shiva82
Well-known member
and who are those people? be sincere for once
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Have You Been Vaccinated?
- Thread starter Tudo
- Start date
the people know they are lied to, but do not want to acknowledge it. i think it is kind of like good country sausage. folks want it and like it, but they don't want to hear about nor watch to see how the work is done.
From the CONCLUSION:
"Our mechanistic data are supported by previous observations of ribosomal frameshifting during translation of naturally occurring mRNAs, which implicate ribosome stalling and require ribosome slippery sequences for +1 frameshifting21,26,27,28,33,34. These findings are of particular importance to our fundamental understanding of how ribonucleotide modification affects mRNA translation, and for designing and optimizing future mRNA-based therapeutics to avoid mistranslation events that may decrease efficacy or increase toxicity."
Dr. Steven Quay must have been one of those anonymous peer reviewers.
"Our mechanistic data are supported by previous observations of ribosomal frameshifting during translation of naturally occurring mRNAs, which implicate ribosome stalling and require ribosome slippery sequences for +1 frameshifting21,26,27,28,33,34. These findings are of particular importance to our fundamental understanding of how ribonucleotide modification affects mRNA translation, and for designing and optimizing future mRNA-based therapeutics to avoid mistranslation events that may decrease efficacy or increase toxicity."
Dr. Steven Quay must have been one of those anonymous peer reviewers.
this limited spectrum of debate is saying that mRNA can be okay. no, it can not. the proteins generated are still recognized as "non-self". thus promoting autoimmune disease. this is a fatal flaw in this technology.
intramuscular injection with the intent of augmenting the human immune system is stupid. the immune system functions at the barriers, not in the muscle. antibodies are not a correlate of protection - just the body trying to dispose of the trash.
shiva82
Well-known member
that sheds into society and effects everybody jabbed and unjabbed
Especially for the younger people in their fertile age. When you want to collapse a society, this is one way to do it.
from Robert Gallo in 1987:
the existence of antibody does not necessarily correlate with protection from disease.
and that is all the covid jab does - stimulate the production of antibodies ... triggered to target a "spike" protein that is not the same as the wild virus spike, after having been codon sequence optimized and swapping n1-methylpseudouridine for the uracil.
the existence of antibody does not necessarily correlate with protection from disease.
and that is all the covid jab does - stimulate the production of antibodies ... triggered to target a "spike" protein that is not the same as the wild virus spike, after having been codon sequence optimized and swapping n1-methylpseudouridine for the uracil.
How about you quote your peer reviewed published research instead of pretending?
how about you do your own research.
i posted Robert Gallo's comment about antibodies not meaning shit for immunity. do you doubt him?
just to recount my own experience
just got my 6th(?) covid vax
sore arm and dragging a bit
no noticeable negative health effects from my perspective or my doctor's for any vax I've had
in fact, I haven't had covid at all, went in once for a test but negative, turned out to be small change respitory bug
and I do mask, score 1 for the medical establishment and common sense
just got my 6th(?) covid vax
sore arm and dragging a bit
no noticeable negative health effects from my perspective or my doctor's for any vax I've had
in fact, I haven't had covid at all, went in once for a test but negative, turned out to be small change respitory bug
and I do mask, score 1 for the medical establishment and common sense
This is suspiciously similar to your claim that Louis Pasteur didn't believe in germ theory...
you keep asking me to list cites. i read hundreds of articles - maybe 10s of hundreds of articles - i don't built a bibliography. i integrate what i read into my Large Biology Model (LBM) in my mind. i mention subjects of interest to me about the flawed "vaccine" biomythology. if you are curious about a topic it should be easy to do the research for yourself.
i happened to be currently reading the paper with the gallo quote (page 18) so here is the cite:
Wendy K. Mariner & Robert C. Gallo,
Getting to Market: The Scientific and Legal Climate for Developing an AIDS Vaccine , in 15 Law, Medicine & Health Care 17 (1987).
Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1987.tb01004.x
i got a free pdf download from a biologist PhD and that link ^^^ is a paywall, but this might help:
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Last edited:
This article sums up what I think about 'do your own research" and puts it much better than I could.
