Close

Complete Captcha

• 5 months - 50 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 59 Goods vs 34 No Goods

1. Economist
   7c2c
   

   Seems like you ought to be able to provide evidence against the correlation the authors discover between the gene type and prevalence/severity of the disease then rather than boast about your fictional qualifications and launch ad hominem attacks on OP.

   Haha. Me: PhD economist who paid attention in science class and reads med journals. You: troll paid min wage to spread conspiracy theories. Please find your own forum.

   Or it could be that the harmless precursors of SARS-Cov 2 were harmless because of the high
   prevalence of this ACE variant in this population. Now it's less lethal for the same reason.
   Same reason that malaria killed off a lot of the colonizers but only made the people in areas where it was endemic sick, with lower mortality rates.
   It's called natural selection. Read science books instead of watching Fox news.

   Or maybe you should read the actual articles instead of posting lines you copied out from the Global Times and Chinese television?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   7c2c
   

   Again, preventative measures would account for fewer cases, but not fewer deaths given cases. Read the Fermin article bot boy.

   And public intelligent should be sufficiently high to understand the importance of masks and danger of injection of disinfectant. Now, here is a people who believe that it is because of genetics. If this guy has a phd degree, then there is no hope.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   7c2c
   

   Middle East is not an exception, but the correlation is weaker there. Could be that other variables such as sun exposure and virptamin D levels, Are a factor in the Middle East:

   “The correlation between the ACE1 II genotype and the number of deaths was also weaker than that observed without Middle Eastern population but still demonstrated a moderate negative correlation (R = −0.452) (Fig. 2B).”

   odd how the middle east is an exception.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   a967
   

   My point: correlations are interesting but there are multiple theories explaining them.

   This is the scientific approach. In econ we learn to separate the critique of the paper from critique of the person.

   Seems like you ought to be able to provide evidence against the correlation the authors discover between the gene type and prevalence/severity of the disease then rather than boast about your fictional qualifications and launch ad hominem attacks on OP.

   Haha. Me: PhD economist who paid attention in science class and reads med journals. You: troll paid min wage to spread conspiracy theories. Please find your own forum.

   Or it could be that the harmless precursors of SARS-Cov 2 were harmless because of the high
   prevalence of this ACE variant in this population. Now it's less lethal for the same reason.
   Same reason that malaria killed off a lot of the colonizers but only made the people in areas where it was endemic sick, with lower mortality rates.
   It's called natural selection. Read science books instead of watching Fox news.

   Or maybe you should read the actual articles instead of posting lines you copied out from the Global Times and Chinese television?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

5. Economist
   7c2c
   

   Well, given that your previous post amounted to a boast about your supposed credentials and an ad hominem attack on OP, you don’t seem very good at following your own advice about how to proceed scientifically.

   My point: correlations are interesting but there are multiple theories explaining them.
   This is the scientific approach. In econ we learn to separate the critique of the paper from critique of the person.

   Seems like you ought to be able to provide evidence against the correlation the authors discover between the gene type and prevalence/severity of the disease then rather than boast about your fictional qualifications and launch ad hominem attacks

   Haha. Me: PhD economist who paid attention in science class and reads med journals. You: troll paid min wage to spread conspiracy theories. Please find your own forum.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   5f9f
   

   The difference isn't receptor.
   The difference is having an Asian leader coordinate the most complicated and difficult leadership task in the history of the modern world.
   Look at Hawaii. Their rate of death and infection is far lower than the rest of America. Asian Americans in Hawaii have far lower death rates than Asian Americans in the mainland.
   The difference is simple. Hawaii has an Asian American governor. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, they all have Asian leaders.
   Asians are gifted at math, which is a proxy for problem solving. There is no harder problem to solve than COVID.

   Maybe it is because HAwai is an isolated Island where, since flights were cancelled no one is going.

   Or maybe you are just a dvmb CCP troll.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   5844
   

   This evidence has to be taken in conjunction with the evidence pointing to the Wuhan Institute as being implicated in the origins of the virus and evidence that the virus has very unusual features which suggest genetic manipulation (quite possibly a result of in vitro selection methods rather than through direct genetic engineering— although there is some evidence that graceless techniques of the latter might have been employed).

   Does this prove that this was an ethnically target bioweapon in development that escaped from the lab? No. But it is suggestive and worrying evidence. China would not be the first country to try to develop such weapons. Israel did so in the past.

   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/08/12/world-must-prepare-biological-weapons-target-ethnic-groups-based/

   Such weapons are technically feasible. Given that, ask yourself, how likely is it that the CCP is NOT looking into the development of such weapons? And where would such research take place if not at the countries only level 4 biohazard research laboratory?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

8. Economist
   7c2c
   

   This evidence has to be taken in conjunction with the evidence pointing to the Wuhan Institute as being implicated in the origins of the virus and evidence that the virus has very unusual features which suggest genetic manipulation (quite possibly a result of in vitro selection methods rather than through direct genetic engineering— although there is some evidence that traceless techniques of the latter might have been employed).

   Does this prove that this was an ethnically target bioweapon in development that escaped from the lab? No. But it is suggestive and worrying evidence. China would not be the first country to try to develop such weapons. Israel did so in the past.

   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/08/12/world-must-prepare-biological-weapons-target-ethnic-groups-based/

   Such weapons are technically feasible. Given that, ask yourself, how likely is it that the CCP is NOT looking into the development of such weapons? And where would such research take place if not at the country’s only level 4 biohazard research laboratory?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   a967
   

   Not a boast - this is a site for PhD economists. Please find your own forum.

   Well, given that your previous post amounted to a boast about your supposed credentials and an ad hominem attack on OP, you don’t seem very good at following your own advice about how to proceed scientifically.

   My point: correlations are interesting but there are multiple theories explaining them.
   This is the scientific approach. In econ we learn to separate the critique of the paper from critique of the person.

   Seems like you ought to be able to provide evidence against the correlation the authors discover between the gene type and prevalence/severity of the disease then rather than boast about your fictional qualifications and launch ad hominem attacks

   Haha. Me: PhD economist who paid attention in science class and reads med journals. You: troll paid min wage to spread conspiracy theories. Please find your own forum.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

10. Economist
    1b6c
    

    If you have nothing intelligent or informative to say, then STFU faker.

    Not a boast - this is a site for PhD economists. Please find your own forum.

    Well, given that your previous post amounted to a boast about your supposed credentials and an ad hominem attack on OP, you don’t seem very good at following your own advice about how to proceed scientifically.

    My point: correlations are interesting but there are multiple theories explaining them.
    This is the scientific approach. In econ we learn to separate the critique of the paper from critique of the person.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply

Post <blockquote>a certain chill fratty targeted bioweapon</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.