Well, reading the study and your discussion of it, it seems once again that the alchemy masquerading as medical "science" has once again shown itself for what it is not. The authors, having demonstrated that they have little control over extraneous random factors in their trial, all of which would tend to randomize results, then proceed to claim that clearly non-random results must be due to such factors and the study being underpowered. Sure, we might as well stick the eyes of science and statistical probability deep into the sand and declare confidently that significant data are quite as likely due to astrological syzygy.
The weakness of OD measurements (from experience of having performed tens of thousands of them, including designing, building and calibrating radiometric instruments for the purpose) is that they are almost always resolution-poor. They are aggregative measurements, from a specific sample area, which usually leads to either oversampling or undersampling errors. Impressions of medical instrumentation used for OD measurement (most of my work is with remote sensor instrumentation) are that they are typically poorly designed, engineered, and calibrated, with no flexibility to vary spatial nor temporal sampling. This tends to increase random errors, never decreasing them in my experience. That fact alone, which is clearly visible on the data chart, adds significance to the observed effect of syncytin reactivity.
Seems to me you know what you're talking about. But you're too much in love with writing and English and too unrestrained to get your message across to us.
The discourse appears to be about three things:
The people who did the test and how the did it
The author himself
The results of the test.
And in the finish I don't know the unequivocal scientific message as pertains to the result.
Which is actually the only thing I'm concerned about.
So I seize upon this:
" as regards the biggest question of all, the study could never have possibly told us anything"
and use that as the take home message: the test is meaningless.
Thank you for your critique. Bear in mind this was posted in June, a different world.
To most who would potentially read the essay then, and indeed to the author (myself), the idea that low-level, guppy-in-a-pond researchers could value the reputation of a novel drug over their duty to report a clear fact about reality was a hard sell. Now it's just obvious. In that respect, the essay has not "aged well." The contemporary audience assumes the credentialed researchers are lying, and just wants to cut to the punchline.
In either case, "the message" faces an uphill battle. Either the reader wants to be challenged, leading to an expansion of knowledge, or not. Please feel free to take my findings and present them in a more easily-digestible document; I would probably do the same if I were to write the essay from scratch today.
Well thanks for that. It's an abnormally human and reasonable response, in my experience.
I'm not sure about your findings. is the thing. I think that's what I said - that I take it the take home message is that the study is worthless. To us. Who look for declaration or proofs of influence good or bad on fertility.
I think you could reduce your essay to a few lines quite easily.
If I were to follow all the science you went to the trouble to explore and understand then I could too, but I don't think I'm going to get to do that. Spirit might be willing but the flesh is weak. You did a sterling job.
But yep, you said it: 'essay'. You produced an essay.
What would be better would be a report.
Not as pretty.
Nowhere as beautiful.
Lacking all demonstration of your fluid command of English and ability to turn a phrase, mastery of metaphor, simile, whatever.
Terse, maybe ugly even, but to the point and accurate.
It's a bit of a hassle often because it looks like most venues are a bit like the newspapers of old: they call upon the journalist to write 'a piece' about something '500' words or 'six column inches' or whatever.
Like they write to fill space. The content must match the space.
Rather than adjusting the space to fit the content.
For *my* money (ok, so I don't pay-subscribe...yet), I want the essay. If I want to persuade family and friends (one of whom is double-jabbed and once-boosted, and cannot conceive despite trying and trying) that the jabs are dangerous, I need more than a few sentences to wave under their noses.
Something short, sweet, and brief would be summarily dismissed as part of a he-said she-said thing. "Who is that clown, to write a few words that contradict the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and all the rest of the alphabet governmental agencies??"
Yeah, that won't do squat.
But showing them THIS - its exhaustive nature and its reference to known adverse results - cannot be brushed aside except by the most ideological Leftists and Democrats among us.
And maybe that describes some of my friends and family. But in doing so - in brushing aside this yeoman's work - they will at least be subject to the cognitive dissonance of reading something compelling and intelligent and well-researched and documented...while simultaneously refusing to consider that the CDC et al are not only wrong, but evil.
