Jump to content

Alfred001

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-9 Poor

About Alfred001

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Mathematics

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Physicsts known to the general public are rare. Newton, Einstein and Hawking would be known to everyone and then after that, at a lower level, you got Feynman, who would probably not be known to everyone, but a lot of people with some interest in intellectual topics would know his name. I'm sure there are a lot of physicists with great achievements whom no one in the general public has heard of. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a person who's heard of Ed Witten and I'm sure there are great physicists yet more anonymous. Now, supposing Feynman had never written any popular scien
  2. Well, that's a little glib, exchemist was making a valid point and I'm curious whether the point can hold up when evidence is examined. The point being that, yes, advanced maternal age increases the chance of chromosome related issues, but is it so that children of older mothers who do not end up having chromosomal problems will suffer no negative health effects relative to children of young mothers. Or, in brief, does maternal age make no health difference if a chromosomal issue doesn't happen. Does anyone know whether there's evidence refuting this hypothesis? Now, John Cuthbe
  3. I won't press this any further, thanks for the responses and the patience. Let me just ask you something unrelated to the vaccines, if we can take the thread on a very brief digression and if this is a topic you know about: This business about eliminating lipids got me thinking about something I've often wondered (and worried) about, which is mercury in fish. You'll usually hear that you SHOULD eat fish, but not more than x servings of such and such fish a week. Is that because if you don't cross a certain threshold of mercury in a given time it will get eliminated without havin
  4. I thought that the forum might automatically display the links as tweets, as it had done with some of the earlier links I posted, that's why I just left them as tweets. This is what the first link says: "Tissue to plasma exposure requires calculation of AUC. The sample period did not go out long enough to calculate it since the Cmax looks like it occurs at >48h . Typically these studies measure out to 7 days." To be honest with you, I don't even fully understand what they're saying, but they seem to be referencing the fact that peak values for some of the organs are reached a
  5. But if that is the reason, I don't understand why they monitored for 48 hrs only. And there's this: https://twitter.com/TailFirefly/status/1404474619923476484 Ok, I take your point, but what about this: https://twitter.com/mrich0312/status/1404399263975608320 https://twitter.com/Wildbranch/status/1404421593049321475 Do the ovaries and bone marrow qualify as inert tissues that you mention might not clear the lipids? To be clear, this is not a rhetorical question, I don't know whether they do. The adrenals also show just a steady climb through 48 hrs. Wel
  6. Well, if it's a foregone conclusion that the LNPs are gonna get eliminated, I don't understand why they measured how much of them gets accumulated in the various organs to begin with and if mRNA is terribly unstable and is only gonna stick around for 2 days max anyway, why did they bother to track where it goes? I don't know enough to know who has and hasn't got expertise on the matter, so I have to ask. What I know is that he's engaged in a debate with three people on Twitter who do seem to be acknowledged as experts in the filed and none of them have been able to refute his co
  7. The discussion has kept going on Twitter and it seems like Chris Masterjohn has been able to poke holes in any refutations of his concerns. The discussion has branched off into too many threads to catalogue here, I'll just post one tweet and anyone interested should look back through the tweets to find the various threads branching off at various points (or go to Chris Masterjohn's timeline and look at his replies, that may be even better): https://twitter.com/ChrisMasterjohn/status/1409220193683976192 Ok, now, let me try to argue with you based on some of the stuff Chris said o
  8. But what about their accumulation in other places like adrenals, ovaries and bone marrow? What do you make of the concerns expressed in this thread? His concern is (and I'm a layperson, so I hope I don't mess it up) that they only studied up to 48 hrs and at that point the LNP is still accumulating in the ovaries and adrenals, so we don't know what happens beyond that point, how much accumulates. He also says accumulation of the protein and the mRNA wasn't even tested and he's concerned about that, too.
  9. But what about the point about the possibility of accumulation of the protein or the vaccine in ovaries, adrenals and bone marrow?
  10. I think you mistyped something in the last part of the sentence, could you clarify?
  11. You often heard about how a mother being advanced in age is bad for the child she is bearing and I'm wondering, is that exclusively because it raises the risk of miscarriage or are there actually negative health effects that are passed on to the child as a result of the mother's age and what are the negative effects specifically?
  12. I've been reading up on bacground rates, which is used as an argument to dismiss an association between the vaccines and specific adverse events and here's what bothers me about the argument: The argument is, ok, let's calculate the expected rate of some adverse event (meaning how often does it happen in the general population), we calculate it and find that it's X and now let's see how many instances among the vaccinated and it's always waaaay less than the background rate and this is used to back up the idea that the vax isn't causing that adverse event. My objection is, if the bac
  13. I can't edit my post for some reason, so I'll add here: Well, turns out the doctor in the video is NOT a reliable source. Still, I'm curious about whether that particular claim checks out.
  14. Yes, please. As the moderator said, if you want to argue the evidence dispassionately and in a civil manner, please engage, if you don't, please just go to some other thread. I'm not looking for personal insult matches. If that's your goal, just don't post, PLEASE.
×
×
  • 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.