Because he still believes he can fling buckets of shit at the walls while remaining pristine himself.
1 Like
Is even Gilbert delusional enough that he believes that he still has a reputation on this forum even vaguely resembling “pristine”?
The mind boggles. 
1 Like
More of an ad platyhelmen argument, I should think.
4 Likes
Your appeal to (unqualified) authority is an antiscientific ad hominem argument so rebutting it with ad hominem is not fallacious.
But you don’t bother to look at any relevant evidence.
As I’m sure you all know, you can not only add platyhelminths; you can divide them. (Or, at least, many of the species, such as planaria.) And the result is two living individuals. That, I would argue, is pretty nifty. (Hmm, come to think of it, that would also multiply them. This is my multiply platyhelmen argument. Yeah, that’s all I got. It’s late and it’s the best I can do.)
2 Likes
It truly is, as The Worm Runners’ Digest used to say, the dawning of the age of planaria.
3 Likes
The Fifth Dimension had the best version.
1 Like
Five-dimensional planaria can be sliced up more ways than the regular ones can.
Would you like to die with RFK Junior loon?
No vaccines to buy with RFK Junior loon?
We can sample quacky pointless treatments, you and I.
Oh, we can die…
Up, up and away…
4 Likes
I’m getting a strange thought of RFK Jr. doing a send up of the Mamas & The Papas hit “Monday Monday” but with the lyrics:
Ivermectin
So good to me.
Ivermectin
It was all I hoped it would be.
.
Oh Ivermectin
Ivermectin couldn’t guarantee
That Monday evenin’ that brain worm: still inside of me.
4 Likes
I don’t think you should worry about Americans dying of cancer for the decision to wind-down mRNA vaccine development activities seems to specifically target respiratory diseases like COVID-19 and influenza, not mRNA research for cancer.
1 Like
Why not? What are the specific criticisms of mRNA vaccination in particular or treatment more broadly or research into either, which do apply when those things are regarding respiratory diseases, but do not apply when it comes to cancer?
This has probably to do with the benefit / risk ratio. In the case of infectious diseases such as Covid or flu, the ratio is judged unvavourable for the majority of the population who is not at risk of dying from the disease whereas in the case of deadly cancers, it is judged favorable.
That seems to be something he has said in the past couple days, but who knows if it actually reflects policy or something his worm-ridden brain caused him to say at that moment?
Let’s leave aside the fact that his claims about the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccine against COVID are just flat our lies. Assuming they are not lies, what should be done then? If you have a treatment that is not yet as effective or safe as you want, you do more research to try improve this. You don’t just stop all research in midtrack. That would be like saying, after the Wright Brothers first flight, “Well, planes can only fly 120 feet, so we’re not going to do any more research on that.”
Also, how can you ensure that any research on mRNA vaccines only pertain to cancer, and not to infectious diseases. If you are researching nuclear energy, can you ensure that nothing you do will also apply to nuclear weapons?
Show your math. One thing to consider when you do: Why is the death rate from infectious diseases as low as it it is now? Can you think of any major medical breakthroughs from the past century that help account for this? Hmmm? Be sure to take that into account with your calculations.
4 Likes
I suspect he has no math. I suspect he’s just “guessing” – in the same way that Blinkin is “guessing” that no one’s coming:
He didn’t take the decision alone. Here is what he said about this recently:
“There are over 5,000 peer-reviewed studies now that chronicle and detail the injuries from the COVID-19 vaccines. And these include very serious injuries, particularly in young people, from myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, and aneurysms. In all of the different agencies of people who are working on this, they are all unanimous that this (removing funding for mRNA vaccines for upper respiratory illnesses) was the wise and prudent course for us to do.”
And regarding the link between Covid mRNA vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, did you ear about this publication?
Why should I care what this lying fool has to say? Please quote someone with actually expertise on the subject and who doesn’t have heavy economic interests in the antivax movement.
Do you still not understand that skimming some quote from someone you found on the internet does not constitute scientific evidence?
Oh, look. Gil is citing yet another trash site he managed to dredge up. Yawn.
2 Likes
Why do you think « Trial site news » is a trash site?
Anyway, the original paper was published in « Scientific Reports », a well-established journal that belong to the Nature portfolio. What is your beef with this study I share with you below? Is it a trash study?
This is the article that @Giltil’s latest bullshit source is citing:
Top 10 drugs most frequently associated with adverse events of myocarditis and pericarditis
This is it’s conclusion:
Conclusion
Although our findings did not allow for causal inference, this study is the first to identify the 10 most frequently reported drugs associated with myocarditis and pericarditis using the extensive, long-term pharmacovigilance data from the global pharmacovigilance database. The findings suggest a notable signal detection between several vaccine types (smallpox, influenza, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccine) and both forms of carditis. Notably, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine had the highest number of reports, underscoring the imperative for heightened clinical vigilance in monitoring potential carditis manifestations following administration of these drugs. Future studies should build on these results by investigating the underlying mechanisms, exploring patient-specific risk factors, and examining the long-term outcomes for these drug-associated carditis events.
Please note the following:
-
It explicitly disavows finding any causal relationship between the Covid vaccine and “adverse events of myocarditis and pericarditis”
-
It explicitly suggests further research is needed – research which RFK Jr’s policy will prevent.
Which means that Gilbert’s latest bullshit source takes us exactly nowhere, in terms of supporting RFK Jr’s policy.
Addendum: yes, more people who have taken the Covid vaccine have had a myocarditis or pericarditis event than anybody taking another drug – but that may have something to do with the fact that that probably more people have taken the Covid vaccine than have taken any other drug. I would expect the Covid vaccine to be in there, even if it had no causal effect – and I would expect even a minuscule causal effect to be magnified by these numbers.
6 Likes
Something tells me the scientifically minded and literate folks would not have approved of policies banning, say, the use of vaccines of one sort or another – although with the political climate as it is, popular and especially publicly voiced opinion, even among intellectuals, ought be viewed with caution, anyway.
Anyway, this message is to express a frustration not with that, but with specifically the administration’s opposition even to research into a subject. I can understand someone who doesn’t (but should) know any better being overly skeptical, enough to ban the administration of a class of drugs, or even the development of similar ones. I think they’d do well to have their decisions informed by qualified professionals before committing to them, but I can at least respect their authority to ultimately put down the regulations of their choosing, whether I – as someone with no relevant qualifications, mind – happen to find their choices agreeable or not. But the idea that learning more about something could not only fail to yield (further) useful results, but could actually be a net detriment is utter lunacy, and wholly indefensible.
2 Likes