Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alfred001

  1. Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow? If you have two explanations of an event and one involves an improbability that is so extreme it's hard even to intuitively conceptualize and the other doesn't, OBVIOUSLY the right explanation is the one that doesn't involve astronomical improbabilities. Which part?
  2. So 3 such labs in the world (again, perhaps that isn't true, but you haven't contested that premise) and the virus just happens to naturally occur in one of those 3 places, you think that's reasonably likely? Not analogous. Someone will necessarily win the lottery a virus isn't necessarily going to gain the ability to infect humans. Even if it did it wouldn't be analogous, because in the lottery all you're asking for is someone to win, here you're asking for an unlikely event to occur AT A PARTICULAR PLACE, when there are only 3 such places in the world. Any ball park figure of how many? Because if it's like a 1000 or 10 000, that's still an unbelievable coincidence. Well, but people DON'T do this in their basements, it's only done in labs, of which there is a, presumably, small number in the world, so the point still stands. You can't be serious. Do you realize how different the odds are of someone winning on roulette and this scenario happening??? Well, yeah, they live next to a war zone. Improbable, but not even in the same universe of improbability as this. lol, no, because then a virus occurring naturally in a place where there is also a lab doing gain of function research wouldn't be improbable. I never argued that it doesn't, of course if it originated in a wet market it would have started spreading from one. It's not part of my case that spreading from one rather than many doesn't make sense. Exactly, that's part of my argument. The idea that this rare event would just have happened to occur naturally at one of only few places in the world where it could also have happened becuase someone MADE it happen (point being, much more likely to happen if someone is trying to make it happen than to just happen) is unbelievably improbable. I mean, it's so obviously improbable on the face of it, I find it hard to believe anyone takes the natural provenance theory seriously. No! Another claim I just didn't make. OF COURSE I don't think that nor does my case hinge on that. You are arguing for my case here. If the virus could happen anywhere and not just at any wet market in China, that makes its emergence at a place where a lab is also located all the more improbable.
  3. Is it true that the lab in Wuhan is one of only three labs in the world that do gain of function research? If this is true, I don't understand how this could NOT be a lab leak (and please fact check me on these points, perhaps I got something wrong): - COVID is a new variant of a previous virus - the previous virus had only the capacity to infected bats/animals, no bat->human transmission - gain of function modification can give a virus the ability to infect humans when it previously couldn't - only three labs in the world do this kind of modification - there are wet markets in Wuhan where such a virus could have originated, but presumably they exist all over China, why would it originate in the ONE place where this lab also happens to be located With all this in mind (if all this is correct), the idea that the virus did not leak from the lab just seems preposterous. The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd. The odds of that coincidence are astronomical. Or did I get some of my facts wrong?
  4. Of course, no one is saying exercise is detrimental and perhaps even with strenuous exercise the net effect is beneficial, but the question becomes can you hit some sweet spot of intensity where you're getting the benefits while eliminating or minimizing the ROS generation so that you maximize the net benefit and avoid any potential drawbacks. Which poses the question of, as you move the intensity slider from low to high, how do the benefits change and how does the ROS generation change. Meaning do the benefits keep increasing with intensity and at what point of intensity do you hit a level of ROS generation that the antioxidant system can't handle. Where is the sweet spot? Is anyone aware of any research looking into this question? And it may be a relevant question, because perhaps exercise, once you cross a certain threshold of intensity, yes, reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease, but because of the oxidative damage, increases your risk of cancer. I mean, afterall, they do say
  5. I'm reading this article, which arrives at the following conclusion: My questions are: #1 Is this a legitimate conclusion and #2 if it is, what is "extreme or exhaustive" physical activity which could achieve this overproduction of ROS above the body's antioxidant defense? What level of exercise are we talking about? I've just never heard of exercise potentially being detrimental to health, so I'm a little shocked. It goes against all advice you ever hear throughout your life where exercise is presented as an unqualified good.
  6. I was listening to a podcast and the hosts, who are magazine editors, mentioned a headline they had a disagreement over. The article was about poets laureates being removed from their post and the headline was "unacknowledged legislators impeached." When one of the hosts mentioned the headline, someone went ah, in a "that was clever" way, but I'm apparently not, because I don't get it. Where's the cleverness?
  7. What does the evidence say (if there is any) on a) the safety and b) the efficacy of COVID vaccines in people with IgA deficiency? I assume both a and b may differ depending on whether it's an mRNA or old technology vaccine.
  8. It's just an urea breath test for h pylori, you're not giving medical advice, just advice on how to dissolve citric acid in water.
  9. Because it's for a medical test, so I have to be sure it's done the right way. Thanks for the polite answer.
  10. And when you say it takes time to dissolve, is it like a matter of seconds or more of a longer time frame?
  11. Would stirring and shaking at room temperature be sufficient?
  12. I want to dissolve either 3 or 4g of citric acid in 100 or 200 ml of water. Now, I'm totally illiterate when it comes to chemistry, so I'm wondering, is there something in particular I need to do beyond just dumping the citric acid into a container of water? Will it just dissolve at room temperature in tap water? Also, how long will it take for it to dissolve, is it instant or do I need to wait a period of time?
