Leaderboard

It is a fundamentally different approach for an entirely different situation. In OP you clearly defined it as an alternative to vaccination and asked why it is not used as such. But again, it is for a different purpose. It does not, as you claim, provide immunity (at least not comparable to vaccinations). That being said immunoglobulin therapies are already in use e.g. for folks with immune disorders or some other forms of complications. There, prophylactic use can be indicated, but only for certain conditions (i.e. high risk of infections). These treatments are not targeted though (i.e. not need for engineered antibodies). Specifically for flu, there is experimental evidence in animal models that infusion with immunoglobulins (again, non-specific and non-engineered) may ameliorate symptoms of infected individuals. However, relatively high amounts are needed, the precise mechanisms are not quite clear. Targeted approaches using engineered antibodies are likely to have a far lower efficacy as one would severely limit the target range. Other than those therapies there are also more targeted uses of antibodies, such as as antivenom, but again, they are specific and usually responsive treatments. Another scenario is post-exposure prophylaxis. E.g. folks that got into contact with highly contagious diseases could be offered immunoglobulin injections. If you are thinking of continuous transfer of IG as a form of immunization, it has several downsides. Long-term therapies have a range of side effects, which are acceptable if health of patient is at risk, but not if there is no indication. And also far more expensive than vaccines. So as a whole, it does serve a different niche than vaccines and is not really a viable alternative at this juncture.

Such scientists I would call uneducated.. because collision of Indian plate with Eurasian plate happened just recently, in Cenozoic. It started around 36 mln years ago. Not like you said "billions of years ago". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya

"Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people" (attributed to HL Mencken)

After the Russia elections Trump called Putin to congratulate him on having the powers of a dictator. "I'm proud of you Vlad, I would like the powers you have!" We would not have known about this if the Kremlin did not report it and some details were not leaked to the press. After Xi of China takes power for life, Trump remarked that was a good idea. "I'm proud of you Xi, I would like to have power for life!" We can only assume Trump envies Kim Jong-Un for his absolute power, as a "smart cookie". The House Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that although Russia interfered with the US elections, it was NOT in favor or Trump. That is at odds with all the US intelligence agencies, and should seem obviously false to anyone following the story and Trump's predictable defense of Putin. Why does the news, including CNN and MSNBC, not simply say "Russia is fighting FOR TRUMP?" Putin wants his puppet to remain in power. The news always says the Russians interfered with the US elections to merely sew chaos in democracies. Why not say that Putin is doing everything he can to keep Trump in power? Putin will continue to interfere in the US midterm elections to help Republican congress retain majorities. That will keep Trump safe from impeachment. If we know the Russians are coming, and we know who they are helping (GOP), why can we not ambush them?

There are the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of excitement from getting a new movie, feeling sexually aroused, or a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation. I think we call these emotions the instinctive emotions. These emotions are actually the perception of value. In other words, they are mental states where we perceive things, moments, people, and situations as beautiful, horrible, good, bad, or disgusting depending on which emotion we feel. I have come up with a formula that attempts to translate emotions into value. Our pleasant emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain. When you want and like something, this means it matters to you. When something matters to you, this means it is something good or bad from your perspective. Our pleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as good and beautiful while our unpleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as horrible and disgusting. Therefore, my formula that attempts to translate emotions into value would be "Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective." From there, I continue to explain how our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot be any real source of value in our lives by using a hunger and thirst analogy. There is no intellectual and moral form of hunger and thirst just as how there is no intellectual and moral form of value. Value is the same thing as our instinctive emotions just as how hunger and thirst is the same thing as the feeling of needing something to eat or drink. As you can see here, I have a purely biological perspective on value. I think value is reduced to our biochemical emotions and I do not agree with the idea that we can have value in our lives through our character, deeds, intellect, morals, and obligations/responsibilities alone. One last thing. I will present the study that shows how our positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking: Quote We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'. ‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/

Excuse my profanity, but you are stating the fucking obvious. There are two things wrong with your post. Firstly, your statement of the bloody obvious is poorly written, stylistically unattractive and lacking in coherence and clarity. Secondly, you are so out of touch with reality you think you have had an original thought. It is not a new idea. Few people would object to its broad context and they would be wrong to do so. The idea has been tested, retested, assessed, validated and accepted in a plethora of books on psychology, human behaviour, business studies, autobiographies, classical literature, etc. Be pleased and satisfied that you have discovered for yourself what most of the rest of us have known since childhood. Most of life is rather neutral for most people most of the time. The really good times are comparatively rare. Fortunately this is often true of the really bad times too. It doesn't matter that your idea is not orginal, or that your attempt to describe it is second rate. You've made the discovery. Now use that to harvest those positive emotions and thereby experience more of the upbeat, good times. To help you on your way I've given you a Upvote for each of your posts. Edit: Apparently there is a limit on how many Upvotes you can give one person in one day and I reached it. So I've not been able to upvote all your posts, but I think I got about ten of them.

