corona? :(

Users who are viewing this thread

1. You bringing up Clint as a role model for either values or leadership (who knows) is clearly childish thinking.
2. You don't understand why polls are significant and how much they should be trusted. Read this to understand why measuring samples tells us a lot about the total.
This is you being ignorant about basic statistics, which just adds the number of basic things you are being ignorant of, just like a child.
3. You can't make your own definition of populism based on opposition to questions from a survey.

noun: populism
  1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
4. Conclusion: you are a child. Stop trying to talk to adults, it's annoying.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Lastly, vaccination subject is not like "secret contact with alliens" . If you are a good researcher, you can follow, and demand all elements of research in the field. Therefore, you can see if research has red flags or not. So, you can say that if some turkish kids believe to con.theory about new generation vaccine candidates, or not.
What's a "good researcher"?
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
1. You bringing up Clint as a role model for either values or leadership (who knows) is clearly childish thinking.
2. You don't understand why polls are significant and how much they should be trusted. Read this to understand why measuring samples tells us a lot about the total.
This is you being ignorant about basic statistics, which just adds the number of basic things you are being ignorant of, just like a child.
3. You can't make your own definition of populism based on opposition to questions from a survey.

noun: populism
  1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
4. Conclusion: you are a child. Stop trying to talk to adults, it's annoying.
1# I didn't want to say Clint's himself as role model. I tried to said that US should be the best with improving/sharing values while behaving as in the good character in the movie. Unfortunately, the interest-ist foreign policies injure values while behaving like the Ugly character in the movie. This is my orgininal similitude. So, the US =should be= the good.

Why dont i think it's not the good right now? Why the US is so interest-ist that causing it losing prestige?
Because;
-US tries to end one terrorist organization(ISIS) with another terrorist organization(PKK/YPJ etc), instead of cooperation with legitimate governments. (quick reminder: as i know; Pkk is in terrorist organization list in US. And, again if i dont remember wrong, one commander at US also accepts/knows that -Ypj and other variations- are part of Pkk ) .
-US doesn't help to fix relationship problems between Greece & Turkey conscientiously, legally and fairly. (Whats the problem at Aegean Sea? In my opinion, problem is not hard to fix for the strongest Ally for both counties. But, interest-ist ally policy needs deadlock there.. )
-US, again, doesnt help enough imo as not taking the lead in the equitable extraction of underground resources in the Mediterranean for regional countries.
etc.


Interest-ist policies harmful for values, stabilities, prestige..
Win-win policies based on values are good for all.


2# It looks a bit hard to understand for me. No turkish translate either. I want to say that i'm definetly ignorance at that field, so i can be wrong. I only want to say i dont trust survey based researches much. I just prefer inclusive researches just like researches that based on total elections.

3# Hmm. :xf-oops:

I'm talking with anyone that have words about game or daily common life. And, i share news too.

@eddiemccandless Let me adjust it as " if you go on a deep research" . It was a general sentence.
 
Last edited:

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
I took some answers in spoiler, looks more clear now.

Ok. What does that mean?
"If you go on a deep research, you can follow, and demand all elements of research in the field.... "
If you are in an exact field, and if you follow subject closely/check datas from the beginning, and if you demand all the facts about the research as going deep research.. Then, all questions can be answered, unlike many other cons.theory.related.topics at that study. That's what i tried to say.
If i'm not wrong, you already said that it's not exact your field. And, not all questions answered clearly by authorities like FDA, or WHO.

I'm trying to get clear answers to questions that can be answered better.
And, deep/further research needed. Further researches can achive this imo. We can achieve to get (better) answers with vaccination data related deep research ie. . Transparent data sharing, and analysies can help a lot to see if its a real cons.theory or not.

Example: We can learn if cov19 really too dangerous for all. Or, if its very dangerous for eldery people. (lives matter at both sides, but transparent data analiysies from beggining can show us difference ) . This can help us behave like Denmark. What did Denmark do as @Adorno said.. They chosen better vaccine with looking datas. And, if we see there is a danger but only for elder people ( like strong flu ) , we can act different with still thinking elders.

