Not sure of the point of this thread continuing. Political, major thread drift, and absurdity.
Yes, the mods are helpful, but I think it's just the general tone/standard of prolific DBR posters and who is attracted to this site. There are other Duke forum sites that have a VERY different feel. Not saying DBR is perfect, though, and some my find the more "free/short" content more suited to what they're looking for out of a fan site. Different strokes for different folks. Although even those other forums are a level above IC in discourse for sure -- I think that's largely because IC attracts a large mass of folks that is simply reflective of typical anonymous internet posting.
An interesting discussion on academic science, but one must recognize that the entire process for creating the initial vaccines was so shortened that there was not the rigor associated with a more routine production. Less than two years down the road, the rigor and time necessary to determine long-term effects doesn't exist.
I am grateful there are any publications who've attempted to inform others about the science of both COVID and the vaccines. My personal opinion is that there is never "proof" in academic science. Science is a process; rarely is it ever settled on anything. Further understanding builds and tears at original hypotheses. I think it will take decades to understand the final impact of both COVID and the vaccines.
(As an aside, I'm not sure these bolded sentences say what you think they do...Just going to rebold a couple of words in each: "his article explains reasons as to why such a phenomenon, demonstrated recently in vitro, may not manifest clinically in vivo and therefore cannot be generalised to the healthy population," The in vitro data presented by Aldén et al. [1] without any in vivo validation in an appropriate animal model (for instance, the transgenic Fischer 344 Big Blue® rats in vivo mutation assay) can lead to misleading inferences. The current findings from Aldén et al. [1] may be detrimental to public confidence in mRNA therapeutics in general if not proven in vivo." Both of those sentences were constructed with precision. They lead the reader to believe something is not possible or unlikely without actually saying so. )
I think both of you missed my point, which was not to argue for a position on the merits vaccines/COVID vaccines. By and large, Kyrie's views on COVID are being characterized as though he is some nut with no basis to have those opinions. Most people don't spend a moment to figure out where those views may be coming from, but rather fall back to some nonsense/non-science they heard. Clearly anyone who has read much at all could at least understand that KI may be making more of an effort to truly understand what he is talking about than most of those who would ban him from the Duke campus for heresy.
With all due respect, I think that you're trying to rewrite history here. You explicitly posted the article in response to Steven43 saying "vaccines absolutely DO NOT change DNA", with the tag "some scientists would beg to differ about whether or not vaccines change DNA." That is explicitly NOT what the study you posted says, as rsvman and I outlined in detail. In fact, multiple members of the scientific community identified that the article might be misinterpreted to draw that conclusion and advance existing conspiracy theories, and tried to explicitly warn against it.
What you're describing isn't research, or a valid basis of opinion. It's either A) A problem with scientific literacy, which we have to improve upon as a society, or B) A willful ignorance of the reality of the science, as has been outlined by the experts thoroughly. While the former isn't a moral fault like the latter, neither is a valid basis for an opinion on science. Science doesn't deal with opinions, it deals with facts. There are correct and incorrect interpretations of science. Whether or not an incorrect interpretation came from a genuine misunderstanding or willful ignorance, the end result is the same.
Put another way: let's say I were to build a computational study of a brain function of interest based on an experimental study I found, which I interpreted to say ABC. If I misinterpreted that study because it wasn't in my area of expertise, and didn't take the time to properly collaborate with area experts to fully understand it, the results of my computational study are baseless. If I start with premise ABC instead of the true XYZ, no one is going to care about my computational results, because they aren't based in reality. Whether this was an honest mistake on my part or willful ignorance to try to advance my own research agenda, the work still isn't going to get published in any reputable journal without MAJOR changes and acknowledgement of these issues.
I'm not sure what you do for a living Kfanarmy, but rsvman and I are both doctors (for this we can put aside the MD vs PhD rivalry, I hope, haha). I would hope you take our insight and expertise on this matter seriously, since this is what we deal with on a day-to-day basis in our day jobs. I hope you're engaging with us in good faith here, since you've been such a positive member of the board generally speaking. If not, perhaps it's time we put this argument to the side and go back to talking about basketball.
Scott Rich on the front page
Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012
Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!
This is largely a trope, as well. Most of the time savings in terms of getting vaccine to market was based on the fact that, in a normal, non-emergent situation, one would put in one's data to the FDA and then sit and do nothing until full approval was granted. The last thing you want to do, as a drug company, is make 200 million doses of your latest vaccine and then have to throw it all away. So you wait, and then you produce.
In this case there were exigencies that made it likely they would get an EUA, and their data were very good, so they went into full production mode while the vaccine was under review.
The other thing that saved a lot of time and that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that most vaccines take a long time to produce. In this particular case, the Chinese scientists posted the genome online and within 48 hours the sequence required for the vaccine was delivered to the company. It was approximately two WEEKS from the time the genome was published to the time the first subjecting the initial studies received the vaccine. Yes, there were people being vaccinated in early to mid February of 2020, before most of you even knew the pandemic was coming.
By way of contrast, it takes several months to manufacture a flu vaccination.