I will point out where you said that: "Or, back in the real world, he would say that he was looking forward to seeing the film but helping his family was more important to him. In other words, the film had value but his family had more value. You seem to be making up bizarrely unrealistic claims about human nature to make it look like you have thought of something clever." I said that he made the intellectual and moral choice of helping his family. Therefore, by you saying that helping his family had more value to him, then you are admitting that intellectual and moral based values are real values.

Even you are making this claim since you said that values founded upon intellect, morality, and character are real values. Therefore, you are already admitting that these depressed artists had real value in their lives through their morality, character, and intellect even if they didn't feel any positive emotions and instead channeled their feelings of misery into creating their works of art.

Most people would disagree. For example, there were many miserable and depressed artists out there. They were very famous artists. Many people claimed that these artists had good and beautiful value in their lives with no need to feel positive emotions. Even the artists themselves made this very claim. But I disagree with this claim.

Matt, from where I sit you have taken some simple, self evident facts, then complicated them by using words with somewhat distorted meanings to describe those facts, while simultaneously appearing to claim you have had some startling insight. Marks out of 10 for clarity, 0.5. Marks out of 10 for value -2. Emotional value to me of having read this thead -20. You owe me for ten minutes of my life that I shall never be able to get back. If I were you I would take up crochet.

If someone was in a situation where he felt excited about getting a new movie, but had to go home and help his family instead, then he might report that getting that new movie was of no value to him and that it was instead his intellectual and moral choice of helping his family which was of real value to him. Since our positive emotions themselves are the perception of value, then he would be in denial to claim that his emotions are not the perception of value and that they are nothing more than just how he feels about certain things. As a matter of fact, humanity is in denial since they claim that their emotions are just simply how they feel about things and nothing more. But they are far more than how we feel about things. They are the perception of value. I also think humanity is in denial regarding their moral and intellectual based values since I don't think these are the real values. Therefore, I think humanity has it all backwards. Our morality, character, and intellect alone does not allow us to perceive any real value while it can only be our emotions that do. Believing that you are perceiving value through your intellect is not the same thing as actually perceiving value just as how believing that you are hungry and thirsty through just words alone in your mind of you being hungry and thirsty is not the same thing as actually being hungry and thirsty. You need to feel hungry and thirsty to have real hunger and thirst just as how you need to feel emotions to have real value in your life.

Thats Matt Dillahaunty as Hank’s ass kisser. I always enjoyed his talks.

The only way something can be of value is when it matters to you. How can you say that helping someone or harming someone is something good or bad if it doesn't matter? From there, the only way something can matter to you is if you want it, like it, not want it, or dislike it. Since our positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking and since our negative emotions are the disreward not wanting and disliking, then they are what make things of value in our lives since they allow us to perceive value in regards to things and situations.

First of all, most people would disagree with the idea that our emotions are the perception of value. Second, I say that our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot allow us to perceive value. I already explained why that is in my opening post. It seems you haven't read my entire opening post.

That's not what I said. I said positive emotions themselves are wanting and liking. They are the reward wanting and liking in the brain. From there, I said that if you want and like something, this means it matters to you which, in turn, means it is something that has value from your perspective. That is why I draw the conclusion that positive emotions allow us to perceive value in regards to things.

I already presented it in my opening post. Read my entire opening post and you will find it. You will also gain further insight by reading my whole opening post. As for my formula, this was it: "Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective."

It wasn't a scientific formula. It was a formula based upon reasoning alone.

It is hard to tell without having all the details, but from a researcher's point of view I see a couple of issues pertaining to consent. It seems that medical history information is extensively mined, and I am not sure how well informed the participants can be. This is especially problematic as there is potentially a very broad use of that information. That aside, I have to admit that the ability to simply request a patient cohort is kind of attractive (considering that it is the bottleneck for population studies). Overall, I am kind of curious, though I fear that there may be unforeseeable issues with that level of information sharing.

