*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #200 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."
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 05:55:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #201 on: June 13, 2021, 05:31:27 AM »
Regarding the author of the paper, Dr. J. Bart Classen, it took about 3 seconds to find a wiki article on him. He is apparently a well known antivaxxer. And the journal that published the article in question seems to be of semi-dubious reputation...

John Barthelow Classen is an American immunologist and anti-vaccinationist.[1] He received his M.D. from the University of Maryland, Baltimore in 1988, his M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1992 and obtained his medical license in October 1997.[2][3] He is best known for publishing research concluding that vaccines, in particular the Hib vaccine, cause insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,[4] a hypothesis he proposed based on experiments he conducted on mice in 1996.[5] His views are disputed and considered unverified.

A widely-reposted 2021 Facebook post claiming that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 could cause prion diseases was based on a paper by Classen. The paper "COVID-19 RNA based vaccines and the risk of prion disease" was published in Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, whose publisher, Scivision Publishers, is included in Beall's list of publishers of predatory journals. Vincent Racaniello, professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, described the claim as "completely wrong".[1][6][7] Tulane University virologist Robert Garry stated that Classen has offered no evidence for the three pillars of his argument: that the sequence overlaps between the Pfizer vaccine are greater than occur with any randomly-selected stretch of RNA, or that the vaccine could cause zinc to be released and that doing so would affect its purported targets as he proposes.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bart_Classen

Regarding the publisher as a potential predatory journal, https://beallslist.net/

Predatory journals as listed by Beall from the University of Colorado, "The list aimed to document open-access publishers who did not perform real peer review, effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the open access fee."

Politifact rates his previous antivax claim as a "pants on fire":


https://www.politifact.com/personalities/j-bart-classen/

Specific to his covid vaccine claims, more info here:

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
- Classen’s paper presents no evidence other than a three-sentence methods section that summarizes an unspecified analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Coronavirus vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have not been linked to neurodegenerative or prion diseases.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/26/j-bart-classen/coronavirus-vaccine-doesnt-cause-alzheimers-als/

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #202 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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 06:56:36 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #203 on: June 13, 2021, 06:44:19 AM »
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 apparently didn’t read the Politifact article which cites expert, you know, the “qualified” type sources you so deeply regard.

And I guess this means you’ll be stripping out all of the, as you say, “anonymous Wikipedia” citations/references from your wiki? I look forward to perusing the new and improved tfes wiki when you’re done.

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.

Here are some more qualified sources to add. From Reuters, with more experts cited:

Fact Check-No evidence that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine causes Alzheimer’s disease

“Having reviewed the paper, which is less than three pages long and provides only three sentences describing its methodology, Dr Albert Hofman, a clinical epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (here), told Reuters by phone that the paper provides no evidence for the author’s findings, which he described as “untenable.”

“Dr Irina Skylar-Scott, a neurologist at Stanford Hospitals and Clinics who specializes in Alzheimer’s and other disorders of cognition and behavior (profiles.stanford.edu/242780), told Reuters by phone that Classen’s claims were “overreaching to say the least,” noting that neither TDP-43 nor FUS, the two proteins he discusses, are associated with Alzheimer’s disease.”

“Dr Brian Appleby, a neurologist at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine who specializes in both prion disease and Alzheimer’s (here), told Reuters by phone that there is no evidence mRNA vaccines cause neurodegenerative diseases, and that the journal article in question uses the term prion disease “quite loosely” to refer to other protein misfolding disorders.”


https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check-no-evidence-that-pfizers-covi-idUSL1N2MZ382


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #204 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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 08:19:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7944
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #205 on: June 13, 2021, 08:23:40 AM »
It takes a special kind of stupid to pick on the reporter while ignoring the quotes from scientists delivering their qualified opinions.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #206 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
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 09:04:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #207 on: June 13, 2021, 09:06:46 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.

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? And actually, you have no idea what the reporter(s) qualifications are, do you?

Are the other folks cited in the article unqualified as well? Specifically, Dr Albert Hofman, a clinical epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Dr Irina Skylar-Scott, a neurologist at Stanford Hospitals and Clinics who specializes in Alzheimer’s and other disorders of cognition and behavior, & Dr Brian Appleby, a neurologist at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine who specializes in both prion disease and Alzheimer’s - Are they not "qualified"?

