't say Newtonian Gravity either. It says, in what you quoted:

"The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity."

The upward acceleration effect causes an effect of what you think is coming from gravity. It doesn't say that UA is equivalent in all functions as Newtonian Gravity or GR. That is some kind of poor logic that I can only shake my head about.

Quote from: fisherman
Quote
That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

If gravity produced by an earth accelerating up is indistinguishable from gravity produced by an earth that isn't why doesn't it result in the earth collapsing into a sphere?  If they have different effects, they are distinguishable.

Please recall that you asked me about the experience of being pinned to the ground. You asked:

"As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?"

I said that it (the experience) indistinguishable from gravity.

Now you are asking me about things collapsing into a sphere. That is definitely not what we were talking about.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 05:35:47 AM »
Did you bother checking your sources?

You are quoting what appears to be 23 year old child on the internet with no claimed or relevant credentials.



This has happened numerous times with you. You could have easily clicked on his profile and seen your source, but you opt to quote anonymous Wikipedia articles, anonymous wordpress websites, and unqualified individuals.

You are trying to debunk medical researchers with unqualified sources. Seriously, just think about that for a while. How disappointing that your tactics have no integrity at all.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:42:10 AM »
Another scientist, in the journal Microbiology & Infectious Diseases:

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

J. Bart Classen, MD

Abstract: "Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine recipients. The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations. In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. Potential G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but a more sophisticated computer program is needed to verify these. Furthermore, the spike protein, created by the translation of the vaccine RNA, binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a zinc containing enzyme. This interaction has the potential to increase intracellular zinc. Zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP-43 to its pathologic prion configuration. The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit."

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 12, 2021, 01:49:49 AM »
Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

I think maybe the closest "where is that" would be here: "The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The Earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_doesn.27t_gravity_pull_the_Earth_into_a_spherical_shape.3F

GR isn't mentioned in any of that.

The real reason that UA doesn’t work as an explanation is we observe inconsistencies in g across the globe, in a way consistent with a rotating sphere. You weigh less at the equator than the poles, for example. That would not be the case if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards.
The equivalence principle only works in the local context.

FE either denies variations in gravity, or mutters something about Celestial Gravitation although the Wiki page about that literally just says “this might be a thing”.

There is not sufficient evidence of that. The experiment was not conducted in a vacuum chamber - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Pretty weak for your position that there is only a single uncontrolled type of experiment on this.

Quote from: fisherman
Again you are conflating the acceleration of the reference system and the motion of a person inside of the reference frame.  Provided a person is aware that their reference frame is accelerating, they can consider themselves accelerating by virtue of the fact that motion is transmitted to them.

However, to be at restinside of the elevator i.e. "pinned to the floor" of the elevator, the whole point of the EP is that the person can't determine if gravity is pulling them down to the floor or if the elevator floor is pushing up on them.

As you sit at rest within your reference frame right now, can you determine through your senses alone, whether or not the ground is pushing up or gravity is pulling you down?

That's what the Wiki says the EP is. It's indistinguishable.

What happened to this argument: "All this adds up to mean that there is no scenario in which the jumper can consider himself at rest but not in a gravitational field with an accelerating earth without violating the Equivalence Principle."

Now you're saying that a jumper in an upwardly accelerating elevator can consider himself at rest, where the floor accelerates upwards into him, opposite of your initial premise.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 11, 2021, 06:01:40 AM »
Maybe it would help to quote a few more animal doctors...

Byram Bridle, Associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph (@OVCPathobiology)

“OVC”= "Ontario Veterinary College”

Is your guy actually a Vet?

I'll take my "infectious disease expert," "pediatric infectious disease specialist," and a university "vaccine researcher", over your veterinary immunologist.

Wow. So here is some news for you: Scientists study animals for the purposes of human health.

Try reading his website profile:

https://ovc.uoguelph.ca/pathobiology/people/faculty/Byram-W-Bridle

Quote
At the intersection of these two programs, is a research initiative aimed at modifying the research team's optimized cancer vaccine platforms to target severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, which is the causative agent of the coronavirus disease identified at the end of 2019 (COVID-19). The long-term goal is to have a flexible technological platform to rapidly develop vaccines against highly pathogenic coronaviruses that may emerge in the future.

...

The Bridle lab is or has been funded by:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
Terry Fox Research Institute
Canadian Cancer Society,
Cancer Research Society
Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation

Obviously Dr. Bridle must be wanting to create coronavirus vaccines for dogs. And the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is super interested in curing breast cancer in cats.

We can clearly see that Dr. Bridle was trained in human health viral immunology:

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/472827d6-3b15-4c33-834a-970e550df358/downloads/Affidavit%20of%20Expert%20Witness%20B.%20Bridle%20-%20Respon.pdf?ver=1620059730771





18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 04:44:52 AM »
In order for an observer accelerating upwards by virtue of being, inside an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest" within the elevator, they must per the EP, assume the presence of a gravitational field.  That's perfectly consistent with the EP. Where ever there is acceleration, there is a gravitational field relative to it. For clarity, that applies to any kind of acceleration, not just "upward"

For an outside observer, who is not in the upward accelerating elevator or "system" to consider the elevator to be at rest, the outside observer must assume the presence of a gravitational field.

It's not a requirement for a person in an upwardly accelerating elevator to consider themselves "at rest". They can appropriately consider themselves in motion in an accelerating elevator.

Einstein clearly says that the effects an an upwardly accelerating elevator and a gravitational field are equivalent in his EP elevator analogy. Not sure why you are quoting random Einstein quotes about how "nothing prevents us from considering a system K' as at rest" to justify gravity, when he does not deny that we can consider the experience of being in an upwardly accelerating elevator to be in motion either.

Quote
By "it", I am assuming you mean FET.  If that's the case I didn't say that FET claims that GR and UA are indistinguishable.  I said that FET claims that the gravitational effects produced by GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Really? Where is that?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 11, 2021, 04:14:54 AM »
You quoted an "infectious disease expert," a "pediatric infectious disease specialist," and a university "vaccine researcher". Dr. Bridle is a viral immunologist.

https://www.longdom.org/scholarly/viral-immunology-journals-articles-ppts-list-4339.html

Quote
Viral Immunology

viral immunology is the study of viral infections and immune responses towards viral infections which can cause deleterious effect on the functions of the cells. It includes both DNA and RNA viral infections.

So you haven't quoted anyone who is a specialist in the immune response towards viral infections.

Maybe it will help if you quote a few more pediatricians.  ::)

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why UA Violates the Equivalence Principle
« on: June 11, 2021, 02:43:55 AM »
You appear to be arguing that in the Equivalence Principle a gravitational field is inseparable from an upwardly accelerating surface. Seeing that Einstein uses an elevator accelerating upwards through space as an analogy for the EP, that is clearly incorrect.

Quote
EDIT: One more thing I forgot to mention.  There is an inherent contradiction in using the EP/UA to argue for a flat earth.  Supposedly, the FET position is that the EP can be applied because the effects of gravity caused by UA and the effects of gravity by GR are indistinguishable.

Except that GR gravity results in massive objects collapsing into spheres and UA gravity doesn’t.  The effects are distinguishable.

Actually, it doesn't say that GR and UA are indistinguishable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 406  Next >