Vaccine

Grace T. said:
A few caveats. The first is Prof. Inoue of the Japanese National Institute of Genetics is the source. The original paper is in Japanese. I don't have the time to give it the half hour - hour it takes to find the summaries (some of them are bad, some of them particularly in the scie journals) are better, but I am very busy which is partially the reason I don't just post it (as I've written before this takes up maybe 10% of my attention while I'm multitasking). I don't book mark things (posting stuff here is I'm kind of like a little kid collecting interesting colored stones in a basket). But I'll send you the video previously posted by PM (don't want to brook espola's laziness and the summary is around minute 10.....Campbell is discussing a bunch of theories for why Japan is acting the way it does and starts with Ivermectin and goes into the defense enzyme which the Japanese may have a higher proportion of....you can do research from there). Again, don't know if it's true or not. Don't really care. I just found it an interesting colored stone.
Click to expand...

At last, some intellectual content! That Campbell video, which you haven't mentioned in your previous defense of your coocoo biology, was posted Nov. 23, not last week. Also, nowhere in that video does Campbell discuss running out of mutations, so that is at least one mis-statement you made, adding to your medal count in that category.

I take issue with Campbell's implication that all or almost all of the virus particles inhabiting Japanese victims stumbled into the same self-limiting mutations, ignoring the random nature of genetic mutations that are at the core of molecular genetic evolution. I find more interesting his comments on the APOBEC3A in Asian populations (except perhaps Koreans).

Unless you had some different Campbell video in mind than this one --


which is titled "Ivermectin in Japan".
 
Grace T. said:
No you didn't. For an example of meaningful discussion, see what evil goalie did. What you did was not that.

Again, I can't help it if you lose the threads or can't fully follow them. What you did is the Magoo Two Step, which is your MO, and I'm not even the one that first called you out with it (kuddos to him....it's very clever).

And there's an easy name which doesn't escape anyone for what you do....we've all seen it...I'm one of a dozen that have called you out on it: troll.
Click to expand...

Oops, there's that Magoo thing again. How far did you get - 2 or 3 posts before relapsing?
 
espola said:
At last, some intellectual content! That Campbell video, which you haven't mentioned in your previous defense of your coocoo biology, was posted Nov. 23, not last week. Also, nowhere in that video does Campbell discuss running out of mutations, so that is at least one mis-statement you made, adding to your medal count in that category.

I take issue with Campbell's implication that all or almost all of the virus particles inhabiting Japanese victims stumbled into the same self-limiting mutations, ignoring the random nature of genetic mutations that are at the core of molecular genetic evolution. I find more interesting his comments on the APOBEC3A in Asian populations (except perhaps Koreans).

Unless you had some different Campbell video in mind than this one --


which is titled "Ivermectin in Japan".
Click to expand...
1. see the criticism I levelled and how EvilGoalie approaches it. What you do is troll. Evil Goalie did is different.
2. It's not my coocoo biology. again, have no dog in this hunt.
3. I conceded to evil goalie I expressed it inartfully. Again, I have no dog in this hunt and am not particularly interested in whether its right or wrong except from a purely curiosity point of view. YOU barged into a conversation kicking and I were having, in which this was basically a throw away, and then just ran with it, like a curious mad dog with abone.
4. It's not Campbell's implication. He's interpreting the Japanese paper. You can criticize whether he understood it properly or not, but you'd have to go back to the original Japanese.
5. I already stated I don't have the chops to determine whether it's correct or not or to form an opinion, beyond its a colorful stone. Yawn.
 
Grace T. said:
1. see the criticism I levelled and how EvilGoalie approaches it. What you do is troll. Evil Goalie did is different.
2. It's not my coocoo biology. again, have no dog in this hunt.
3. I conceded to evil goalie I expressed it inartfully. Again, I have no dog in this hunt and am not particularly interested in whether its right or wrong except from a purely curiosity point of view. YOU barged into a conversation kicking and I were having, in which this was basically a throw away, and then just ran with it, like a curious mad dog with abone.
4. It's not Campbell's implication. He's interpreting the Japanese paper. You can criticize whether he understood it properly or not, but you'd have to go back to the original Japanese.
5. I already stated I don't have the chops to determine whether it's correct or not or to form an opinion, beyond its a colorful stone. Yawn.
Click to expand...

Since all I have to go on here is Campbell's video, I limit myself to criticizing that (ignoring for the moment your mistaken characterizations of the video).
 
espola said:
Since all I have to go on here is Campbell's video, I limit myself to criticizing that (ignoring for the moment your mistaken characterizations of the video).
Click to expand...

And then you dispute you are lazy. As I pointed out to Evil, I gave him the video to start his research, not to end it....not that I care...if that's where you want to end it you are an adult and free to. Again, it just shows you are less interested in truth than scoring points, hence the different reaction to evil (the "better" way to do it) and you (the "trollish" unvaluable way to do it).
 
Grace T. said:
And then you dispute you are lazy. As I pointed out to Evil, I gave him the video to start his research, not to end it....not that I care...if that's where you want to end it you are an adult and free to. Again, it just shows you are less interested in truth than scoring points, hence the different reaction to evil (the "better" way to do it) and you (the "trollish" unvaluable way to do it).
Click to expand...

I was trying the better way, asking for you for support to your coocoo claim. You called me lazy and criticized my reading comprehension, among other things.

BTW, have you decided what you meant by your "Galileo" comment yet?
 
espola said:
I was trying the better way, asking for you for support to your coocoo claim. You called me lazy and criticized my reading comprehension, among other things.

BTW, have you decided what you meant by your "Galileo" comment yet?
Click to expand...

nope...that's not what you did and we all know it. what you did is trolling. Take your own missive at betterment if you really care and see what evil goalie did. But we know you don't really care. What you are interested in is trolling. Which is why the "better" remark is some real first class, hilarious gaslighting.
 
Grace T. said:
nope...that's not what you did and we all know it. what you did is trolling. Take your own missive at betterment if you really care and see what evil goalie did. But we know you don't really care. What you are interested in is trolling. Which is why the "better" remark is some real first class, hilarious gaslighting.
Click to expand...

"...we all know.."? Now you are just outright lying.
 
crush said:
View attachment 12279
Click to expand...
How, exactly, is "safe" defined? Is it "safe" to get in your car? Is it "safe" to play soccer? Is it "safe" to think about whether it is safe to hang out with everyone you meet? For most people, I'd bet the risk of bad outcomes is greater for those constantly assessing whether hanging out with someone is safe than the risk of bad outcomes from COVID for those who are just going about their lives without giving their risk of COVID much thought.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
How, exactly, is "safe" defined? Is it "safe" to get in your car? Is it "safe" to play soccer? Is it "safe" to think about whether it is safe to hang out with everyone you meet? For most people, I'd bet the risk of bad outcomes is greater for those constantly assessing whether hanging out with someone is safe than the risk of bad outcomes from COVID for those who are just going about their lives without giving their risk of COVID much thought.
Click to expand...
Play on words and people fall for it. The business owners in NYC had no idea or a little heads up on the preemptive strike he did on the city of NY. The business owners had no idea about this bomb. Crazy move. Let's see WHO obeys daddy before he leave....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top