Coronavirus

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, I'll comment.

1. I said people, not me, but you knew that already.
You are perfectly well aware what you said, and to who, since you went back and edited it again after I removed it (we store all edits).
2. Are you blind, or just playing dumb. I quoted it.
3. No, he didnt, I suggest you go back and read it again.

TBH, I think you are just playing the troll now.
I advise you to move on and not to continue picking this fight.

I know you store them all. Yes, I was angry, it was a mistake and I edited my posts in good time. There is nothing there that is insulting now. How am I playing dumb and what should I read again?

As I said, just playing the troll now, I have no interest in your games, have a break from this topic.

[jfman]

On peer review, and by extension randomised controlled trials, and as is Friday night and I’ll declare myself as being five bottles of beer in I present the PARACHUTE study. Proving that jumping out a plane your survival chances, or chances of injury, are unchanged based upon parachute use.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

On peer review, and by extension randomised controlled trials, and as is Friday night and I’ll declare myself as being five bottles of beer in I present the PARACHUTE study. Proving that jumping out a plane your survival chances, or chances of injury, are unchanged based upon parachute use.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...7869152200206X

Please have a look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_a...cal_Toxicology

See section controversies

"In 2022, after a call from the editor for articles on alleged adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccine,[7] Seneff et al. published a paper alleging various mechanisms for various diseases that the authors intend to link to Covid-19 vaccination.[8] Several scientists have warned of the biases and shortcomings that this article contains.[9][10][11][12]"

Let's wait and see whether the paper you mention will be retracted as the other one.

Seneff is well known, she is an expert on many things including weedkillers. See her wiki page, it is full of controversies. She publishes in MDPI journals that are not really reputable.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Please have a look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_a...cal_Toxicology

See section controversies

"In 2022, after a call from the editor for articles on alleged adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccine,[7] Seneff et al. published a paper alleging various mechanisms for various diseases that the authors intend to link to Covid-19 vaccination.[8] Several scientists have warned of the biases and shortcomings that this article contains.[9][10][11][12]"

Let's wait and see whether the paper you mention will be retracted as the other one.

Seneff is well known, she is an expert on many things including weedkillers. See her wiki page, it is full of controversies. She publishes in MDPI journals that are not really reputable.

I don't agree with them but until the facts are actually known a lot of these theories (and the conventional argument) are simply that. If it is not proven either way that the vaccines cause these issues, and to be fair we don't know the effects of the vaccines after 2 years or more anyway because we've only been issuing them that long, we can't say whether they are overall safe or not. I'm sure people were saying to pregnant women that taking thalidomide was all safe until their kids were popping out with birth defects and then they realised the issue. Needless to say the vaccines have done the primary intended job of stopping people dying when they get covid, or at least reducing the likelihood of this, the milder omicron lineage is also an important factor here. Whether in 5-10 years they have caused another problem couldn't have been foreseen at the time, nor could we have waited to see that, and I guess the health services will have to address that if it's possible when that does happen.


More concerning to me is not this particular issue but the slightly related one in that SM is allowing a lot of people who may well be highly qualified but not necessarily experts on viruses or epidemiology to have a platform to put their own personal views forward under the general pretext of "I'm a scientist and I say this". A guy called Kit Yates, who is a professor of Pure Mathematics at Bristol, was using his SM to question why the gov isn't mandating or putting in stronger messaging about face masks again. Now if he was talking about calculus or something I'd agree he was probably an authority and he is probably capable of mathematical modelling in various scenarios but in terms of measures to mitigate a virus, where are his credentials there? He's probably left school with A-levels in Maths, FM and Physics or another science and then read maths at uni and taken his PhD remaining with it. Where's his expertise in epidemiology or virology as opposed to someone like Jonathan Van Tam or Jenny Harries? This is the thing with these IndySage types, whilst they are clearly intelligent people and entitled to their viewpoints without taking into context who they are and their backgrounds you don't know really how informed they are on the actual subject. Though they are there to provide expertise in the field they know about, so there is clearly a requirement for maths people to be there. It reminds me a bit of the scene in Chernobyl where Legasov was telling Scherbina they needed to evacuate and he was like "stick to putting out the fire", as though it wasn't ultimately his decision - though you could say that was taken into account at a different level as they ultimately agreed it was the right thing to do. But on the contrary we don't need masks now and Yates should keep that as a personal opinion not transmitted in any official capacity IMO

[jfman]

Jenny Harries

Originally Posted by nffc

I don't agree with them but until the facts are actually known a lot of these theories (and the conventional argument) are simply that. If it is not proven either way that the vaccines cause these issues, and to be fair we don't know the effects of the vaccines after 2 years or more anyway because we've only been issuing them that long, we can't say whether they are overall safe or not. I'm sure people were saying to pregnant women that taking thalidomide was all safe until their kids were popping out with birth defects and then they realised the issue. Needless to say the vaccines have done the primary intended job of stopping people dying when they get covid, or at least reducing the likelihood of this, the milder omicron lineage is also an important factor here. Whether in 5-10 years they have caused another problem couldn't have been foreseen at the time, nor could we have waited to see that, and I guess the health services will have to address that if it's possible when that does happen.


