You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Sounds Good So it Must be Accurate" - My Scientific Mind
There are plenty of studies with hard evidence to back vaccines. Just not all of them.
I have the read the article and others that are similar. It all comes down to the same thing. Intellectual sophisms that might get a naive girl wet from an arm-chair philosopher that hasn't gotten laid for a while.
Please show us some of the plenty.
You read an article that takes at least a good half an hour to read and minimum some couple of hours to follow through the references in turn even though you dismissed it entirely by not saying anything about it and then when mocked to read it you answered right after I replied that you've read it, lol and dismissed it with "all comes down to sophism." in effect avoiding making any specific or substantiative claims for a double dismissive generalization. Lol, what an intellectual phony.
I provided a study that demonstrated how impossible or outright unbelievably hard it is to create a vaccine based on the interaction between antibodies and viruses/the body and you haven't anything to say about it. I also brought up the fraud of vaccines by pointing out the isolation of polio decades before the electron-scanning microscope which obviously didn't raise an eyebrow.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't reply to nonsensical jargon.
If you want specific replies to that article then you have to do it using your own words. Be precise. Anyone can throw links around.
In science, and what happened with polio, was done under systematic observation even if we did not completely understand the mechanism.
The study you provided does not say that vaccines do not work. It simply says that the mechanism is more complicated than previously thought.
A vaccine in general triggers the immune system to create antibodies. In other words, the composition doesn't have to be that specific but rather encompass a range in which the body can react to it.
Also stop bringing anti-vax debates to different forums to make a point. You clearly don't understand biology either and you try to play smart ass because you saw some other idiot pointing this out as evidence.
Steemit has enough anti-vaxxer morons. We don't need more.
What systemic observation? Isolating a virus without the instruments available to observe it is tantamount to scientific fraud.
The study I posted speaks for itself. There is no way to predict antibody-antigen reaction, not only that, there was never any evidence that the mechanism that they function under was "lock and key" and even today that is erroneously taught in universities across the world. Shellys Microbiology which is the textbook used to teach these things has zero citations or specific references in over 700 pages on viruses.
Saying that a vaccine works by triggering the body to create antibodies flies in the face of common sense as any number of viruses are present in our body by default and if antibodies were working as anything like it was postulated, or that they attack or otherwise neutralize antigens would not explain ln the numerous viruses present.
I have no reason to think you read the article on materialism and consciousness as you off hand dismissed it and then you sustained your position with nonsensical jargon, aka "intellectual" sophism, to an article that dives into numerous aspects dealing with "soft" science.
Posted using Partiko Android
Dude, just study biology, join a lab, and perform experiments yourself. Then start teaching the biomedical community about how antibodies don't work.
I don't need to be a teacher, nor do I need to join a lab to understand English and read what's plain to see.
Posted using Partiko Android
The problem is that you don't understand what you read.
Why is that?
Posted using Partiko Android
Guess you had nothing constructive to say, only the ad hominems.
Posted using Partiko Android