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.
Actually I presented an argument. That was the main thing I did. You are focusing on completely different things than anything that was important.
then devolve to what other people can and cannot do to discuss
You only want to find flaws (mostly that don't have anything to do with reality). You obviously do not want to have an actual conversation. Thank you for your time.
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?
you are just another guy on the net spouting disagreements with other 'experts'
I'm actually someone who has presented an argument with details.
Only the argument matters....
Further your diatribe looks like you are intentionally trying to talk above peoples heads
I promise that is not what is happening. I'm trying really hard to make it NOT be that way. How do you condense more than a decade of schooling and experimentation into a few sentences? I have tried to explain the physical chemistry of it. That is really hard to do without diagrams, and all kinds of other information. I have tried to explain the biology of it which has the exact same problems. But I promise you, I am not doing this to stroke my own ego. That is just not something I give a crap about. I am trying to stop the spread of disinformation in the only way I know how; by presenting evidence and reasoned argument.
Of course you fail to realize or admit that other experts disagree with you.
I actually don't fail to realize that at all. The only disagreement I have seen by someone who actually may be an expert in fields related to this topic is the tweet from Luigi Warren who only made a statement, without context or argument or evidence.
Luigi is someone with direct ties to people who are very likely Cabal (head of Moderna), or Cabal puppets. He was instrumental in creating the vaccine ffs. The vaccine is almost certainly a Cabal designed tool. Anything he says is suspect. But something he says without any backing of evidence or reason is very suspect, especially when it feeds a divisive narrative.
My argument is based on physics and biology. Two areas I know very well. Regardless of how well I know them though, is that the arguments are self contained. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge can address the specifics of it, and I heartily welcome such debate. I beg for it in fact. That is the only path to the truth.
If you think there is another expert saying that the spike protein is shedding, please point me in their direction.
Its important to note that being an MD is far, far from being an expert in these fields. That doesn't mean that an MD won't be, it just means you don't have to be to be an MD, and in fact the vast majority aren't. That credential requires specialization, and very few specialize in cell and molecular biology, and even fewer in bio-nanoengineering; the two areas of expertise that are most necessary in determining what is going on with the vaccine in general, and the spike protein specifically, at least when the best we have to work with is anecdotes and theories.
If there was real evidence of spike protein shedding (measurements, data) then the theories I am putting forth would be moot. There is ZERO evidence of that, so the theories are by far the most important evidence. All physics, chemistry and biology say that a transmembrane protein getting out of the membrane are impossible. They say that if that miracle happened, the protein would refold instantly into something completely different, which would almost certainly not interact with the ACE-2 protein. That's just molecular biophysics. Whatever happens after those two very important pieces of information (for which i can supply a ridiculous amount of papers to support for other transmembrane proteins) is irrelevant. Those two pieces of information from theory and previous data show the impossibility of a TM protein leaving the membrane, and the turning off of the specific deleterious effects of ACE-2 activation if the miracle happened.
But we should listen to you because
You should not listen to me. You should listen to and address my arguments.
Here is a paper that discusses membrane protein physics. It is not something that is easily digestible for anyone without specialized knowledge. I use it to hopefully elucidate some things.
I'm not just talking out of my ass
I'm not trying to talk over anyone, on the contrary I am trying to make it more digestible to the average reader
there are a few details I can point out that will support the claims I am making from this literature.
Point 1) The membrane holds a membrane protein very tightly
After release into the membrane’s bilayer fabric, a MP resides stably in a thermodynamic free
energy minimum (evidence reviewed in Refs. 2 and 3).
A thermodynamic free energy minimum means that it can't escape. It is in a valley. It can't by itself climb the hills out. In the case of these TM proteins that valley is very deep when in an aqueous environment (our bodies).
Point 2) The membrane determines the structure of the protein
This means
that the prediction of MP structure from the amino acid sequence is
fundamentally a problem of physical chemistry
Structure is determined by the membrane. Ergo, without the membrane the structure changes. In the case of a TM protein this structural change will be dramatic as it tries to minimize exposure to the aqueous environment outside of the membrane.
Point 3) The structure of the protein must be in a very specific configuration in order to interact with the ACE-2 protein (the target of the S protein on another cell).
This study sheds light on the mechanisms underlying conformational stability and functional motions of the S-protein, which are relevant for vaccine and antiviral drug developments.
It is difficult to find a paper that says why the conformation of the SARS S protein must be so specific in a way that is easily digestible. I hope the above quote will at least suggest that this is an important consideration, even though it provides way too little detail into how essential it really is.
As analogy: If I had a car, and I took it all apart and put it all back together in a completely different configuration, the car probably wouldn't be much good for transportation.
When a TM protein is in an aqueous environment (after miraculously escaping a membrane) it must change to find a new valley of thermodynamic minimum. That means all the hydrophobic parts that were perfectly happy to be on the outside in the membrane must now find a way to hide themselves from the water they find themselves in. So all the parts of the molecule that can hide the hydrophobic parts, will hide them. And they will also hide themselves, going from the outside to the inside.
It becomes a completely different thing. It almost certainly no longer has the capacity to interact with ACE-2, or likely do anything at all except be degraded.
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.
Actually I presented an argument. That was the main thing I did. You are focusing on completely different things than anything that was important.
You only want to find flaws (mostly that don't have anything to do with reality). You obviously do not want to have an actual conversation. Thank you for your time.
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.
I'm actually someone who has presented an argument with details.
Only the argument matters....
I promise that is not what is happening. I'm trying really hard to make it NOT be that way. How do you condense more than a decade of schooling and experimentation into a few sentences? I have tried to explain the physical chemistry of it. That is really hard to do without diagrams, and all kinds of other information. I have tried to explain the biology of it which has the exact same problems. But I promise you, I am not doing this to stroke my own ego. That is just not something I give a crap about. I am trying to stop the spread of disinformation in the only way I know how; by presenting evidence and reasoned argument.
I actually don't fail to realize that at all. The only disagreement I have seen by someone who actually may be an expert in fields related to this topic is the tweet from Luigi Warren who only made a statement, without context or argument or evidence.
Luigi is someone with direct ties to people who are very likely Cabal (head of Moderna), or Cabal puppets. He was instrumental in creating the vaccine ffs. The vaccine is almost certainly a Cabal designed tool. Anything he says is suspect. But something he says without any backing of evidence or reason is very suspect, especially when it feeds a divisive narrative.
My argument is based on physics and biology. Two areas I know very well. Regardless of how well I know them though, is that the arguments are self contained. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge can address the specifics of it, and I heartily welcome such debate. I beg for it in fact. That is the only path to the truth.
If you think there is another expert saying that the spike protein is shedding, please point me in their direction.
Its important to note that being an MD is far, far from being an expert in these fields. That doesn't mean that an MD won't be, it just means you don't have to be to be an MD, and in fact the vast majority aren't. That credential requires specialization, and very few specialize in cell and molecular biology, and even fewer in bio-nanoengineering; the two areas of expertise that are most necessary in determining what is going on with the vaccine in general, and the spike protein specifically, at least when the best we have to work with is anecdotes and theories.
If there was real evidence of spike protein shedding (measurements, data) then the theories I am putting forth would be moot. There is ZERO evidence of that, so the theories are by far the most important evidence. All physics, chemistry and biology say that a transmembrane protein getting out of the membrane are impossible. They say that if that miracle happened, the protein would refold instantly into something completely different, which would almost certainly not interact with the ACE-2 protein. That's just molecular biophysics. Whatever happens after those two very important pieces of information (for which i can supply a ridiculous amount of papers to support for other transmembrane proteins) is irrelevant. Those two pieces of information from theory and previous data show the impossibility of a TM protein leaving the membrane, and the turning off of the specific deleterious effects of ACE-2 activation if the miracle happened.
You should not listen to me. You should listen to and address my arguments.
That is all that matters.
Here is a paper that discusses membrane protein physics. It is not something that is easily digestible for anyone without specialized knowledge. I use it to hopefully elucidate some things.
Point 1) The membrane holds a membrane protein very tightly
A thermodynamic free energy minimum means that it can't escape. It is in a valley. It can't by itself climb the hills out. In the case of these TM proteins that valley is very deep when in an aqueous environment (our bodies).
Point 2) The membrane determines the structure of the protein
Structure is determined by the membrane. Ergo, without the membrane the structure changes. In the case of a TM protein this structural change will be dramatic as it tries to minimize exposure to the aqueous environment outside of the membrane.
From a different paper:
Point 3) The structure of the protein must be in a very specific configuration in order to interact with the ACE-2 protein (the target of the S protein on another cell).
It is difficult to find a paper that says why the conformation of the SARS S protein must be so specific in a way that is easily digestible. I hope the above quote will at least suggest that this is an important consideration, even though it provides way too little detail into how essential it really is.
As analogy: If I had a car, and I took it all apart and put it all back together in a completely different configuration, the car probably wouldn't be much good for transportation.
When a TM protein is in an aqueous environment (after miraculously escaping a membrane) it must change to find a new valley of thermodynamic minimum. That means all the hydrophobic parts that were perfectly happy to be on the outside in the membrane must now find a way to hide themselves from the water they find themselves in. So all the parts of the molecule that can hide the hydrophobic parts, will hide them. And they will also hide themselves, going from the outside to the inside.
It becomes a completely different thing. It almost certainly no longer has the capacity to interact with ACE-2, or likely do anything at all except be degraded.
I hope that helps.