Page 803 of 946 FirstFirst ... 303703753793799800801802803804805806807813853903 ... LastLast
Results 16,041 to 16,060 of 18903

Thread: So coronavirus is definitely going to kill a few of us.

  1. #16041
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  57A25A60-E65A-4D70-AB3A-68B7ACF77395.jpeg
Views: 401
Size:  111.9 KB

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Shhh don’t tell
      
      Bilbodoggins: LOL "Official data"

  2. #16042
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  Screenshot_20220303-161242_Chrome.jpg
Views: 385
Size:  141.8 KB


    LIBERALS SEETHING

  3. #16043
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  4C1CB7E2-05BD-4518-801A-1B6EEC3F6D8D.jpeg
Views: 382
Size:  161.2 KB


    It’s science bro!!!

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Magic

  4. #16044
    Gold
    Reputation
    308
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    1,741
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by devidee View Post
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Something Verminaard could help with regarding the source of this meme.

    https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

    "each dose contains 30 µg of BNT162b2 in a volume of 0.3 mL, which makes the local concentration at the injection site at the highest 100 µg/mL"

    Why would they think the above statement is true? It's literally impossible to scale concentration upwards with physical objects. If you inject 30 micrograms the concentration can never exceed 30 micrograms.


    I guess it makes as much sense as them using Huh7 cells as representative of how the vaccine would behave in the liver. Fairly sure the vaccine is the least of your worries if you have liver cancer.
    Disclaimer: I didn't click on link or read the paper yet.

    Concentration is amount/volume, and if the volume (denominator) is less than 1 unit of whatever (which it is) the concentration will be a higher number than the total amount. But yeah, the whole "local concentration at injection site" comment is kind of weird, and I dont really see how it is relevant, because the compound will quickly diffuse.

    Also, using immortal cell lines to do early stage in vitro experiments for experimental therapeutics is fine. But yeah, you can only take so much from the results, because the therapeutic may react very differently with normal cells in vivo.
    Last edited by Kalam; 03-03-2022 at 08:21 PM.

  5. #16045
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  RDT_20220304_0039066769581371907118630.jpg
Views: 344
Size:  33.7 KB

    LIBERALS COPING

  6. #16046
    Platinum gimmick's Avatar
    Reputation
    463
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,665
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post

    Something Verminaard could help with regarding the source of this meme.

    https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

    "each dose contains 30 µg of BNT162b2 in a volume of 0.3 mL, which makes the local concentration at the injection site at the highest 100 µg/mL"

    Why would they think the above statement is true? It's literally impossible to scale concentration upwards with physical objects. If you inject 30 micrograms the concentration can never exceed 30 micrograms.


    I guess it makes as much sense as them using Huh7 cells as representative of how the vaccine would behave in the liver. Fairly sure the vaccine is the least of your worries if you have liver cancer.
    Disclaimer: I didn't click on link or read the paper yet.

    Concentration is amount/volume, and if the volume (denominator) is less than 1 unit of whatever (which it is) the concentration will be a higher number than the total amount. But yeah, the whole "local concentration at injection site" comment is kind of weird, and I dont really see how it is relevant, because the compound will quickly diffuse.

    Also, using immortal cell lines to do early stage in vitro experiments for experimental therapeutics is fine. But yeah, you can only take so much from the results, because the therapeutic may react very differently with normal cells in vivo.
    Yea i understand that and it's super standard. It's just you can only use that number in isolation or to compare it with other numbers that are standardized in a similar manner. It's the extending that to make a claim about local concentration for about 2 seconds before it disperses that's odd.

    I didn't mention it before but i believe they used that 100 µg/ml number to decide their testing concentrations. Roughly 1/100 active parts found their way to the liver with previous mRNA vaccines (they also mention rats, but that's a whole other issue where distance from injection site to liver make those numbers fairly useless). They used 0.5µg ,1µg ,2µg for testing. Or half of the average, the average and double the average. And they use cells from a tumor to make claims for how it behaves with liver cells. Liver isn't a small organ to begin with, but tumors aren't exactly included. Even using any non cancerous liver cells the sane concentrations of the vaccine in the culture is insanely small.

