Jump to content

Flook Somerset

Resident
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flook Somerset

  1. No, he just has a high profile. We're talking about groups of people at multiple companies & institutes across the world.
  2. The two would be carried out by different groups of people according to individual expertise; the mechanisms of a virus and developing a vaccine are two different things.
  3. There He said that it could do so in miniscule quantities. The key word is miniscule.
  4. In the days when cars were novel and very slow there were roads that lead through parks; they were for taking a seated "stroll" through the park. As cars became more common and faster, the traffic became heavier and these existing purpose-built roads morphed into today's highways. Bill Bryson's "Made in America" described how many American English terms came into use and hopefully I'm remembering correctly. 🙂
  5. They were in there an hour?
  6. It's an interesting article but it does say itself that "the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines)". As I understand it the vaccines contain or codes for fragments of the spike protein, not the whole spike protein. That makes a difference.
  7. "Physicians and patients around the world are currently discussing the potential value of many other drug and treatment options, but the evidence for most remains thin and often anecdotal, so many have not progressed to major national or international treatment trials." References an article on Ivermectin.
  8. It means there is inadequate evidence to support it as a treatment but it can't be categorically ruled out as ineffective. There's nothing weasel-worded about it; small clinical trials are not going to give you yes/no answers. You were asking for long-term studies on the vaccines; that is what would be required to be determined if ivermectin could adequately treat Covid-19. That it is cleared for use as anti-parasitic drug is not going to make it effective against a virus or mean that it is safe when taken at substantially larger doses. It comes with its own adverse reactions; people are harmed or even die when it is routinely used. When something is touted as a cheap and near miraculous cure it's wise to determine the motives of those originally touting it. Like a number of other existing drugs, ivermectin was being tried out of desperation in treating Covid=19, not because it was known to be effective. The evidence that initially supported its use was retracted; the company was more intent on selling access to its database & algorithms than accurate results, i.e., making money. You provided a link to a list of dubious medicines; some were genuinely believed useful at the time based on limited information and understanding of how they worked and there is a fair chance of ivermectin for Covid-19 joining a future list.
  9. "replace Newborn Calf Serum (NBCS) with animal-free chemical solution" They make it sound so easy....
  10. As far as I can see the cases are rare, too few to determine whether there is a correlation between them & the vaccine or whether it is just the usual low rate.
  11. You realise that an mRNA vaccine and RNAi therapy are two quite different things?
  12. Most novel ideas are going to be wrong; being novel is not good reason to assume they are right. Occasionally there are ideas that are significantly out of step and turn out to be right but they are few & far between. Since microbes were not known to exist then, Semmelweiss could offer no explanations for why his idea could work; to many he was saying it was incompetence on the doctor's part that was killing patients. He was able to persuade enough trainee doctors (who wouldn't yet have had their own patients) that it slowly became established practice and was later explained with Pasteur's work. Planck's Principle is about axiomatic change, not the advancement of science generally; which size droplets the Covid virus primarily spreads via is not axiomatic, just determining the exact mechanism. How accurate facts are is dependent on how much is known about the subject; that knowledge increases with each change needing to be repeatedly confirmed. Change can be slow because of the need for such confirmation.
  13. The miasma theory was that "bad air" spread diseases, not that respiratory droplets.
  14. Apologising for crashing a plane into the side of someone's house.
×
×
  • Create New...