  13. I was listening to a conversation about potential cancer vaccines from The Spectator and at one point (43:30) Karol Sikora, who's the expert in the conversation, brings up this concern with mRNA vaccines of whether the RNA can insert itself into the genome of host cells and whether this might confer a cancer risk 30 years down the line. I'd never heard this possibility brought up during the height of the discussion about vaccines. Is this a legit concern?
  14. How long are seeds of plants typically viable? In other words, how long after a seed has been plucked from a plant can it be planted into the soil and produce a plant?
  15. I'm wondering of there is an explanation in evolutionary psychology (or some other field of science) to the curious phenomenon that red hair in men is regarded as unattractive while in women it is neutral or attractive. Seems to me, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, however it is regarded, so it should be regarded in both sexes, because both have an equal chance of passing the trait on and whatever fitness effect it has it should be equal in both sexes.
  16. I got symptoms Sunday afternoon (chills which evolved into a fever and general weakness which was later joined by a headache). At one point I collapsed on my way to the bathroom. By Monday evening, the symptoms were largely gone and this morning I'm symptom free. We did a COVID test, but my mother rubbed the q tip inside my nose cavity, not the area behind the nose, so, although the test came back negative, I don't know whether I can trust it. I'm double Pfizer vaxxed, though ma last dose was in July. With all this in mind, do I need to get tested before going outside, or can I take my absence of symptoms to mean that if this WAS COVID, I'm no longer contagious? Can I go outside tomorrow? (I have an appointment with a doctor, unrleated to this)
  17. So you're saying it's not supposed to feel painful or uncomfortable?
  18. I recently had my first sexual experience and was surprised by how painful I found penetration. Once my penis was inside, there was no pain, but the entry was quite painful, to the point I was wary of it and I'm wondering, is this normal? I would say I am of average size, certainly not large, my partner was wet, so dryness was not a problem (and the problem was narrowness, not chaffing), my partner has given birth to two children (to the extent that says anything about her narrowness, not to be crude). Is entry supposed to hurt? Is this just me not being used to the experience? Could my partner be particularly narrow?
  19. I know placebo can have sensory or psychological effects like reducing pain or anxiety or fatigue and some effects that are sort of physical like increasing heart beat rate or blood pressure, but these can be controlled by psychological factors (like being upset), is there any evidence that placebo can have effects that are entirely physical?
  20. I was reading this interesting article about the ethics of so called "tactical fouls" in sports and the article brings up one specific example from the 2010 soccer World Cup quarter final in which Uruguay is about to concede a goal that would eliminate them from the World Cup and, in a last ditch attempt to stop it, Luis Suarez (who is not a goal keeper and therefore not permitted to handle the ball) very blatantly reaches his hands out and stops the ball. His calculation was that this was the end of extra time and the penalty for handling the ball blatantly like that (a red card and being sent off out of the game) was far lesser than the downside of conceding the goal, which would have meant Uruguay's elimination from the WC. And, importantly, because this was the end of extra time, Uruguay didn't even have to suffer the normally severe penalty of a red card, which means playing the rest of the game with one player less - the game was over anyway. There was basically no downside. Was this wrong to do? Would you have done it?
  21. You'll often find charts like this that express the risk of various medical x-rays by relating it to levels of radiation from other sources. I'm wondering, is this a valid way of thinking about the risk? Because it makes a chest x-ray seem pretty trivial - exposes you to no more radiation than just 5 days of normal living (natural background radiation). Is it really valid to think of risks of chest x-rays in that way or are there additional factors here that would change the equation? Does the fact that a chest x-ray is 50 msc in one instant make it different and more dangerous than the 50 msc you are exposed to over five days of normal living from background radiation?
  22. I was under the impression the N95 masks are the best, but recently I heard from someone (who tends to be knowledgeable about these things, but, of course, not beyond scrutiny) that the masks with the filters/valves on them are the best. Is there any science that settles the question of which type of mask provides the best protection? There's a table giving stats for various types of masks here, but I can't really make heads or tails of these metrics, maybe someone can explain. Flow rate? Inhalation and exhalation resistance? Is more or less better? etc. EDIT: I see now that both the N95 and the european FFP2 come in valve and valveless varities. Anyone know how they differ in performance? Is an N95 with a valve better than one without it? EDIT #2: Apparently, there is a higher standard yet FFP3/N99/EN149/P3 (different name in different regions). I'm still wondering whether valved or valveless varieties are better, assuming this higher standard has them, as well.
  23. What is the latest evidence on how long it takes for a person who catches COVID to be no longer able to transmit the virus? I'm sure there's variability, but what's the upper limit of how long a person can be a transmitter?
  • 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.