Public Health News | Measles outbreak, RFK Etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 665
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
PTOHeel said:
I may not be understanding how this works in generating the vaccines in question, but aren't the trace segments of DNA coming from a line of cells that originated in a fetus a long time ago? If so, wouldn't it be accurate to say that the trace amounts of DNA in the vaccine were never physically present in a fetus? If I'm correct in my understanding (which I may not be), I would not call that trace amount of DNA "aborted fetus debris."
Click to expand...
Cells were taken from a fetus decades ago and have undergone hundreds of replications ex vivo. No meiotic recombination has occurred however ex vivo cells, as one might suspect, are under selection based on the growth conditions/media... simplifying one might understand that any genetic or epigenetic change that promotes faster growth would be selected for as would survival of freeze/thaw cycles. Additionally, the in vivo guard rails required to make cells work appropriately with other cells in a developing organism are lost. The epigenetic state is no longer fetal in any manner and again while meiotic recombination has not occurred repeated ex vivo mitosis will result in significant selection as well as drift. This selection often includes major changes to gene copy number, loss of heterozygosity, and even changes to chromosome ploidy. The cells are much more different than the fetal cells from which they were derived than the cells in an adult are from their fetal cells of origin.
 
finesse said:
There's no connection there as the first serious link you posted ( that you've now tried to discredit. How stupid and tacky) said that there was none. I have never said there was no human DNA. I posted the information the the human DNA was beyond scant and that there was no evidence that it could be characterized as aborted fetal debris.
Click to expand...
Sure. I posted the wrong link and apologized. Does posting a link that doesn't address fetal DNA in vaccines somehow make the link that does specifically say there is fetal DNA in vaccines untrue?

You've made a claim that beyond scant human DNA is the same as no human debris. Can you help us understand how you that makes sense?
 
dcf2 said:
simplifying one might understand that any genetic or epigenetic change that promotes faster growth would be selected for as would survival of freeze/thaw cycles.
Click to expand...
I'm going to need about four more levels of simplification. 😉
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
Sure. I posted the wrong link and apologized. Does posting a link that doesn't address fetal DNA in vaccines somehow make the link that does specifically say there is fetal DNA in vaccines untrue?

You've made a claim that beyond scant human DNA is the same as no human debris. Can you help us understand how you that makes sense?
Click to expand...
Only if you include the actual statement I made that there was no aborted human debris. Arguing against a statement I made that you edited to leave out the key point of the statement makes you a genuine first class lying asshole with a complete lack of integrity so why don't you go have sex with yourself.
 
finesse said:
Only if you include the actual statement I made that there was no aborted human debris. Arguing against a statement I made that you edited to leave out the key point of the statement makes you a genuine first class lying asshole with a complete lack of integrity so why don't you go have sex with yourself.
Click to expand...
I think you're getting a little too worked up over this.

I was trying to make your nonsensical sentence make a little more sense but go ahead and defend your original sentence.

"human DNA was beyond scant and that there was no evidence that it could be characterized as aborted fetal debris."

How does beyond scant mean none in your world?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think you're getting a little too worked up over this.

I was trying to make your nonsensical sentence make a little more sense but go ahead and defend your original sentence.

"human DNA was beyond scant and that there was no evidence that it could be characterized as aborted fetal debris."

How does beyond scant mean none in your world?
Click to expand...
Where did I make that claim? It's in print right there where you quoted me " aborted human debris" is what I'm discussing. That is not the same as human DNA. Now, fuck off and die for the benefit of the human race. TDTL
 
dcf2 said:
The argument that this is fetal DNA is IMO a reductionist materialist position that is explicitly not pro-life. It contends that cells on a plate or in a freezer are the same as a fetus and thus logically removes a special condition of humanity from a fetus. Why care about a fetus if it is just a collection of DNA undergoing biochemistry no different than cells in a freezer that one can purchase.
Click to expand...
Is the soul distributed among all the cells and if so, is it equitable or do some get a lesser portion? In which organelles does the soul reside? On first principles I’d think the nucleus, but there’s a strong, if philosophically contentious, case to be made for mitochondria.
 
finesse said:
Where did I make that claim? It's in print right there where you quoted me " aborted human debris" is what I'm discussing. That is not the same as human DNA. Now, fuck off and die for the benefit of the human race. TDTL
Click to expand...
Sorry you got upset. Science can be scary. Let me know if you can calm down and want to discuss it. I'll stop talking about it with you until then.
 