As for your other concern regarding unqualified sources, as you put it, "...you opt to quote anonymous Wikipedia articles...", are you going to remove all of the Wikipedia references from the tfes wiki?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #208 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."
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 09:34:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #209 on: June 13, 2021, 09:50:22 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.

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?

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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #210 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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 10:18:59 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #211 on: June 13, 2021, 10:21:59 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 addresses the above doctors, since you know that they do widely believe that there is risk.

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? That’s simply his message, nothing more, nothing less? That drugs have some risks? Like no one ever knew that there could be a risk with a drug? Enlightening.
And even though Prion experts are calling bullshit on Classens claims, that really doesn’t matter because he’s just saying, “Hey, drugs can have risks…you know, risks…” Ok, thanks to you and Dr Classen for pointing out that there may be some risks with drugs. No one was apparently aware of that until now.


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 basic low quality general information on a subject, and is free to be scrutinized.

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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7944
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #212 on: June 13, 2021, 11:52:46 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.

You are less qualified and more biased. I look forward to not seeing any more comments from you.

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

You cherry pick all the time. I’m glad you now understand why you shouldn’t do it.

Quote
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.

Nice conclusion. Doesn’t follow from the premises.

Quote
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.

Now who is being disingenuous? (It’s you) No one ever has there is no risk from taking the vaccine. You haven’t being posting there alarmist, cherry picked, deceitful quotes in an unqualified manner to present the possibility of risk.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 489
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #213 on: June 13, 2021, 01:57:29 PM »
You people are arguing over which experts are qualified.  Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an actual doctor, I don't think any of you are doctors, graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toledo, a real school, in 1980 and received a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree. So no one can say she's not qualified. She says people are being magnetized! So I'm going for it.

I used fake names to sign up for the free vaccine three times next week. Soon, my abilities will be unimaginable!
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 02:05:57 PM by Dr Van Nostrand »
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #214 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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 05:53:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #215 on: June 13, 2021, 05:14:10 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).

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? He's literally just pondering a thought and throwing it out there. Much like all of his "Vaccines cause type 1 diabetes" nonsense that has been kicked to the curb by many qualified experts in the field for years.

Of course he doesn't have to "prove everything". But his whole article is basically just spitballing, "Hey, maybe it's a bioweapon, maybe is causes Alzheimers, maybe even ALS...Who knows, but maybe..." And when someone is just chucking shit at a wall to see if it will stick, that's not really anything credible you can put forth as truth.

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.

Actually, you wrote:

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.

You remarked disparagingly how I used Wikipedia as a source, yet your own wiki is littered with Wikipedia references. Why the hypocrisy?

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?

On the same tfes wiki page, you have a whole section plucked from a Wikipedia talk discussion from some anonymous poster. Is s/he “qualified”? You seem to selectively take issue with some anonymous Wikipedia entries, but not others. How do you which are ok and which are not?

Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System
The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (Archive):
followed by and entire paragraph copy and pasted.

Is this just another example of low value untrue groupthink?

Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #216 on: June 13, 2021, 05:50:53 PM »
The reporter is unqualified to report on this...He is unqualified to understand the material, present it, or give a conclusion.

how do you not see the irony of saying this right after doing the exact same thing.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #217 on: June 13, 2021, 06:01:56 PM »
The reporter is unqualified to report on this...He is unqualified to understand the material, present it, or give a conclusion.

how do you not see the irony of saying this right after doing the exact same thing.
'Rules for thee, not for me.'

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8745
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #218 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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 07:35:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #219 on: June 13, 2021, 07:36:43 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

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"? Gain-of-function testing typically doesn't automatically mean, "Hey, we're making a novel virus that will require a novel vaccine that is actually going to be a bioweapon...So we get to lockdown and make sure people don't partake in our 80% consumer driven economy and then we'll kill them with our cool new bioweapon vaccine..." Yeah, that totally makes sense.

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"

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


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

Did the money go to gain-of-function research?

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, not that the content was always "not true". I consider this more of an English comprehension issue on your part.

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?