Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 201 to 208 of 208
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Kareem is the anti-Kyrie.
    I also like "Kareem is who Kyrie thinks he is."
       

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by djp10 View Post
    I also like "Kareem is who Kyrie thinks he is."
    Thatís it right there.
       

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    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).
    Not to beat a dead horse here, but... absolutely! For example, BioNTech and Moderna were founded in 2008 and 2010 in order to develop these same kinds of mRNA-based therapeutics. For a nice article on the history, see one from Nature about a year ago (also puts Robert Malone's claims in context): link. FYI, the reverse-transcription-into-human-genomes paper was also discussed previously in the COVID thread (page 1028, posts #20544-20555).


    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    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.
    100x Yes!

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Ok, we have all made our opinion of Alex Jones known. It really does not belong in these forums or in this thread. The mod team respectfully asks folks to stop this discussion and get back on topic.

    Thanks.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Ok, we have all made our opinion of Alex Jones known. It really does not belong in these forums or in this thread. The mod team respectfully asks folks to stop this discussion and get back on topic.

    Thanks.
    My wish is that this entire topic becomes irrelevant once basketball starts.
       

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    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.
    I beg to differ. The OP claimed vaccines "DO NOT change DNA," an absolute statement that disallows any possibility that vaccines do change DNA. I posted a reference to a scientific study that shows further study is needed and concludes "We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA." You then posted reviews of that study which had conclusory statements with carefully worded phrases such as "may not be representative of what would happen" and “may not manifest” claiming “the interpretations of it you (I) described, debunked.”

    I didn’t attempt to interpret the original study; it stands on its own. I accept the proffer that something may need further study and I take to the bank when someone uses words like “may be misinterpreted” and “may not be duplicated” that they are trying to convince me of something they do not have evidence to prove and are likely partially or wholly incorrect, though they may believe to be true.

    I’m not sure what you are trying to get at in paras two and three above, but I’d offer experiential conclusions reached after posing a hypothesis are in fact educated opinions that often do not stand the test of time in whole or part. Quite often starting with a new hypothesis and rerunning someone else’s experiment leads to new or altered conclusions.

    I do take the opinions stated here seriously else I wouldn’t take a moment to respond. Responding to and writing about drivel is how conspiracy theorists become famous; both the negative and positive comments are advertising and lead to profit.

    The issue I take with your postings, in particular, is that you are interpreting intentionally imprecise language as though it is supportive of an absolute. It isn’t. In fact the study disagrees with the absolute that “vaccines do not change DNA.”
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    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.
    While I appreciate your expertise in treating patients, “the sun will rise tomorrow” is also a trope. My admittedly limited association with drug research indicates that most of the time spent by drug companies is not expended while they “sit and do nothing until full approval” is granted. Companies by and large do not like to invest then waste years awaiting ROI. My understanding is most of this time is spent through the three phases of drug trials that are “combined” in a EUA. In fact phase I usually lasts longer than the entire cycle for the Moderna vaccine took. Phase III, where safety—side effects—are monitored can take years. IMO the impacts of the COVID vaccines will not be fully known for years.

    As this was in response to me, I’d be cautious in assuming when people knew there was an epidemic/brewing pandemic in China, much of what is in the press is reliant on purposeful inaccuracies at the source.

    Finally, I do not think KI is intentionally trying to cause injury to anyone and as such I'm fine with him speaking his mind. The detractors and supporters of his opinions all propagate his words as they do with AJ, a person whose articles and recordings I have never read, listened or seen.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    ...

    As this was in response to me, Iíd be cautious in assuming when people knew there was an epidemic/brewing pandemic in China, much of what is in the press is reliant on purposeful inaccuracies at the source...
    I didn't make any assumptions. I know what happened. The scientist who designed the template for the mRNA is a friend/former colleague of mine.

    The Chinese published the gene sequence of the virus online on January 19th. Barney had the template over to Moderna in approximately 48 hours. They had the vaccine ready for clinical trials about two weeks later.
       

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Well, seeing as folks didn't listen to the warning I gave out, there is an easy solution.

    No, I am not going to issue infractions, though I came close -- instead, lets just shut this thread down. I mean, it is not like Kyrie is still wrapped up on the Alex Jones mess at this point.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-29-2015, 03:25 PM
  2. Great Kyrie Irving Article
    By BattierD12 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-26-2012, 07:48 AM
  3. Great ESPN article on Kyrie
    By KnoxDevil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  4. Headlines
    By LastRowFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 04:15 PM
  5. Headlines you don't want to see
    By DevilAlumna in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •