PhD's are awarded for demonstrating a capability to perform research - critical thinking necessary to push back the frontiers of knowledge and add understanding and clarity to the work of those who came before them. Masters are awarded as a participation trophy for those who don't cut it in their PhD program, or for fields which are relatively static.
You can get a PhD and be a dogmatic yes-man. And you can be a critical thinker in a field where a masters are as high as it really goes. But it surprises no one that those who think and question are the ones who look at the data and say 'no', while the ones who only ever learned to regurgitate the answers their professors wanted to hear, didn't even need to see the data before deciding to say 'yes'.
And if you're sister marrying hill folk, you've met enough of those retard test studiers to know where their decision making leads that you can spot an argument made by one from a mile away and you know not to trust it. You don't need to be smart enough to make a good argument yourself, only smart enough to spot a dumb argument. And that's not hard.
That's not how that response even works. Are you reading off a script you have in the back of your brain for when you run out actual responses?
Concentrwation matters. Do the math on how much asparagus you'd need to eat to meet the protocol that utilizes Quercetin then get back to us.
When's the last time you admitted you were wrong to someone you didn't like?
I'm a faggot for arguing in support of science (?)
Congrats, that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a decade. Maybe #2 in my whole life. You've beat out all the liberals. Absolutely amazing. I should mail you a trophy.
Just because the vaccine is horse shit, and scientists are responsible for farbricating the data and peddling it to the public doesn't mean that SCIENCE is at fault. By that logic you must also condemn all of christianity because a couple priests decided to stick their dicks of the assholes of small boys.
As for me, I just the value of christianity on it's unperverted principles, much like I judge science on it's unperverted principles. And as I have explained, experiments return inexplicable outliers all the time, so it isn't unusual or in error to tally those outliers, shrug your shoulders, and work from the summation of all data rather than chasing every wild goose that waddles by.
I don't need to have done it to do math. I can get 2 cups of water to boil out at cold as fuck in the morning off 30mls with more to spare, and once at boil I only need 10 minutes for pasta. Another 15 mls ought to do that.
Yet for some reason you're skeptical that a stove capable of boiling water ... can maintain water at boiling(?) I'm just confused.
I think some of that is a stretch, but it's still a solid hypothesis
I'd sooner believe the sumbmarine event to be unrelated or merely a manufactured event to pass comms though. I doubt it was damaged in an actual op related to Clinton.
The reason I accused you of having a confirmation bias is you because the alternative is you being an idiot and I chose to be charitable. I still think you're merely acting on bias by the way.
Do you think there is zero chance there were more test results like this?
Of course not. But I do think there is a 99% chance the reason for it isn't relevant, and a 99.9% chance that while the reason may be relevant, it won'r be relevant enough to have gambled the time chasing down that one inexplicable result you got that week.
You seem to want to dismiss this flatly based on your experiences. Which means its actually you who has the confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is rejecting more likely alternatives because your preferred explanation fits. I am not rejecting more likely alternatives. I am specifically adopting the likely.
You however are so attached to the legit malfeasence of pfizer that you'll see it even when it doesn't exist. In this case because malfeasence remains a POSSIBLE explanation in this video, no matter how well I describe to you that this as normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in biological research, you're unwilling to reject your preferrence regardless of how unlikely it is.
This is not evidence of possible malfeasence that should be looked deeper into. This is normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in science.
Address my question what are the probably of finding ZERO antibodies in a subject after injecting the vax TWICE?
Totally possible. Likely even. It could be a clerical error and was never administered, the vial could have been switched, the batch could have been left out and gone bad, or been missing a stabilizing reagent on it's creation, or the antibody test was fouled up for of a hundred different reasons. The administrating nurse could have misread her protocol and treated patient #xxx as a placebo when they were actually assigned to the vaccine. There are a thousand different explanations for this. Anomalies are routine in complex systems. And you don't go wasting your time hunting down a thousand different possibilities for your single odd annecdote that week. Even if the patient was delivered the actual vaccine and biologically she's just weird - she's an efficacy outlier not a toxicity outlier. You add her result into the mix and you get your high level amalgamate efficacy percentage.
Now if there's a PATTERN develops you hunt it down, but otherwise you look at your one outlier, your thousand normal results, and you move on. You can always circle back but your time is better served elsewhere. When your novice junior scientist comes to you and says this one patient makes no sense, they are completely negative, no antibodies no nothing, YES, you shrug your shoulders and move on.
Assuming an appropriate sample size where such outliers can be discarded. How big would that sample size be on average GIVEN the high effectiveness stated by pfizer?
