I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
Ah ... now we have here Slyver the authority on what can and cannot be done.
It is really funny.
First you come up here and claim to be something, and then devolve to what other people can and cannot do to discuss an item among themselves. Your words betray who your master really is.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
Here's the thing about science. It is evidence, logic and reason based. The inventor said it sheds spike protein. But he may or may not be an expert in cell biology. He might have been talking out of his ass. I know people who are researchers in bio-nanotechnology (like I am) that know much less about cell biology than I do, because I am also a cell biologist and they are not. To make the vaccine you don't actually need to understand the biochemistry and molecular biology of cell biology as well as I do. I came to the field of nano-biotechnology THROUGH cell biology. Most do not.
Shedding of proteins would be MY specialty, at least the theory behind it, and there is no biological path for such to occur. Its a transmembrane protein. I know you don't know what that is, but I do. Its not "sheddable" It doesn't even make sense to say that. It can only exist inside of a cell membrane (or organelle, or bleb, etc.) It REQUIRES a lipid bilayer, and can never escape it. Physics won't allow it, unless you put it into another hydrophobic environment (oil e.g.). In the aqueous solution that is in between cells, it simply can't escape the membrane. Its not possible. Period.
I literally wouldn't care if this guy was God Almighty himself. He would have to provide evidence to support such a claim before I would even entertain the idea because it goes against 100 years of every piece of evidence in cell biology, chemistry and physics research.
The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.'
This is more of an "Occam's Razor" than an assumption, though the two are related concepts. I say it is most likely, because in my opinion (which is not without expertise) the most likely case if the vaccine is what it says it is is that such things are psychosomatic. I am happy to review evidence to the contrary. I don't have any desire to be right about that. That was just an opinion based on my own knowledge and research.
This could easily be a pheromone response
Again, it could. I presented a reasonable argument for it.
make up anything
I'm not "making it up". I gave an argument to support it.
Evidence shows that the vaccines accumulate in the ovaries. I don't know where the link to that paper is, but if you want that evidence just let me know and I will find it.
Evidence also shows that menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Evidence also shows that the spike protein, which the vaccines produce, attacks the endothelium (blood vessels).
So its in the ovaries. It attacks the blood vessels. Menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Is that proof? Of course not. Its an argument. Its a pretty good argument. Its at least good enough to be addressed in the specifics. What it isn't is an "assumption without evidence". I am happy to provide papers for all three of those pieces of evidence if it will help you.
They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination
I did not. I KNEW it would not. I said a thousand times it would not. Why? Because I design cell specific targeting lipid nanoparticle drug delivery systems. That's why.
So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust?
The "inventor" (who knows if that's even true) did not provide any context or evidence or argument to support his claim. I did. Who do you trust? Neither. But I have an argument that can be disputed. He doesn't even have that. I like my odds better, because I know my argument is correct within the scope of known biology, chemistry, and physics.
The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments
I am not asking you to take my expertise as argument. I have asked you NOT to. I am begging you to look at the argument itself. If you don't know the biology I am talking about, ask someone who does.
The argument is all. The person who gives it is irrelevant.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question
They always have been. They always will be.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit.
Wow. Its bullshit because I must be wrong because I'm an expert in the field?
What the fuck?
The argument is all. I keep telling you not to take my, nor anyone's word for it. Address the specifics of the argument. That is all.
Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult.
Most of them are far from experts, and I have addressed how they got specific things wrong at other times, but I hardly expect you to know that at this point. You could find such things in my post history, but I post way too often for that to be practical.
Once again, I must point out, that I argue things point by point. I address others arguments when they present them. In this case, the person being quoted made a fiip statement without any evidence or context or any support whatsoever. I on the other hand have laid out an explicit argument, with detailed objections (you would have to look at the entire thread to see them all. I further clarified my position in response to other questions).
AGAIN!!! The argument is all.
There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'.
This is foolish, because those people are not experts in cell biology nor nanotechnology, which is the area of expertise that is important for THIS SPECIFIC topic.
I will end with this:
The argument is all. If you can't refute the argument, dismissing the arguer because you trust another "expert" more for completely unrelated reasons to the argument in question is just another way of handing off your critical thinking skills to someone else. That is how we got here in the first place. That is always the wrong path.