    The fairly short paper just reads like it was made for clickbait headlines to people that can't read what/how they're actually measuring/testing. Reading the abstract and 4. Discussion part is roughly enough.

  7. #16047
    Gold
    Reputation
    308
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    1,741
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalam View Post

    Disclaimer: I didn't click on link or read the paper yet.

    Concentration is amount/volume, and if the volume (denominator) is less than 1 unit of whatever (which it is) the concentration will be a higher number than the total amount. But yeah, the whole "local concentration at injection site" comment is kind of weird, and I dont really see how it is relevant, because the compound will quickly diffuse.

    Also, using immortal cell lines to do early stage in vitro experiments for experimental therapeutics is fine. But yeah, you can only take so much from the results, because the therapeutic may react very differently with normal cells in vivo.
    Yea i understand that and it's super standard. It's just you can only use that number in isolation or to compare it with other numbers that are standardized in a similar manner. It's the extending that to make a claim about local concentration for about 2 seconds before it disperses that's odd.

    I didn't mention it before but i believe they used that 100 µg/ml number to decide their testing concentrations. Roughly 1/100 active parts found their way to the liver with previous mRNA vaccines (they also mention rats, but that's a whole other issue where distance from injection site to liver make those numbers fairly useless). They used 0.5µg ,1µg ,2µg for testing. Or half of the average, the average and double the average. And they use cells from a tumor to make claims for how it behaves with liver cells. Liver isn't a small organ to begin with, but tumors aren't exactly included. Even using any non cancerous liver cells the sane concentrations of the vaccine in the culture is insanely small.

    The fairly short paper just reads like it was made for clickbait headlines to people that can't read what/how they're actually measuring/testing. Reading the abstract and 4. Discussion part is roughly enough.

    It is very possible in those very specific in vitro conditions there is DNA integration, and in the real world it isn't an issue. At this point it shouldn't be too hard to take cellular DNA from people that have had up to 4 doses of Pfizer vaccine and test those cells to see if:

    a. There was reverse transcription and DNA integration of the vaccine mRNA, and
    b. Resulting increased gene expression

    If it is a real concern, we should be seeing some data from in vivo cells. I don't think that is the type of data the medical community could suppress, even if they wanted to. The experiment is too easy to do. I haven't worked in a lab in 10 years and I could do the experiment if you gave me some cells, a DNA purification kit, primers and a PCR machine.

     
    Comments
      
      gimmick: yup

  8. #16048
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  Screenshot_20220304-105651_Gallery.jpg
Views: 302
Size:  483.2 KB


    LIBS SEETHING

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Rofl

  9. #16049
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65640861
    How did the science change seemingly overnight?

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Magic

  10. #16050
    Platinum gimmick's Avatar
    Reputation
    463
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,665
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by devidee View Post
    How did the science change seemingly overnight?
    It didn't? Likely they just changed the scale. For pre omicron days that map was semi useful. It's been pretty useless for omicron the last 2 months. It's just been shades of red everywhere.

    Omicron cases in general are a lot less dangerous, but there are like 4x of them compared to say delta (that was also more infectious). So if you wanted to map "hot spots", then there's a problem when red means more than 1k/per100k cases (totally random numbers) and every county breaks that. So you need to change the scale.

    Just think of it like a weather map where the "hottest" color is used when it's warmer than -30 celsius (-22 fahrenheit).

     
    Comments
      
      devidee: Lots of words that say nothing is a great schtick.
      
      splitthis: It’s a gimmick

  11. #16051
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by devidee View Post
    How did the science change seemingly overnight?
    It didn't? Likely they just changed the scale. For pre omicron days that map was semi useful. It's been pretty useless for omicron the last 2 months. It's just been shades of red everywhere.

    Omicron cases in general are a lot less dangerous, but there are like 4x of them compared to say delta (that was also more infectious). So if you wanted to map "hot spots", then there's a problem when red means more than 1k/per100k cases (totally random numbers) and every county breaks that. So you need to change the scale.

