Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Arete last won the day on June 9

Arete had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1282 Glorious Leader


About Arete

  • Rank
    Biology Expert

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Ecological speciation, functional genomics, phylogenetics, population genetics and evolution.
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolutionary Biology
  • Occupation
    Assistant Professor

Recent Profile Visitors

32492 profile views
  1. Three points: 1) An integral part of higher education and research is critical examination and questioning of the status quo - be it in the context of physics, biology, sociology, history, art etc. This means that the central mindset within higher learning and research institutions is fundamentally progressive, but not necessarily in the political sense. We have seen universities at the forefront of socio-political change, especially during the Bolshevik revolution, the civil rights movement, Arab spring, etc. They tend to be agents of change rather than conservatism, by nature of what
  2. So from Shi Zhengli's wiki page I dug up the gain of function paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ And searched the the grants cited on NIH Reporter: R01AI089728 - Li Fang, University of Minnesota. No subawards listed. R01AI110700 - Li Fang University of Minnesota, Robert S Baric University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. No subawards listed. Color me shocked that this five minute search shows no NIAID money went to the Wuhan Virology Institute, and Rand Paul is full of shit.
  3. The entire NIH grants database is searchable. Here's the results for Wuhan University. Two R01's awarded to the same PI for AIDS related immunology research. Here's the Chinese Academy of Sciences results. None awarded by the NIAID. That took all of two minutes to disprove. Unless, another institution gave the a subaward from their NIAID grant, but the fact the author's name is not given, the paper not cited and the grant number isn't stated, it's rather impossible to verify that situation.
  4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.25.21252415v1 "Applying this approach to published data from the RCT of the Moderna vaccine, we estimate that one dose of vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%, possibly considerably more." It would appear that the assumption that at least the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines are likely to provide some level of sterilizing immunity, although data on whether these vaccines are indeed "leaky" and to what extent they prevent transmission is an open question. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of vaccines, and the mechanisms of
  5. A prima facie critique that stood out to me was the application of a "universal" p-value to every scientific study would seem ignorant to the fact that the multitude of data types, statistical methods etc. have a mind boggling array of sensitivities, assumptions, nuances, etc. A p-value of 0.01 could be meaningless (looking at you, GWAS) or impossible to achieve dependent on your particular hypothesis, data and analysis method. The whole advent of p hacking demonstrates how a one-dimensional approach to hypothesis testing is problematic.
  6. Not to mention the insane level of HIPAA/IRB violation publicly posting your research subject's names on a public forum, then suggesting people dox them to verify the research. OP - Delete the file. Learn to anonymize data. Get an IRB approval for human subjects research. Posting first and last names with morphometric data is probably illegal where you live, and no one in their right mind will publish it, let alone give you a prize. Edit: I quarantined the post. This is a textbook example of why human subjects research requires ethics approval.
  7. 1) The current model of academic publishing is a #%&ing scam. Nowhere else would the creators of a product not only be expected to sign over their copy rights for free, but also perform the review and editing of others work for free, and have our institutions get financially reamed for access to the #$^ing work we created there in the first place. THEN, with the advent of open access publishing, they get to tack on fees to the tune of $USD 11,320 upfront to the %^(&ing authors. It's really no wonder that the profit margin in academic publishing is ~40%. 2) While the idea of open
  8. I'm a tenure track professor. I usually get somewhere between 50 and 100 emails a day. I allocate about 45 mins twice a day to responding to them. I sort them by importance, then I answer in order until the time is up. Then I delete the rest. Emails go unanswered every day because I could literally spend the entirety of every single day responding to them, and I have teaching, research and administration to do. I tell my students that if it's important, send it again and tag it as important, or if it's important AND urgent, bang on my office door or call my phone.
  9. You've posted zero evidence to support your speculation that CBD consumption reduces the risk of COVID19, or any other infection. No one claimed that. The risk of anaphylaxis due to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is approximately 100,000 to 1, as previously cited. You also have the option of non-mRNA vaccines like the AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sputnik vaccines. It's a blatant strawman argument.
  10. Instead of word salad, logical fallacy and articles about the well established anti-inflammatory properties of CBD, please provide a single piece of evidence that CBD reduces the incidence of any infectious disease. If not, we're kind of done here.
  11. 1) I accept that CBD has anti-inflammatory properties to the point where we give CBD to our arthritic dog every day. It's also great at treating the side effects of chemotherapy, and there's some preliminary mouse model evidence is can slow tumor growth. CBD has some very promising medicinal properties but none of them are preventing or treating COVID. The suggestion is just false. 2) You have presented zero evidence to support CBD having antiviral properties. The onus is on you to back up your claim. 3) You haven't articulated any specific risks associated with mRNA vaccines. The
  12. Non sequitur. It does not follow that because lymphocytes are produced in lymph nodes that CBD is an alternative to the COVID vaccine. I got your point, it's just that your point is at best entirely unsubstantiated. Clearly. No, that's... literally what one of the cited studies was about - notably the only study relevant to the interaction between CBD and lymphocytes observed a potential reduction in autoimmune response associated with CBD regulation of T-cell activity. That's entirely different to CBD increasing the antigenic capabilities of lymphocytes, for which you have c
  13. Yes and they all discuss CBD's interaction with T-cells in the context of inflammation, not immunity. 1) Your sources aren't suggesting CBD has any utility as a preventative or treatment for any sort of infectious disease. They don't prevent any "facts" or evidence suggesting CBD is in any way a substitute for vaccines. 2) CBD is not a substitute for vaccination because it has no mechanistic way to prevent an infection. There is no evidence that it has any antigenic or antibody producing effect for COVID or any other infectious agent. The long and short of it is that no,
  14. 1) Boosting T-Cell production =/= immunization. There is no causative mechanism by which CBD stimulates the production of antibodies to infectious agents. CBD is not an alternative to vaccines. 2) Your links are a grab bag of random associations between CBD and aging, cancer, allergy, and inflammation. No mention of increased immunity to infectious agents. The primary relationship with T-cells described is in relation to the modulation and control of inflammation, not an increased antigenic activity. While cannabanoids are among the vast plethora of proto-therapeutic agents current
  15. 1) Literally all that's in the mRNA vaccines is mRNA, phospholipids and phosphate buffered saline. All of these components have been widely used in other medical applications for a long time, and it's actually a shorter and less risky list of ingredients than many widely used live attenuated and inactivated vaccines. There is actually reason to expect that mRNA vaccines are LESS likely to cause anaphylaxis than other vaccines rather than more. 2) All tests so far have shown that while the antibodies induced by the vaccines can have reduced binding efficiency to mutant variants, the bindi
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.