Thinking is Power: The problem with “doing your own research”
This is a re-post from the Thinking is Power website maintained by Melanie Trecek-King where she regularly writes about many aspects of critical thinking in an effort to provide accessible and engaging critical thinking information to the general public.
skepticalscience.com
I completely ignore what you present. It's entertainment only. Absolutely laughable that you present as some self taught expert, complete with jargon designed to make us think you know what you're on about.
The problems with “doing your own research”
1. That’s not what research is.Definitions matter. When scientists use the word “research,” they mean a systematic process of investigation. Evidence is collected and evaluated in an unbiased, objective manner, and those methods have to be available to other scientists for replication.
Conversely, when someone says they’re “doing their own research,” they mean using a search engine to find information that confirms what they already think is true. We are all prone to confirmation bias, and the effect is especially powerful when we want (or don’t want) to accept a conclusion.
Science as a process is an attempt to understand reality, and recognizes how biased and flawed the human brain is. That’s why real research is about trying to prove yourself wrong, not right.
2. You’re not as smart as you think you are.
Unless you’re an expert in the field you’re “researching,” you’re almost certainly not able to fully understand the nuance and complexity of the topic. Experts have advanced degrees, published research, and years of experience in their sub-field. They know the body of evidence and the methodologies the researchers use. And importantly, they are aware of what they don’t know.
Can experts be wrong? Sure. But they’re MUCH less likely to be wrong than a non-expert.
Thinking one can “do their research” on scientific topics, such as climate change or mRNA vaccines, is to fool oneself. It’s an exercise in the Dunning-Kruger effect: you’ll be overconfident but wrong.
Yes, information is widely available. But it doesn’t mean you have the background knowledge to understand it. So know your limits
The process of science is messy
Science is messy. For example, climate change research involves experts from a variety of fields (e.g. earth sciences, life sciences, physical sciences) and settings (e.g. academia/government/industry), from nearly every country on earth, each looking at the issue using different methods. Their findings have to pass peer review, where other experts evaluate their work before it can be published.The literature is also messy, as different studies provide different types and qualities of evidence. Different studies also might reach slightly different conclusions, especially if they use different methodologies. Findings that are replicated have stronger validity. And when the various lines of research converge on a conclusion, we can be more confident that the conclusion is trustworthy.
And then there’s the news, which tends to report on new, unique, or sensational findings, generally without the detail and nuance in the literature.
All of this messiness can leave the public thinking that scientists “don’t know anything” and are “always changing their minds.” Or that you can believe whatever you want, as there’s “science” or a “study” or even an “expert” that supports what they want to be true.
Waiting for proof
Most people seem to understand that science is trustworthy. After all, we can thank science and resulting technology for our modern quality of life. Unfortunately, there’s much the public doesn’t understand about science, including the enduring myth that science proves.Scientific explanations are never proven. Instead, science is a process of reducing uncertainty. Scientists set out to disprove their explanations, and when they can’t, they accept them. Other scientists try to prove them wrong, too. (And scientists LOVE to disagree. Anyone who thinks scientists are able to conspire has never had a conversation with one.) The best way for a scientist to make a name for themselves is to discover something unknown or disprove a longstanding conclusion.
The process of systematic disconfirmation is designed to root out confirmation bias. Those insisting on “scientific proof” before accepting well-established science are either misled or willfully using a fundamental characteristic of science to avoid accepting the science.
Why we should trust science and the experts
Back to “researching.” The danger is that uninformed or dishonest people can cherry pick individual studies, or even an expert, to support a particular conclusion or to make it look like the science is more uncertain than it is…especially if they don’t want to accept it. And if we’re being real, many who “do their own research” are doing so to deny scientific knowledge. But that’s the perfect storm for being misled, and for many scientific issues the price of being wrong is just too high.Ultimately knowledge is a community effort. We don’t think alone…. and that’s what makes humans a successful species. The problem is that we fail to recognize where our knowledge ends and the community’s begins. That’s why for anyone who isn’t an expert in a particular field, our best chance at knowledge is to trust what the majority of experts in that area say is true. No “research” involved.
Thinking is Power: The problem with “doing your own research”
This is a re-post from the Thinking is Power website maintained by Melanie Trecek-King where she regularly writes about many aspects of critical thinking in an effort to provide accessible and engaging critical thinking information to the general public.
skepticalscience.com
I meant yours.... as in your research.
I'm sorry you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, but I believe that you're doing it purposefully.
You have been published, yes?
