• Current Events, Politics & Science
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: Nurse Ratched | Cheshire_Kat | CFC

Covid-19 Who's planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine? (Poll)

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
Just janking your chain with that one, bro. Research is always of interest!
For example,
why I say this might be AIDS-like? do you know who Luc Montaigner is? research about what he researched with a bio-mathematician about the virus.
And then read this:

That it complements very well with this chinese study...:

If you want a rejoinder, there's one here, that I consider not good, but is the only one I know.
His argument is false in when he says that LINE1 does not happen in "such quantities" in the human body, cause in fact what they were proving is that human immune response to coronavirus causes that LINE1 increment, so he's wrong at least on that part.
 
Last edited:

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
That's funny because those methods are usually the most accurate ways of explaining facts, but OK, sure.
I don't know if I'm not explaining myself properly or what.......
I repeat the idea differently:
That such events occur accordingly can be tested in a probabilistic mathematical manner, with a high scientific certainty when such methods are used.
If tested with such methods it would be immediately proven that the probability of such events occurring randomly is tremendously low, practically impossible.
Therefore it is reasonable to think, supported by the fact that a random probability is statistically enormously improbable, that there is a causal event and a direct relationship between AstraZeneca's mass vaccination trials in such places and the appearance of the mutations in those same places at analogous times and not so in other places in the world.
Therefore, it is at least reasonable to think that it would be necessary to seriously investigate the possibility of such an explanatory factor for the appearance of these mutations.

This is how I would explain it in a scientific article, do you understand?
 

birdup.snaildown

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,371
Location
Somewhere
@Neuroborean

The problem with posting links and names of people is you're being selective. There are many qualified people that disagree with your position and I can post at least 5 links for every one you post... Research doesn't mean finding links. That takes three seconds on Google. If you've researched it - and you fully comprehend what you're posting - you need to explain why the majority of scientists are wrong. You need to establish why your links contain "the truth".
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
@Neuroborean

The problem with posting links and names of people is you're being selective. There are many qualified people that disagree with your position and I can post at least 5 links for every one you post... Research doesn't mean finding links. That takes three seconds on Google. If you've researched it - and you fully comprehend what you're posting - you need to explain why the majority of scientists are wrong. You need to establish why your links contain "the truth".
Ok, start doing it.
You probably will be selective as well.
 

cduggles

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
20,253
Location
A chromatically corrected world
I’m a scientist and many Nobel prize winners turn into cranks, unfortunately. Well, I don’t believe that DNA emits electromagnetic waves.
I posted the article for information, but Montaigner is obviously off the rails.
 

birdup.snaildown

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,371
Location
Somewhere
Neuroborean said:
Ok, start doing it.
You probably will be selective as well.

You're missing the point. I'm not going to start posting links. It's the internet equivalent of throwing books at people during a face-to-face conversation. Posting links is not an argument. It doesn't prove anything. It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.

Back when the alleged election fraud stuff was happening in the US, there were multiple forum members posting links. The same thing happens with climate change and every other topic.

I can post some links about the Earth being flat, if you like?
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
I’m a scientist and many Nobel prize winners turn into cranks, unfortunately. Well, I don’t believe that DNA emits electromagnetic waves.
I posted the article for information, but Montaigner is obviously off the rails.
And do you believe in string theory?
There's many others that I guess are not "off the rails" (including his partner) but you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?
 

birdup.snaildown

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,371
Location
Somewhere
Neuroborean said:
you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?

Weak diversion tactics?
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
You're missing the point. I'm not going to start posting links. It's the internet equivalent of throwing books at people during a face-to-face conversation. Posting links is not an argument. It doesn't prove anything. It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.

Back when the alleged election fraud stuff was happening in the US, there were multiple forum members posting links. The same thing happens with climate change and every other topic.

I can post some links about the Earth being flat, if you like?
I'm putting links because is what intelligent people do, read articles, compare arguments and draw their own conclusion, if you don't do that way then I give up with you.
 

cduggles

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
20,253
Location
A chromatically corrected world
And do you believe in string theory?
There's many others that I guess are not "off the rails" (including his partner) but you'll probably come back with some full-fact fact-checks or some burlesque partial reply about how inaccurate whoever is so I'm gonna be very desperate cause you fully believe in all shit that mainstream talks. Maybe you also believed Bush when they went searching massive destruction weapons?
I believe string theory is a distinct possibility. I know more about viruses.

I don’t listen to talks unless it’s a researcher. I read research. Unfortunately Montaigner can’t publish anymore because no one will fund his batshit ideas, which I’m guessing you believe is because they don’t want THE TRUTH known.
Scientists start out skeptical. Any other scientist knows that.
 

birdup.snaildown

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,371
Location
Somewhere
Neuroborean said:
I'm putting links because is what intelligent people do

Bots post links all the time. Any moron can go on Google and copy and past some links. The internet is full of people doing what you're doing here.
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
It's like publishing a bibliography without an article. You need to paraphrase what you've read in the source material and explain why the majority of scientists are wrong.
Ok let's start with this SHIT of article that was one of the first ones "implying" that "probably" the sars-cov-2 was natural,
they were so outrageously unscientific that in the same article they said is "probable", "is very likely" and they even claim that is natural without not an real evidence but just based on preassumptions, is just... amazing that is published and it appeared everywhere as a big evidence, so outrageous and shameless:

And then read this, and tell me which of them do you think it is really scientific in the most basic sense: following a premise properly and correct logic when trying to follow the steps of scientific discussion:
Here you have some BRAVE scientists, who don't copy others words just cause is easier to paraphrase or copy variations of methods that go to the same place, as if it were the same riff of a rock band played with a couple of notes more by the band of imitators, to make a resume (anyone who has gone to college knows that this is true in a large number of cases).
 

Neuroborean

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
910
Bots post links all the time. Any moron can go on Google and copy and past some links. The internet is full of people doing what you're doing here.
No, the differences comes when reading, and understanding, and relating to other material, and that's what I've done for a year.
 
Top