Japan isn't that remote

My point would be that all religions cannot possibly be real. To realistically talk about anything being of part of reality you first have to demonstrate what you're calling god. Natives on a remote island might worship s strangely shaped rock, to them it's real, they can show it to you. They can regale you stories of people who were cured by touching the stone. Of course not everyone is healed, only those who truly believe are healed at a rate comparable to people who do not worship the rock., So the real problem becomes how do we decide what god is. Let's say 7 billion people suddenly decide to worship the rock. Some say we should wash the bird excrement of every day, some say we should offer the best crops to this god, others think the rock likes the smell of burning meat so piles dead animals are burned around god . and yet the rock remains a rock and no studies, no tests, no amount of prayer, no amount of crying and wailing has any effect what so ever on the rock... This is religion in it's purest form...

As a result of the activism of the Parkland students there are now more than 840 marches taking place around the world tomorrow to call for better control of guns in the USA: https://marchforourlives.com It does look like this time it might be different... And in case anyone thinks the NRA might have got away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids... Veterans for Gun Reform: https://wepresent.wetransfer.com/story/veterans-for-gun-reform/

You could take your helmet off and use it as leverage to start spinning.

Google „f block elements color properties” it should get you on track. I had a spectrophotometer guy selling some products at my work some years ago have a vial of Holmium oxide. Aparently it is used in spectrophotometers, it was beautiful to look at. Try different types of lighting on it.

The ones who watch FoxNews seems to be.

Tell me about it. A cousin came to stay and helpfully insisted on doing the washing up after each meal. He got through most of a bottle of washing up liquid in a weekend. Can’t remember if he rinsed or not ...

No but the effects have. Wrong. There is zero evidence for gods but lots of evidence for dark matter. God is a myth. Dark energy is an observed fact. Nonsense. Can you point to a set of observations and a mathematical model for your god or gods? No. So you comparison is wrong, idiotic and slightly offensive. The only dual standard here is yours, trying to elevate faith and opinion to the same level as objective measurement. Because there are no such miracles (just stories) whereas there is copious objective, quantitative evidence for dark energy. I don't really know what that means. You think writing was invented in 7 days? Or you think writing was created by Adam and Eve? Or you think writing was invented the same time as Genesis was first written down? All of those are wrong, so there doesn't seem to be any science here. Bollocks. That doesn't make much sense but sounds like nonsense... Are you saying that General Relativity is wrong? If so, perhaps you should start a new thread to argue that.

For those it would benefit, it would be an altruistic act.

Dark energy has never been seen in the lab. God has also never been seen in the lab. They have this in common. Science is still trying to see dark energy, close and personal, via super colliders. Dark energy is inferred from secondary affects. Dark energy is being used to close the energy balance for the universe. This was not a problem a decade ago. Again, we need a concept, we can't see in the lab; like God, to explain a new observation. Dark energy is based on faith in theory. A miracle; secondary observation, is based on faith in the theory of God. There is another logical explanation for the energy balance problem. This connected to Special Relativity; SR. In SR reference is relative to observer. Each reference will see the other references relative to itself. This is only true of space and time references. It is not true for mass references, which is the third variable of SR. Mass is an invariant and is not relative. Many physicist have attempted to get rid of relativistic mass so this will not poise a problem. For example, say we had two rockets, one with mass M and other with mass 2M. They are in empty space with no way to know who is moving, They have a relative velocity of V. Both references will see the same relative velocity. Each will see the other moving at V. However, the kinetic energy is not the same for both references. The rocket with 2M mass has twice the kinetic energy; 1/2MV2, as the one with mass =M. If we assume relative reference in distance and time, we can underestimate the kinetic energy. This is the real source of the energy imbalance we attribute to dark energy. In other words, if we are on rocket M and we assume we are moving, but the other rocket 2M is moving we shot change total energy by half. We measure the parameters of the universe using energy signals. Energy is composed of frequency and wavelength or time and space. This approach is very useful but is leaves out mass and is not accurate with mass. We know relative motion, but we do not know for certain, in terms of momentum=MV needed for a universal energy balance. We have assumed too little energy based on our relative earth reference. Now we see data that suggest we need more energy. We can either speculate the unprovable in the lab; dark energy, or we can use well established criteria of mass and then simply alter relative references into reference criteria that can close the new energy balance. Faith has not decreased, rather the objects of faith have changed. Now we have rational polytheism instead of symbolic monotheism.