    Just think of it like a weather map where the "hottest" color is used when it's warmer than -30 celsius (-22 fahrenheit).
    Name:  Screenshot_20220304-132624_Gallery.jpg
Views: 292
Size:  88.4 KB

  12. #16052
    Platinum gimmick's Avatar
    Reputation
    463
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,665
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post

    Yea i understand that and it's super standard. It's just you can only use that number in isolation or to compare it with other numbers that are standardized in a similar manner. It's the extending that to make a claim about local concentration for about 2 seconds before it disperses that's odd.

    I didn't mention it before but i believe they used that 100 µg/ml number to decide their testing concentrations. Roughly 1/100 active parts found their way to the liver with previous mRNA vaccines (they also mention rats, but that's a whole other issue where distance from injection site to liver make those numbers fairly useless). They used 0.5µg ,1µg ,2µg for testing. Or half of the average, the average and double the average. And they use cells from a tumor to make claims for how it behaves with liver cells. Liver isn't a small organ to begin with, but tumors aren't exactly included. Even using any non cancerous liver cells the sane concentrations of the vaccine in the culture is insanely small.

    The fairly short paper just reads like it was made for clickbait headlines to people that can't read what/how they're actually measuring/testing. Reading the abstract and 4. Discussion part is roughly enough.

    It is very possible in those very specific in vitro conditions there is DNA integration, and in the real world it isn't an issue. At this point it shouldn't be too hard to take cellular DNA from people that have had up to 4 doses of Pfizer vaccine and test those cells to see if:

    a. There was reverse transcription and DNA integration of the vaccine mRNA, and
    b. Resulting increased gene expression

    If it is a real concern, we should be seeing some data from in vivo cells. I don't think that is the type of data the medical community could suppress, even if they wanted to. The experiment is too easy to do. I haven't worked in a lab in 10 years and I could do the experiment if you gave me some cells, a DNA purification kit, primers and a PCR machine.
    I haven't ever worked in a lab and know barely anything about molecular biology, but even to me the paper just seemed strange and unnecessary.

    I assume Huh7 is at least cheap, but the amount of noise it creates can't be worth anyone's time to weed out. Single donor tumorigenic cell line sounds like a nightmare for anything that isn't related to cancer or drug toxicity. Even for those it's just a quick test(s) to find a binary answer before you start using something more appropriate.

    I can see someone using it for a student paper or teaching purposes. And obv i don't have anything against using hepatoma cell lines in general. Cost and availability alone justify it.

  13. #16053
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,408
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Interesting analysis of why so many conservotards have resisted getting vaccinated, which resulted in much higher COVID deaths among Trump voters after the vaccines became available.


     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: Ur dumb
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  14. #16054
    Nova Scotia's #1 Party Rocker!!!!11 DJ_Chaps's Avatar
    Reputation
    939
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    6,604
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Interesting analysis of why so many conservotards have resisted getting vaccinated, which resulted in much higher COVID deaths among Trump voters after the vaccines became available.



    LOL RETARD, THOSE SAME PEOPLE WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT COVID WAS MOST DEADLY TO BLACK AND BROWN FOLK CUZ RACISM.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chaps' 2017-18 NFL $$ Thread

  15. #16055
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Interesting analysis of why so many conservotards have resisted getting vaccinated, which resulted in much higher COVID deaths among Trump voters after the vaccines became available.

    LOL Vox

    As usual, it's a left-wing propaganda piece, dressed up in language of pseudo-neutrality.

    At the 5:05 mark, they think they're making a clever point that 40% of all Democrats trust a bunch of different news sources (CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, etc), but that 40% of all conservatives "only" trust Fox News. While that's not even accurate (they're leaving off non-mainstream news sources which conservatives follow), let's ignore that for now. Even the point their making is basically a self-own.

    Why don't conservatives trust networks like CNN, PBS, and NPR? Why don't they trust the NY Times? Is it the fault of conservatives? Or is it the fault of the producers of content of those sources, which made the conscious decision about 7 years ago to become hyper-biased to the point of driving almost all conservative readers away?

    This is actually an indictment of the US mainstream media. It's showing that every major news source has moved to become left wing propaganda, leaving conservatives only with Fox News.


    There's also the problem of left wing COVID misinformation and bias. It's not even like CNN was telling the truth about COVID the whole way, and conservatives just weren't listening due to previous issues with them. The mainstream media was also highly left-biased about COVID.

    That's why so many conservatives refused (and still refuse) to believe that the vaccines were a huge positive -- especially in 2021 before Omicron became dominant, and especially for people over 45. They were hit with so much bullshit and hypocrisy about COVID from the mainstream media, they tuned out an actual true message about the vaccine.

    Classic case of the boy who cried wolf. Who do we blame here? The people who didn't believe the boy when an actual wolf showed up, or the boy for lying?

  16. #16056
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    4th shot looks like a fail.

    It also might cause "T cell exhaustion", a phemonenon where T cells become less effective when they constantly see antigens in the body. This phenomenon definitely occurs in situations of cancer and HIV. Could repeated vaccination cause it, too? There's some fear of that, but no proof yet.

    It is important that the T cells work well against COVID, because they are the biggest factor in preventing severe disease.

    I don't want to cause T cell exhaustion just to get a small boost in efficacy against symptomatic Omicron. I'll be skipping the 4th shot for now.


    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hs...th-covid-shot/
    At this rate it's not really an issue. There could be a point where it is. Say yearly flu shots for instance don't do it. Every six months should be still very safe. Four months mostly safe. Once a month, fuck no.

    These type of vaccines introduce antigens that stay for 2 weeks at most and they start declining very quickly after the injection. The vaccine introduced antigens have no mechanism for replication.

    Hiv and cancers start of slow. Amount of antigens start increasing relatively soon and they never leave the system. That's what chronic means in that context.

    You'd be at a bigger risk with getting 6-8 colds a year.
    It may or may not be an issue. That's the problem. You are too confidently ruling out T cell exhaustion from every-6-month COVID vaccines. It's still being looked at, but presently it's an unknown.

    Now, if the fourth shot were as effective as the third shot, there's still enough reward from it to make that risk worth taking at this point.

    However, it looks like the fourth shot just gives you a little more protection, and doesn't do what the third shot did. In fact, it was found that the third shot was more than just a "reset" of the clock. It also produced higher quality (and more numerous) antibodies than the second shot did. In lab studies, it was found that people four weeks following their second shot had significantly less protection than people four weeks following their 3rd shot. I'm an anecdotal success story, dodging COVID both in November (in the same room with me for 11 hours per day at WSOP) and January (in the same house as me).

    The fourth shot is basically a fail. It seems like it might only be useful for those who are immunocompromised enough not to have generated a proper immune response to the three previous shots. This makes the risk/reward ratio a very different story than previous shots made available to the public.

  17. #16057
    Platinum gimmick's Avatar
    Reputation
    463
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,665
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post

    At this rate it's not really an issue. There could be a point where it is. Say yearly flu shots for instance don't do it. Every six months should be still very safe. Four months mostly safe. Once a month, fuck no.

    These type of vaccines introduce antigens that stay for 2 weeks at most and they start declining very quickly after the injection. The vaccine introduced antigens have no mechanism for replication.

    Hiv and cancers start of slow. Amount of antigens start increasing relatively soon and they never leave the system. That's what chronic means in that context.

    You'd be at a bigger risk with getting 6-8 colds a year.
    It may or may not be an issue. That's the problem. You are too confidently ruling out T cell exhaustion from every-6-month COVID vaccines. It's still being looked at, but presently it's an unknown.

    Now, if the fourth shot were as effective as the third shot, there's still enough reward from it to make that risk worth taking at this point.

    However, it looks like the fourth shot just gives you a little more protection, and doesn't do what the third shot did. In fact, it was found that the third shot was more than just a "reset" of the clock. It also produced higher quality (and more numerous) antibodies than the second shot did. In lab studies, it was found that people four weeks following their second shot had significantly less protection than people four weeks following their 3rd shot. I'm an anecdotal success story, dodging COVID both in November (in the same room with me for 11 hours per day at WSOP) and January (in the same house as me).

    The fourth shot is basically a fail. It seems like it might only be useful for those who are immunocompromised enough not to have generated a proper immune response to the three previous shots. This makes the risk/reward ratio a very different story than previous shots made available to the public.
    Nah. There are no antigens that cause t cell exhaustion if they only exist 2 weeks every 6 months. I have no idea why anyone would even bring it up.

    I'm not looking to sell you a 4th shot. I don't care.

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: U shouldn’t have cared before the first

  18. #16058
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  2C9B227C-FD2C-414C-8DCD-DDA65152F732.png
Views: 222
Size:  286.3 KB

  19. #16059
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Name:  2DEDC6B0-B1FD-456F-A47D-66218607C4ED.jpeg
Views: 208
Size:  47.1 KB

  20. #16060
    Gold
    Reputation
    308
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    1,741
    Load Metric
    65640861
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalam View Post


    It is very possible in those very specific in vitro conditions there is DNA integration, and in the real world it isn't an issue. At this point it shouldn't be too hard to take cellular DNA from people that have had up to 4 doses of Pfizer vaccine and test those cells to see if:

    a. There was reverse transcription and DNA integration of the vaccine mRNA, and
    b. Resulting increased gene expression

    If it is a real concern, we should be seeing some data from in vivo cells. I don't think that is the type of data the medical community could suppress, even if they wanted to. The experiment is too easy to do. I haven't worked in a lab in 10 years and I could do the experiment if you gave me some cells, a DNA purification kit, primers and a PCR machine.
    I haven't ever worked in a lab and know barely anything about molecular biology, but even to me the paper just seemed strange and unnecessary.

    I assume Huh7 is at least cheap, but the amount of noise it creates can't be worth anyone's time to weed out. Single donor tumorigenic cell line sounds like a nightmare for anything that isn't related to cancer or drug toxicity. Even for those it's just a quick test(s) to find a binary answer before you start using something more appropriate.

    I can see someone using it for a student paper or teaching purposes. And obv i don't have anything against using hepatoma cell lines in general. Cost and availability alone justify it.
    I think it is a scientifically viable in vitro experiment. I have read a lot about mRNA technology, and have never read anything about possible reverse transcription; so it is interesting from a scientific perspective to see that it can possibly happen; albeit under very artificial circumstances.

    Also, immortal cell lines are widely used to do early stage in vitro experiments. Nothing wrong with doing a basic experiment using them. I dont think the authors of this paper were expecting it to end up in Nature (a very prestigious journal). If not for the political clickbait ramifications of the research, it probably would have just ended up in some lower end journal with no fanfare, and that would be that.

    The truth is much (if not most) scientific research will turn out to be useless in the end. But it is very hard to tell what will ultimately be useful. So there is a ton of basic research, most of it that will ultimately be useless, and then it is the job of entrepeneurs/biotech companies to sift through it all and figure out what is useful and can be monetized and what isn't. For good or bad that is kind of the model for publicly funded scientific research.

    My own research was very basic scientific research. And although I found it interesting, I never saw any way to use it to do something useful. But the research is on PubMed for anyone to see for all perpetuity, and who is to say whether someone else will ultimately use it to do something useful.

     
    Comments
      
      gimmick:
    Last edited by Kalam; 03-05-2022 at 05:54 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. KILL WILL
    By Yebsite in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-19-2024, 09:28 PM
  2. Going to kill the next person...
    By SetofKs in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-19-2018, 12:05 AM
  3. DID BOVADA JUST KILL ALL LHE ABOVE 3-6?
    By SetofKs in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-05-2018, 04:55 PM
  4. So if you were going to kill yourself...
    By BetCheckBet in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-05-2017, 11:28 PM
  5. Kill this whitey
    By Pooh in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 03-30-2014, 03:13 PM

Tags for this Thread