So there were a llt of ways that time was saved in getting the vaccine to the people, but cutting scientific corners or 'not properly studying' or 'not properly vetting' the vaccine were not among them.
Agree with all of this (shocking, haha). One addendum for those interested: a lot of people don't realize that part of why these vaccines seemed to come out quickly was because the underlying science had been pursued for YEARS before the pandemic. The general principles for mRNA vaccines had been in active study and development for a while (I'm not saying specifics here because I don't know them off the top of my head and don't want to guess wrong).
My understanding of this (admittedly this is outside my field of expertise, so take with the appropriate grain of salt) is that, since the underlying science behind the mRNA vaccines was established, things became almost "plug and play" once the pandemic hit. We had the toolbox, we just had to figure out which specific tool was needed, and that was determined by the genome of the virus. That allowed us to grab the "COVID-19" sized wrench out of the mRNA toolbox and use that to create the vaccine.
Amongst the scientific community, this is seen as really important evidence for why "basic science" research is important. Decades, or even years, ago, someone doing a thesis focused on mRNA probably never would've imagined the impact it could have. But that's inherent in the scientific endeavor, and part of why funding all sorts of diverse basic science is important. My favorite anecdote: a mathematician who was one of the founders of the field of "number theory" once claimed that his was the purest form of mathematics, since it had no viable applications. Now, number theory is the undergird for essentially all of our digital security and encryption tools.
Scott Rich on the front page
Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012
Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!
For anyone interested, especially the vaccine hesitant out there, this article is a terrific commentary of the debate here... expanding on what scottdude and rsvman have been arguing.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/me...rent-dangerous
The whole article is worth the read, but to address the point immediately above about the "vaccines being rushed to approval", here is a snippet:
Nearly everything that doctors do carries risk. Surgeries can go awry. Diagnostic tests can yield false positives, exposing patients to more invasive tests or procedures. Medications and vaccines are no exception. Some 1.3 million emergency department visits are attributed to adverse drug effects each year, and studies have estimated that nearly seven per cent of hospitalized patients suffer some form of adverse drug reaction, with a fatality rate of 0.3 per cent. These numbers, extrapolated across the country’s population, suggest that more than two million adverse drug reactions probably occur in U.S. hospitals each year, potentially resulting in more than a hundred thousand deaths. If that’s true, then adverse drug effects are the fourth-leading cause of death in the United States—ahead of diabetes, pneumonia, and car accidents.
This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely?
...The article quotes the adverse reaction rate to the Covid vaccine being 0.0002%... That's probably a much lower rate than most other medicines given in the hospital...
There seems to be a lot of focus on your end of people trying to *punish* Kyrie for his beliefs/statements about COVID, vaccines, and the flat-earth stuff.
I'd like to dispute that on two levels:
1) People/fans disassociating/distancing themselves from Kyrie, and hoping that the University and Basketball program do the same, is not a *punishment* to Kyrie, or done in an attempt to affect a change in his behavior. It's simply and individual (and/or possibly a school/athletics program) saying, "being associated with this person is 'bad for business' and we're drawing a line"
2) While I'm sure there are some, given the polarizing nature of the covid/vaccine topic, that would disassociate from Kyrie because of that specifically (or even the flat-earth stuff), I think it VERY likely that's a minority of people overall. People may find it distasteful, but I honestly think it would be a pretty small minority of the public at large (though admittedly a larger percentage than that of those on this board specifically) would take the, "he's dead to me" approach based on those views. What I think a LARGE majority of people would believe worthy of "disowning" him over (and this is the KEY of my second point here) is the endorsement of a post calling for abuse/violence towards ANYONE, and ESPECIALLY in this case towards people who have had children murdered. That goes to a level of being so socially irresponsible to be NEARLY inciting violence, which can be seen as (at least borderline) criminal, and likely extremely immoral by an overwhelming majority. It's DEFINITELY this specific opinion/idea that has Kyrie in hot water with the vast majority of the public. I think it's an extreme minority who have a major issue with the flat-earth stuff, and a relative minority that have an issue with this opinions on covid/vaccine. If you don't want him "cancelled" based on those thoughts, I can empathize somewhat. Anything suggesting that people should be targeted for abuse and/or violence because they believe the murder of their children was a hoax to deprive people of their gun rights? Honestly, I think more than a disassociation is deserved at that point and wish there was some form of ACTUAL punishment meted out by the appropriate authorities if feasible.
TLDR:
1) Duke and/or it's Bball program distancing themselves from Kyrie isn't a "punishment" designed to censor Kyrie or force him to change his behavior.
2) When you endorse someone calling for violence/abuse, it's no longer "free speech" or "just an opinion". It's darn near a crime that deserves punishment.
Kareem has written a piece, in response to Kyrie.
“Kyrie Irving’s thought process is an example of what happens when the education system fails.… Irving is… more destructive, insensitive, and just plain silly than before. Kyrie Irving would be dismissed as a comical buffoon if it weren’t for his influence over young people who look up to athletes.”
https://kareem.substack.com/p/kareem...s-desantis-6ca