Last edited:
This type of debate that is essentially which category a continuous variable should be placed in is... well actually fairly common in biomedical science.
BlooVooDoo said:
I’ve got an idea for a horror movie franchise about this. I’d call it Reviewer Number Three. So far none of the studious has called me back.
Click to expand...
The manuscript would be improved if all the experiments were to be replicated using a different cell line and a different time course. Also the Y-axis on supplemental figure 6 would be better expressed on log2 scale.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Sorry you got upset. Science can be scary. Let me know if you can calm down and want to discuss it. I'll stop talking about it with you until then.
Click to expand...
Offended ,not upset. I just had trouble understanding that not only are you such a moral degenerate that you would intentionally misquote a post to argue against the misquote but such a degenerate as to not understand how discrediting that is of both your argument and you as a person. I have no interest of discussing anything with you ever again. I know who and what you are and how low you are willing to sink. I cant imagine the circumstances where that will ever change.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Why? Is it the number of studies or the price tag?
Click to expand...
Yes
BlooVooDoo said:
Do you even know how much was budgeted to those studies? What do you think the cost of vaccine hesitancy is?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is a cost to vaccine hesitancy. I also know you don't need 40 studies or even 30 studies or even 10 studies or even 5 studies to know that people are hesitant due to:
  • Religious beliefs
  • Conspiracy theorizing/general craziness (political)
  • Conspiracy theorizing/general craziness (non-political)
 
ZenMode said:
I'm sure there is a cost to vaccine hesitancy. I also know you don't need 40 studies or even 30 studies or even 10 studies or even 5 studies to know that people are hesitant due to:
  • Religious beliefs
  • Conspiracy theorizing/general craziness (political)
  • Conspiracy theorizing/general craziness (non-political)
Click to expand...
You don't know shit. Studies are needed, because without studies you get stupidity like this.

Vaccine hesitancy is complex. For instance, black communities are still distrustful of vaccines because of past abuses (e.g. Tuskegee). From what I have read, that has been reduced over the years, but it's not gone. Poor communities might not think the vaccines help them. Hell, it can be something simple like needle phobia (which is very much a factor in people getting vaccines -- in fact, it's probably the real reason for all the MAGA vaccine whining).

Plus, you need studies to know what strategies work best in combatting those factors. What type of outreach works best? Does having nurses go to schools to talk help? Advertising campaigns? Community events?
 
superrific said:
You don't know shit. Studies are needed, because without studies you get stupidity like this.

Vaccine hesitancy is complex. For instance, black communities are still distrustful of vaccines because of past abuses (e.g. Tuskegee). From what I have read, that has been reduced over the years, but it's not gone. Poor communities might not think the vaccines help them. Hell, it can be something simple like needle phobia (which is very much a factor in people getting vaccines -- in fact, it's probably the real reason for all the MAGA vaccine whining).

Plus, you need studies to know what strategies work best in combatting those factors. What type of outreach works best? Does having nurses go to schools to talk help? Advertising campaigns? Community events?
Click to expand...
Good. I forgot one and you provided it (though I might put that in one of the already noted categories, but that's a separate topic). Now we've covered all the bases. Still think 40 studies are needed? 40???
 
ZenMode said:
Good. I forgot one and you provided it. Now we've covered all the bases. Still think 40 studies are needed? 40???
Click to expand...
I don't know how this message has failed to get through to you. It's wrong to have an opinion about everything. You should have opinions where you are informed, and no opinions where you are not.

You do not follow this principle, but I do. So to answer your question, I don't know how many studies are "needed" (need not being the right standard anyway). You know who might know the answer? Epidemiologists. Public health experts. MDs who work in communities. Not me. Not you. We don't know shit.
 
superrific said:
I don't know how this message has failed to get through to you. It's wrong to have an opinion about everything. You should have opinions where you are informed, and no opinions where you are not.

You do not follow this principle, but I do. So to answer your question, I don't know how many studies are "needed" (need not being the right standard anyway). You know who might know the answer? Epidemiologists. Public health experts. MDs who work in communities. Not me. Not you. We don't know shit.
Click to expand...
You don't know, but no part of you... the part that has the ability to reason... thinks "Gee, that's sounds really high for something that we, people talking on a forum, have already determine the front end of the research, so all that's really needed is to figure out how to fix it?

Ok. You go with that.
 
ZenMode said:
You don't know, but no part of you... the part that has the ability to reason... thinks "Gee, that's sounds really high for something that we, people talking on a forum, have already determine the front end of the research, so all that's really needed is to figure out how to fix it?

Ok. You go with that.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I know how science works. I've read studies. Lots of them are needed:

1. There are a lot of factors that require controls. Different studies try to do controls in different ways, but no study can control for everything. Taking the studies together helps create a fuller picture. If five studies find an effect, but five others don't, then maybe we need to look at the differences in those studies to find the answers.

2. Studies on humans never present clean data. Again, that makes things more complex.

3. Science is built on replication. Right off the bat, redundancy (i.e. inefficiency) is a fundamental aspect of scientific research.

4. When lots of studies are conducted, then how to make sense of them all? You need more studies. In particular, some studies are called meta-analyses, which is when researchers take all the studies that have been conducted, and then try to make sense out of the results. Meta-analyses are often used by policy makers, because they tend to be more generally applicable.

I can't answer your question about 40. I can tell you that there are ***thousands*** of studies that have tested the predictions of relativity. There are tens of thousands testing quantum theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top