Btw, we need to check also that if PCR was true method to get healthy numbers, or not (with still checking available transparent data analiyses ) .
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I took some answers in spoiler, looks more clear now.


"If you go on a deep research, you can follow, and demand all elements of research in the field.... "
If you are in an exact field, and if you follow subject closely/check datas from the beginning, and if you demand all the facts about the research as going deep research.. Then, all questions can be answered, unlike many other cons.theory.related.topics at that study. That's what i tried to say.
If i'm not wrong, you already said that it's not exact your field. And, not all questions answered clearly by authorities like FDA, or WHO.

I'm trying to get clear answers to questions that can be answered better.
And, deep/further research needed. Further researches can achive this imo. We can achieve to get (better) answers with vaccination data related deep research ie. . Transparent data sharing, and analysies can help a lot to see if its a real cons.theory or not.

Example: We can learn if cov19 really too dangerous for all. Or, if its very dangerous for eldery people. (lives matter at both sides, but transparent data analiysies from beggining can show us difference ) . This can help us behave like Denmark. What did Denmark do as @Adorno said.. They chosen better vaccine with looking datas. And, if we see there is a danger but only for elder people ( like strong flu ) , we can act different with still thinking elders.

Btw, we need to check also that if PCR was true method to get healthy numbers, or not (with still checking available transparent data analiyses ) .
Denmark did what they did because they had enough vaccines to cover everyone. It was a luxury that not everyone can afford. Also, here's the answer to your questions:


It's from Yale so I am sure they researched real deep.
 
5qebwe.jpg
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&BWF&S

image
Right..I'm going outside with Yale's [Originally published: January 29, 2020. Updated: October 14, 2021.] informative statements that eddiemccandless shared.
But, is it really closing some of my questions that based on scientific criticism?

+I would like to see better update with more clear/scientific/written after taking & evaluating all critics/ statements from related areas ( Related areas/workers: MDs, researchers, or authorities) .

I don't think that informative statements from Yale contains full respond to critics from other MDs, workers. (And, dont count that there is only turkish doc. There are couple others from other countries ) .

>CriticInfos still around without respond themselves. >> Turkish boy didn't satisfied because of his aim on reachin pure trustful/living scientific information(Even he's an ignorant & thankful for all the efforts for currently reached informations, he thinks that it can be better. )

@eddiemccandless I still do not see satisfactory expressions of criticism. I wonder why scientific critics and those who want to enlighten with science do not come together to advance the research results? I think I can get better answers to my questions with a better update.

It's very possible that the problem is me. however, the fact of scientific knowledge, which I understand simply, weakens existing knowledge.

When i check this page https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/2019-novel-coronavirus
I pause at these kind of its' parts(which related with my questions that appeared from critics around other workers ) :


#1 Full approval for ongoing vaccine [if it's really based on ongoing study, it's harder to force all to vaccination]

"(FDA) has given full approval to use the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine"
It looks like full approval is based on ongoing study at Phase III. Which means that possible sideeffects or other unwanted results may stop using this study's subject, vaccine.

"April 2, 2021
Messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials."
Imo, the linked statements show that as above.


#2 PCR accuracy [this effects how dangerous of cov19, and so, guideline/treatment plan]


Numbers can be more, or less. Is the PCR true method to detect cov19?


#3 Transparency [needed for all proces to make it clear]

"COVID-19 also has led to serious illness and even death in younger and middle-aged adults who are otherwise healthy.
Some detailed data would be good both for me, or critic owners.


#4 Viral test
Isn't it enough just to take an oral sample?


#5 Reaching expected/protective level of immunity with a dose
Standart vaccination periods for all people that have different body/reaction to have a vaccition dose = seems wrong to me. Because, if we have enough level of immunity with a dose. We can wait more for another dose.


These are some questions that i want answers in scientific way. And, these questions don't come from me. They're from critics of field workers.
Hopefully, Yale's next update can/should include statements related with this kind of questions.


silent addition to this post



As the guy talking from some datas taken from offical CDC (etc) services/sources.. Slide needs more important to fact-check. (not to censor. to see if things talked are real, or not )

Wishing all a healthy life and science..
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom