🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@bonifartius yea it might be a scam. Hard to say. But we dont usually ban for that and would need some clear evidence.

@bonifartius if its just follows I wouldnt worry about it. But if they start spamming you messages or something please let me know. You can block the instance for your account if you wish. Also please report the spam accounts so the admin over at that instance will know.

@bonifartius

Also not true. The funding isnt that direct usually. Very rarely does a entity with a commercial interest **directly** fund a particular research paper.

@Moon @Telvannichad @kino

@bonifartius

Nothing is further from the truth. Science has not been bought by money, it has not failed. Nor does funding get "cut" in the manner you speak. Funding is secured **ahead** of the science and garunteed regardless of the outcome.

This trope is getting old and there is no reality to it of any kind.

@Moon @Telvannichad @kino

@schnappi

Think whatever dumbass shit you want, thats your right. But thats just a pile of stupid with no basis in reality. So yea im done, have fun with that nonsense.

@Telvannichad @Moon @kino

@lucifargundam

I trust fields that change and improve their outlook when new information arises far more than I would one that claims to be right from its inception and be infallible.

@icedquinn @kino

@schnappi

You just said you beleived the older coronavirus wasnt isolated... so clearly you do believe shit, and it is some dumb ass shit at that, yes its been isolated, we even had a genomic breakdown.

@Telvannichad @Moon @kino

@Moon

Yup mRNA vaccines are a relatively new technology. They do work similar to old vaccines though in the sense that they cause a marker protein to flood your blood stream without the actual virus. But the delivery of that protein is a new process yes.

@Telvannichad @kino

@Telvannichad

I am against forced vaccination, so no argument there.

@schnappi @Moon @kino

@schnappi

Actually they have been surprisingly accurate in the cases I've seen them applied. But this was pre-covid, so I cant say how well they have been used on covid since I left that field.

@Telvannichad @Moon @kino

@schnappi

Nope that is completely incorrect and a bit moronic to suggest as much really. But you do you.

@Telvannichad @Moon @kino

@schnappi

I've studied them. I worked rather extensively professionally on disease proliferation models as I've discussed in the past.

@Telvannichad @Moon @kino

@Moon

Supporting the vaccine, given the effective history of vaccines in the past, very much should have been the favored side at the time. Things have become a bit more nuanced now, but generally still makes sense to favor vaccines over anti-vaccines.

The world doesnt always need to be split down the middle on every issue.

@Telvannichad @kino

@Moon

Not really the case here. We had 4 years of trump trying to do everything in his power to legitimize one side, now we have Biden doing the same from the other. Both political sides try to legitimize the propaganda on their side and are equally guilty of said propaganda.

@Telvannichad @kino

@Moon

Agreed the political environment causes people to spew propaganda for their agenda from all sides.

@Telvannichad @kino

@Moon

You will always have some people who manipulate the data to sell their agenda. Thats why its important you understand how statistics work so you can spot it when they do.

@Telvannichad @kino

@billiam

It would be helpful to **your** narrative for the R0 >1, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that to be true. Feel free to share it if you have some. Otherwise making any assertions about animal reservoirs is just makeup nonsense. For that to be on the table someone needs to show a >1 r0 among animals and what ive seen has all shown animal viral load to be very very low.

@kino

@Telvannichad

No not always because its published. It can be part of the peer-review process, or pre-peer review. Scientists often call others in to review their work even before formal peer review

@kino

@billiam

No thats incorrect, for that logic to work there would need to be a reservoir with a >1 R0.. animal reservoirs most likely are <1 R0 and are only sustained due to human contact right now.

That said we dont know anything for sure, that includes how hard herd immunity might be to achieve. We can at best make educated assumptions. So you could be right, but more likely your wrong.

@kino

@Telvannichad

Not pathetic at all. That is the system working in that case. Remember they didnt ask scientists if they failed to replicate peer-review conclusions, only if they failed to replicate at all. Thats the process we expect, someone does an experiment, someone else replicates, then someone else, and then they all compare notes to see if something is valid or not. Then they draw conclusions. This is how it **should** go down.

The issue with the replication crisis, and where it is very much real, is when something that has become established (that is it has been publised, peer reviewed, and replicated) fails replication.

@kino