TLDR - you are just another guy on the net spouting disagreements with other 'experts' . You maybe right you maybe wrong. Too much misinformation so we trust those who are proven trustworthy such as the doctors who promoted HCQ from the beginning.
Further your diatribe looks like you are intentionally trying to talk above peoples heads in either an attempt to prove to others that you are an expert and nobody else can understand and therefore unquestionable.
Of course you fail to realize or admit that other experts disagree with you. It's that simple. Yiu as an expert have other very highly notable experts saying the opposite.
But we should listen to you because.... you talked over our heads using industry terms and concepts?
Soooooooo why should we trust you over other researchers? Because you said you were right on the GAW page?
I never said you should trust me. That would be stupid. You absolutely should not trust me.
However, it must be understood that I have not made a statement, I have presented an argument. If the argument can't be refuted (which it hasn't) then the argument stands as the best argument until it is refuted.
That is all that is going on here. Never hand over your critical thinking skills to me or anyone else. Look at the evidence, hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, since there are no other actual biological researchers commenting on my arguments they are not able to prove that they stand up to debate. I really wish there were. I know there are at least a couple on the board, but they aren't chiming in.
An argument without evidence can be rejected out of hand. An argument rejected does not remain standing.
Rejecting an argument out of hand is only done by someone who either;
A) doesn't understand the argument
B) can't reject it with their own argument
C) has no respect for the speaker.
Those are not exclusive reasons.
In every case they have nothing to do with the argument being bad, only with the rejecter being ignorant or an asshole.
Ah ... now we have here Slyver the authority on what can and cannot be done.
It is really funny.
First you come up here and claim to be something, and then devolve to what other people can and cannot do to discuss an item among themselves. Your words betray who your master really is.
you don't need an expert to disagree when common sense would do. The inventor himself stated they can shed. It's pretty clear. He also stated 'almost certainly can't cause disease'
One is presented as fact. The other is theory.
You yourself seem to make quite a few assumptions such as - 'The most likely scenario in that case is psychosomatic.' and "This could easily be a pheromone response." This was your argument, That's not arguing with facts. It would be just as valid to say. "This could easily be explained as a new virus infection or a parasite" , hell, make up anything. You can say whatever you want when you don't require evidence to back it up.
You have stated as fact - "I have only made the case that the S protein is not shedding. I am not tying anything to anything. The claim is the S protein is shedding. That is what I am addressing."
Yet Dr. Warren EXPLICITLY states it does. So one of you is incorrect. So who do we trust? The inventor? They thought the spike protein would stay in the area of the vaccination...they were wrong. You say you knew it wouldn't but we can't verify that so it's just your word. You say the protein doesn't shed. Warren states it does. One of you is incorrect right?
See, that's logic and reason without having a PHD in biology. The age old "my expert is better than yours" arguments. So you see you can use all the biological wording you want but you are still just a guy on the net saying the opposite what a very prominent expert has already stated.
Further even 'expert' opinions are in question. The experts just told us we went through one the deadliest pandemics since 1918 yet our 5 senses told us otherwise. We now find out the experts lied. Time and time again. Over masks, the source of the virus, HCQ, death rates, etc. And it's all documented.
So forgive us if we treat your arguments as bullshit. Other experts are saying the opposite of what you are and there has been so much bullshit shoveled around by so many people calling themselves experts that identifying the truth is difficult. There ARE people we trust who have been arguing against COVID and vaccines for a long time often at their own cost and reputation. I trust their motives and therefore their 'science'. They were RIGHT about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc while the people who stand to profit off a vaccine were lying about the cures and promoting an experimental vaccine that according to one inventor sheds the spike proteins. The doctors I trust saved lives. The experts lied.
So good luck with that!
Here's the thing about science. It is evidence, logic and reason based. The inventor said it sheds spike protein. But he may or may not be an expert in cell biology. He might have been talking out of his ass. I know people who are researchers in bio-nanotechnology (like I am) that know much less about cell biology than I do, because I am also a cell biologist and they are not. To make the vaccine you don't actually need to understand the biochemistry and molecular biology of cell biology as well as I do. I came to the field of nano-biotechnology THROUGH cell biology. Most do not.
Shedding of proteins would be MY specialty, at least the theory behind it, and there is no biological path for such to occur. Its a transmembrane protein. I know you don't know what that is, but I do. Its not "sheddable" It doesn't even make sense to say that. It can only exist inside of a cell membrane (or organelle, or bleb, etc.) It REQUIRES a lipid bilayer, and can never escape it. Physics won't allow it, unless you put it into another hydrophobic environment (oil e.g.). In the aqueous solution that is in between cells, it simply can't escape the membrane. Its not possible. Period.
I literally wouldn't care if this guy was God Almighty himself. He would have to provide evidence to support such a claim before I would even entertain the idea because it goes against 100 years of every piece of evidence in cell biology, chemistry and physics research.
This is more of an "Occam's Razor" than an assumption, though the two are related concepts. I say it is most likely, because in my opinion (which is not without expertise) the most likely case if the vaccine is what it says it is is that such things are psychosomatic. I am happy to review evidence to the contrary. I don't have any desire to be right about that. That was just an opinion based on my own knowledge and research.
Again, it could. I presented a reasonable argument for it.
I'm not "making it up". I gave an argument to support it.
Evidence shows that the vaccines accumulate in the ovaries. I don't know where the link to that paper is, but if you want that evidence just let me know and I will find it.
Evidence also shows that menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Evidence also shows that the spike protein, which the vaccines produce, attacks the endothelium (blood vessels).
So its in the ovaries. It attacks the blood vessels. Menstrual sympathy is a thing.
Is that proof? Of course not. Its an argument. Its a pretty good argument. Its at least good enough to be addressed in the specifics. What it isn't is an "assumption without evidence". I am happy to provide papers for all three of those pieces of evidence if it will help you.
I did not. I KNEW it would not. I said a thousand times it would not. Why? Because I design cell specific targeting lipid nanoparticle drug delivery systems. That's why.
The "inventor" (who knows if that's even true) did not provide any context or evidence or argument to support his claim. I did. Who do you trust? Neither. But I have an argument that can be disputed. He doesn't even have that. I like my odds better, because I know my argument is correct within the scope of known biology, chemistry, and physics.
I am not asking you to take my expertise as argument. I have asked you NOT to. I am begging you to look at the argument itself. If you don't know the biology I am talking about, ask someone who does.
The argument is all. The person who gives it is irrelevant.
They always have been. They always will be.
Wow. Its bullshit because I must be wrong because I'm an expert in the field?
What the fuck?
The argument is all. I keep telling you not to take my, nor anyone's word for it. Address the specifics of the argument. That is all.
Most of them are far from experts, and I have addressed how they got specific things wrong at other times, but I hardly expect you to know that at this point. You could find such things in my post history, but I post way too often for that to be practical.
Once again, I must point out, that I argue things point by point. I address others arguments when they present them. In this case, the person being quoted made a fiip statement without any evidence or context or any support whatsoever. I on the other hand have laid out an explicit argument, with detailed objections (you would have to look at the entire thread to see them all. I further clarified my position in response to other questions).
AGAIN!!! The argument is all.
This is foolish, because those people are not experts in cell biology nor nanotechnology, which is the area of expertise that is important for THIS SPECIFIC topic.
I will end with this:
The argument is all. If you can't refute the argument, dismissing the arguer because you trust another "expert" more for completely unrelated reasons to the argument in question is just another way of handing off your critical thinking skills to someone else. That is how we got here in the first place. That is always the wrong path.
TLDR - you are just another guy on the net spouting disagreements with other 'experts' . You maybe right you maybe wrong. Too much misinformation so we trust those who are proven trustworthy such as the doctors who promoted HCQ from the beginning.
Further your diatribe looks like you are intentionally trying to talk above peoples heads in either an attempt to prove to others that you are an expert and nobody else can understand and therefore unquestionable.
Of course you fail to realize or admit that other experts disagree with you. It's that simple. Yiu as an expert have other very highly notable experts saying the opposite.
But we should listen to you because.... you talked over our heads using industry terms and concepts?
No offense that's just how it comes off.