Piss on pfizer's efficacy numbers. They straight up fabricate data. They aren't getting their bullshit numbers by errantly ignoring outliers. It comes from high level stat juking - you know, the kind where you count deaths within 14 days of of vaccination as 'uinvaccinated'. That kind of malfeasance. Pfizer is bullshit, the vaccine is bullshit, their top people should hang, but this one pfizer boss shrugging his shoulders at an anomaly has nothing to do with any of that. Your warranted general anger and skepticism is misplaced IN THIS CASE.
You are unfortunately selected not foremost for your intelligence after all.
Plenty of scientists are fucking retarded because they are ONLY selected for their intelligence. But your assertion that they AREN'T selected for their intelligence is flat out wrong.
This idea that your plumber down the street (or you) would make a better scientist could be true, but likely is not. I've met plenty of smart motherfuckers without high degrees. But if they can't do math and bomb their SATs because they are academically lazy and couldn't be bothered to pay attention in HS they definately aren't going to succeed in a curriculum more demanding that the one in HS they got C's on. And even more importantly:
--------- (and I desperately need you to appreciate this) -------------
You think your annecdotal level problem soving translates - this pipe seems weird, how do I resolve this isolated instance - but it doesn't. You need to work abstractly and to find the predictive truth from the complex and imperfect data. Non scientists think scientific data is clean. But it's not. It's a mess. You're investigating messy compex systems with a slew of variables you can't control for. Particularly in Biology. You have interns that fuck shit up, nurses that don't pay attention, some asshole that left a bottle out, and that's before you even get to the headache of cell cultures behaving differently today than they did yesterday, and the reality that the same human being is broadly differently proteomically in the morning than they are in the evening, let alone two DIFFERENT people. You and your lab can be the most careful and stringent possible and you will STILL, ALWAYS end up with anomalies that you wil never in a thousand days track down because the tiniest most minute thing which may not even be under your control can throw things off wildly. You have to toss your hubris and go high level, rise above the inexplicables and let the anomaly take it's place in the noise to derive predictive truth from. You will not get there by trying to hammer down every loose nail until you finally arrive at a perfect system - you will never ever get there. I speak from my and every other scientist's experience in what actually works. This is a fact of reality, not an erronious dogma of an arrogant preiesthood.
--------- (I desperately need you to appreciate this)-------------
Here's an example of your sort of novice thinking not translating
Gregor Mendel, the monk that worked with pea plants and discovered hereditary trait inheritance and pioneered the dominant/recessive thinking that was at the forefront of developing the line of investigation that would lead to genetics... that guy... remember him?
He fabricated his data.
He knew he was on to something but he ended up with all these anomalous results. He planted his plots, did his cross polination noted the results... and fuck, they were usually close but then this plot or that was way off. One plot may have even given the opposite result from what he predicted it should. Inexplicable! So he faked the numbers. We've know the genetics now, and have done the math on his extensive 'recorded' results and the probability of them being so perfect is near impossible. We understand statistics, and he didn't.
If he had understood statistics (or reasonably believed that the readers of his work did) he wouldn't have felt the need to do what he did. But like you, and like all green as fuck scientists, he felt things had to be clean. He was needlessly perturbed by his inexplicable results because he (like you) fail to appreciate just how common they are in complex systems and that the solution is statistics and not wild goose chases looking for meaning where ABSENT A PATTERN none is likely to exist. Thank god he didn't spend years delaying his publication while he tried in vain to find a reason for those endlessly unavoidable anomolies where none existed... but novices thiking like you think would.
In his case he committed the sin of lying. In your case you want to ascribie meaning where none is evidenced and waste time that isn't warranted. Sorry, but your fantasy of having a better mind for science than scientists like myself or the pfizer boss is straight wrong. You could get there, but in your case you're the sort of intern that would need years of frustrating failures before you accepted reality for what it is rather than what you want it to be -- and you wouldn't be alone in that regard. Junior phizer scientist is right there with you in that journey.
When you have the time from a fellow scientist Mike Yeadon
You're arguing a strawman, I've sent that same interview to friends and others. Why would you think I haven't watched or don't disagree with him?? You think I'm pro pfizer or pro vaccine or something??
I understand your point the whole time dummy
You clearly don't. Seeing as how I've had to explain the same thing three times now and you're still stuck on the basic premise that anomalous results are routine and uninteresting within complex systems. You are stuck on how interesting it would be if your preferred explanation of the result were true, while ignorign how unlikely it is, all the alternatives, and the low value/cost proposition of chasing that red herring.
Where do you think, "yeah but you spelled this word wrong" falls?
But as an aside, English is a retarded language and I don't sweat the rote memorization.
IT'S makes perfect sense to me. John's job. Caleb's Job. It's job.
"But that's not how we do things." Fuck your convention, my mind is wired by logic, not backwards tradition. Seriosuly if dinging someone on one spelling error thousands deep, maybe you need to rethink how strong your assertions really are. It's not like I have red squigglies to help me when I'm firing these quickly written walls of text out.
As for for your only meaningful critique - the efficacy numbers and the survival rate, I agree with you. The vaccine is dumb. There's no point to it. But then, there's no point to you noting that because it doesn't contradict any of my assertions or support any of yours.
Do you often entertain theories you have no evidence for? Does that sound productive?
This is easily explained with the universal experience of research science in biology. Until there is evidence to the contrary, the more likely explanation (by far) is the reasonable course. What you are engaged in is confirmation bias.
What you see fits your preconveived notion that there is something fishy going on. And likely there is. But just because something 'fits' your prefferred bias does not lend credence to that interpretation - you don't get to abandon alternatives merely because your preferred interpretation can't be rejected.
If I believe my wife is cheating on me, and she arrives home late, that is not evidence she is cheating on me. Particularly if everyone who has to take the same freeway home at the same time of night are themselve all, always late because every other day there's a pileup or whatever.
A common experience is not evidence of your theory merely because your theory can't be rejected.
Is that a good example?
Because it can be a clerical issue. Or it can be the batch vial, or some weird shit to do with the individual. There's no value in chasing an outlier.
And why wouldn't you assumes he knew what you are spewing? why would you assume his boss wouldn't explain what you are spewing to this scientist?
Because I have trained a ton of interns and I have heard all this before. Because I've been there before. Before I've witnessed countess inexplicables which clued me in to the complexity of the systems we interact with and the results of my own investigations.
Does the way he tell his story matches up with statistical anomalies? the way he viewed his boss response?
Yes it does. Absolutely what I would expect in both their reactions. He's literally describing his first experiment. Dude couldn't be more green. He's as clueless and bewildered as you are. Welcome to science. Welcome to BIOLOGICAL science. It is absurdly complex and hubris is not served in the field.
How hard is it for the boss to simply say "statistical anomalies"?
Not hard at all. But much harder for the dude to internalize it. He's telling a story and trying to build up his confusion, he's not going to provide his date with his bosses position, just his apathy. I guarantee you his boss explained why you don't go chasing one weird result.
I don't want this to just be an appeal to authority but I don't know why this isn't clicking with you.
Or maybe its a web of lies? That the best scientific minds are rejected from the education system and you are unfortunately selected not foremost for your intelligence after all.
Lol, ok bud.
It's grades and test scores. The best scientific minds aren't bombing their SATs.
The above can be excused for an engineer, but it is the greatest sin a scientist can say.
No it's not. Feel free spending months fruitlessly trying to figure out every weekly anomaly and see where that gets you. If you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis to test, you have no where to go. As I said, you wait for a pattern or a falsifiable explanation to test. But until then you just take the L and keep going.
Goddamn that was sweet
"100% effective"
-
Based retards: "Govt lies all the time, this 'aint any worse than the flu"
-
PhD's: "The limited data doesn't support that claim, and if they are lying about this, all data and claims are now suspect"
-
Midwits: "Science is AWESOME!"
It is plenty though. One outlier is absolutely a nothing burger. It's such a common thing. I don't even understand what you're imagining that could make this a big deal.
I just told you why several times.
I suspect you didn't read it. Or you skimmed it. Or you turned your brain off and never honestly considered anything I wrote because you're not of an inclination to ever have your mind changed unless you want it to be.
An actor that acted out fainting from a shot that she was filmed taking for the purposes of allieviating public concerns?? How does that makes any sense??
But we dont know if it was one, many,or several batches.
You're right. We don't. But only because I don't believe the data hasn't been fraudulently manufactured. At face value we do know the efficacy in totality.
And I get that you don't get why ignoring a negative outcome is fruitless, but it is. Where there is a pattern, or an explanation to explore, sure. In that case you have a testable hypothesis. Something falsifiable to pursue. But without that you've got nothing to work from. You stick it in the back of your head to wonder about, and if an explanation or pattern does develop you jump on it. But one failed experiment? No.
And the other reason for no is that this happens all the time. And not because the scientists are bad or don't know what they are doing, but because that's the absolute nature of front line science. Biological science in particular is a great example of this too. There are so many complex systems interacting that it's impossible to control for them all. People are going to have different health states, genetics, diets and other outwards presenting differences that you try desperately to control for, as well as undetectable differences in their blood sugar at that moment, where in their circadian rythm they are, different liver and adrenal levels, and organ by organ differences in celular expression that you can never in a hundred years even know to want to control for let alone the ability to.
Experiments just fail. They don't work the way you expect. A normal positive experiment can often have an inexplicable outlier that you can never repeat. And you'll waste an eternity trying to get to the bottom of your weekly odd result. So this confuses you, and confuses this newly minted pfizer scientist, but it doesn't confuse me or the pfizer boss.
Until you have a pattern or a testable explanation, you have to accept the 'L' and let power of statistics do it's job.
They can't claim that, but they will continue to press the notion that the unvaccinated are factories for super-covid that bypasses the vaccine.
The only possible counter explanation is that she got 'sick' and recovered, but was given shut up money and in return isn't allowed to post anything on social media again.
But 1) They'd want her positng
And 2) This doesn't stop those around her from posting.
The only thing that makes sense is that friends and family were paid shut up money and guilted into "this outlier case may prevent others from getting the safe vaccine, for the good of the whole we need to cover it up"
Uh, you absolutely can.
My soda can alcohol stove can boil pasta no problem. I bet 45mls would do it easy.
It wasn't posted yet, so here it is. But as a biological research scientist I have to push back on how damning this may seem to someone who doesn't do this for a living.
A single sample mysteriously not working simply happens all the time. It's why you perform experiments in replicate and draw conclusions from the totality of data. His boss not caring about a single annecdotal failure is as unsurprising as this young scientists shock, or your shock. The reality of any scientific work is that samples do get mislabeled, mishandled, received incorrect reagents or otherwise encountered some gremlin along the way and this isn't what you expect when you first start out. But different people react differently, the cells that day may be more or less responsive .. you're working with such a complex set of variables you can't control for in biology that any number of things could throw off an otherwise typical range of results in these unfathomable ways.
The effort to track down the 'why' is often as fruitless when you figure it out as it more commonly is when you can never figure it out. Realistically, you never figure it out. Annomolies are a part of the game. Unless it's a systemic issue that repeats, it's best to just log the outlier, and allow the weight of numbers to work their magic.
You know all those error bars you see in those scientific papers you've all been reading up on? This is half of where they come from. It's not just variability in result, but honest inclusion of single point outliers that can't be explained.
I know your reaction at this point is that, "maybe the reason it didn't work is really important" and you're right. But your time matters and you can't follow every odd result, you just can't. Oddities are a weekly occurance and tracking them down will take a month of fruitlessness resulting in as much confusion as when you started. There needs to be more; a pattern, a genuine explanation... or as we say in the biz, a "testable hypothesis" before you decide to jump down one of these wild goose rabbit holes.
So this vid is a big nothing, regardless of how damning everything else is.
Yes, big point.
I often forget that other bottle exists. Yellow bottle only.
HEET is cheaper and you'll heat more with it per dollar than you will with propane. I won't do the math, but you can feel free to.
None can say. So it's worth keeping a fuel can or two topped off / in rotation.
Gas generators aren't for long term electricity production though, only to get you through emergency outages with daylight on the other end. If it's going to be long term you need to plan around not having electricity, not around how you'll get it.
If you want electricity without relying on the grid you need solar and a major battery pack setup so you have the juice to make it through the night even if the previous days was cloudy or rainy. And that's many many many thousands of an investment so honestly just plan for the temporary. If it's going to be long term you need to plan around not having electricity, not around how you'll get it.
I work with viruses, so:
Not at all.
They are both RNA viruses. Most of the viruses you know are RNA viruses. And RNA polymerases are what is used to copy RNA by all RNA viruses. In so far as viruses are related, Influenza and Corona viruses are pretty different from one another in their polymerases because Corona is a positive sense RNA virus while Influenza is a negative sense virus.
What this means is that corona virus RNA can be directly translated into viral proteins, while negative sense viruses like Influenza must first be transcribed by their RNA polymerase into a complementary mRNA strand first. Remember how DNA has two strands, and one is the mirror of the other? That is +/- sense, and RNA is no different. One can be read directly, and the other has to be copied into it's mirror image first.
Which is to say two things: 1) Yes they both have RNA polymerases, but of course they do, they are both RNA viruses, and 2) They aren't even similar RNA polymerases.
Because flu numbers were fraudulently rolled into the covid numbers. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Flu didn't go away. And while this is absolutely a conspiracy, it is not evidence of the sort of conspiracy the poster suspects related to seasonal flu origins.
We won't know for sure until we discover how they decide to misrepresent those numbers. I imagine they plan on combining numbers again where convenient, or using the false positive of covid PCR tests vs the more accurate flu antibody tests to make the claim that it really is covid and not flu that is making people sick (90% of all positives are negative for flu, and we have 200k positive flu cases!) <--- you know, more stat juking
Totally possible, but I see no reason to presume that. One of the reasons covid-19 is so clearly man made is because it has tell tale signs of gain of function, while seasonal flu variants don't. It is by comparison to 'natural' flu variants that the engineered nature of covid shines so cleary.
If the goal of engineering flu variants was merely to create a market for yearly shots (which I wouldn't put past pharmas) they'd have similar signs of human intervention. Remember - these people are not smart. They couldn't hide the signs of their ONE bioweapon ... but somehow they are magically competant enough to hide that evidence in all those years past with an annual deadline looming every year??