More concerning to me is not this particular issue but the slightly related one in that SM is allowing a lot of people who may well be highly qualified but not necessarily experts on viruses or epidemiology to have a platform to put their own personal views forward under the general pretext of "I'm a scientist and I say this". A guy called Kit Yates, who is a professor of Pure Mathematics at Bristol, was using his SM to question why the gov isn't mandating or putting in stronger messaging about face masks again. Now if he was talking about calculus or something I'd agree he was probably an authority and he is probably capable of mathematical modelling in various scenarios but in terms of measures to mitigate a virus, where are his credentials there? He's probably left school with A-levels in Maths, FM and Physics or another science and then read maths at uni and taken his PhD remaining with it. Where's his expertise in epidemiology or virology as opposed to someone like Jonathan Van Tam or Jenny Harries? This is the thing with these IndySage types, whilst they are clearly intelligent people and entitled to their viewpoints without taking into context who they are and their backgrounds you don't know really how informed they are on the actual subject. Though they are there to provide expertise in the field they know about, so there is clearly a requirement for maths people to be there. It reminds me a bit of the scene in Chernobyl where Legasov was telling Scherbina they needed to evacuate and he was like "stick to putting out the fire", as though it wasn't ultimately his decision - though you could say that was taken into account at a different level as they ultimately agreed it was the right thing to do. But on the contrary we don't need masks now and Yates should keep that as a personal opinion not transmitted in any official capacity IMO

tbf, Kit Yates has a D.Phil in Mathematical Biology (so at the moment, he’s a "Doctor", not a "Professor"), and he’s an Author and Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, and is the Co-Director of Centre for Mathematical Biology Institute for Mathematical Innovation at Bath University, so he’s not just "Pure Maths".

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Paul

As I said, just playing the troll now, I have no interest in your games, have a break from this topic.

Thanks for letting me post on this topic this quickly again.
.....and I'm not trolling. I posted a load of research and got abuse.

Anyhoo.....in reply to someone earlier who correctly pointed out that the link to McColoughs wikipedia page does him no favours. I posted it so you could see his credentials (as I said at the time), not the slander he's getting.

[Sephiroth]

I sum this Seneff et al stuff thus:

1/
The mRNA vaccines were brought into distribution faster than would be normal for proving the risks.

2/
Seneff has explained the science behind what mRNA can do, such as, if I've understood well enough, converting RNA to DNA (dangerous).

3/
What we haven't been told is whether or not the f people with adverse effects of mRNA vaccine had defective immune systems themselves.

4/
Nor did I read anything positive about the millions/billions of lives saved as a result of mRNA vaccines.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Please have a look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_a...cal_Toxicology

See section controversies

"In 2022, after a call from the editor for articles on alleged adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccine,[7] Seneff et al. published a paper alleging various mechanisms for various diseases that the authors intend to link to Covid-19 vaccination.[8] Several scientists have warned of the biases and shortcomings that this article contains.[9][10][11][12]"

Thank you for the link. I have.
A few problems with it:
Link 9 points at the same wikipedia page. Finding the actual page, it turns out that it simply to a blog post

Link 10 leads to factcheck.org which
a) Starts off by stating "Large, randomized controlled trials and a substantial body of real-world data support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines"....which is, if you look at the original Pfizer data that they tried to suppress for 50 years, an outright lie.
b) looking around the site at subjects that I am very knowledgeable about, they are not above using incorrect and/or dodgy sources and data.

Link 11 Is simply an opinion piece on a site called sciencebasedmedicine.org. btw, that site is run by New England Skeptical Society whose 5 million/yr funding proports to come from 'donations'. Interestingly, it seems that they got shut down a few years ago by the IRS for not reporting their income for 3 years running. Make of that what you will.

Link 12 points at an article wherein it's authors lament how they tried to get their paper published but "We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing."....so the rebuttal wasn't good enough to be published.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thanks for letting me post on this topic this quickly again.

In my opinion, you were trolling myself.
However, your break was only ever intended for the rest of the evening.
We have no way to automate that atm, so I manually removed it a few hours later.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Seneff is well known, she is an expert on many things including weedkillers. See her wiki page, it is full of controversies. She publishes in MDPI journals that are not really reputable.

Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

tbf, Kit Yates has a D.Phil in Mathematical Biology (so at the moment, he’s a "Doctor", not a "Professor"), and he’s an Author and Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, and is the Co-Director of Centre for Mathematical Biology Institute for Mathematical Innovation at Bath University, so he’s not just "Pure Maths".

You're splitting hairs in that he (and to be fair, it was an example) is a mathematician not a doctor or an epidemiologist.


Using mathematical methods to model infections works to an extent. But this is where he (and Pagel, who is no less intelligent) fail to see that immunity doesn't always fit models, especially when behaviour changes too.


In any case, I don't see how anything in KY's current research has much to do with a cv
https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/kit-yates

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

immunity

What immunity?