Yep, well I'm not arguing with you. Everything helps is my opinion. And in a war you often can't tell which is going to be the most effective weapon. The brass think up things that cost millions etc. etc. and something as simple as a bangalore torpedo actually turns the tide.
I actually think people certainly will 'brush aside' any kind of 'scholarly' dissertation at all.
Just like children they get turned off when you start in on the boring logic - the 'lecture' - and would far rather you give them a quick message and get it over with.
And it's not only the 'children', either. For the 'parents ' won't listen to other parents either.
You get that, don't you?
Common spectacle. Parents lecturing their bored, angry, upset kids who've just trying to get away and other parents trying to put their ten cents in and being brushed off.
Don't know what the psychologists or sociologists or whoever call this mechanism but it is clearly very common
And we see it in the covid thing.
I think it is not the 'most ideological' at all. It is in fact 'the normal' who brush aside.
There's tons and tons and tons of factual evidence, dissertations, explanations, analyses and has been since it all began.
John Ioannidis laid it all out two years ago. The definitive analysis of the actual disease was done by that superb 'study' the Diamond Princess.
He and all the evidence was and is 'brushed aside'.
There's a collection of Links to further 'evidence' etc. on covidhonesty.com well over 1000 strong.
How many of 'them' will even look at the site? Much less see, read, think and bush aside?
How more dismissive can you be than to refuse to even look at the spines of the books on the shelf, so to speak?
And that's not just them, either, is it? It is also 'us', we the 'enlightened'.
How many of those links have many of us ever seen, absorbed, thought about?
Thank you - and yes, that is essentially the product I was attempting to create. It was probably naive even at the time. As an experiment, I had already tried walking through the jama "asymptomatic spread" paper that was used for government claims, showing the same thing that Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying had discussed: look, this paper says it shows this, but it just links to three other studies that are only models, so do you see how the government is just lying when they say things? No use, haha.
Y'know how Berenson, or is it el gato malo?, keeps saying "keep the receipts"?
That's what I'm doing. I'm flagging particular Substacks from Alex and el gato and Kirsch and Childers and eugyppius and Marc Girardot , and many others - now including yours - that speak to the fraud that has been perpetrated on mankind.
And not just "speak" in the sense of expressing an opinion that is contrary to the official, only-allowed narrative.
"Speak" in the sense of exhaustive research and analysis that cannot easily be dismissed by those who have been captured by the evil among us. To be sure, plenty of those folks WANT to believe the jabs are safe, especially since they now have it coursing through their bodies. They'll never come around.
But you never know who among us is open to persuasion. That's why your analyses, and the others' on the same subject, are so vitally important.
After revisiting the study and the GenScript site, a solid no. Since the GenScript test provides default dilutions according to titer, the authors don't report either titers or dilutions for the samples in 1a. Moreover, results of 100% inhibition (no RBD binding to the ACE-2 plate) mean that at the given calibration, some or most of the anti-RBD antibodies were washed off - i.e., the sample was "over-exposed."
I don't think so. Actually I'm a bit certain I slightly misread the GenScript design at the time of writing this essay, not that it's instrumental to the conclusions. It had no value to the design of the study; but had value to visually downplaying their results. So they used it in the latter mold.
The generation (ante expression) of spike protein by epithelial cells. I am not looking at the post right now to see the context of the quote, but it’s interesting that I had such an early instinct that would later turn into Liquid Cancer (maybe there were already rumors of “shedding spike” in June...)
So, probably couldn't pass a quiz on the science here but definitely appreciate the 'laugh out loud' humor.
Thank you. I do miss not being aware what is a normal practice or not, and being able to criticize and mock literally everything about a study, haha.
Well, reading the study and your discussion of it, it seems once again that the alchemy masquerading as medical "science" has once again shown itself for what it is not. The authors, having demonstrated that they have little control over extraneous random factors in their trial, all of which would tend to randomize results, then proceed to claim that clearly non-random results must be due to such factors and the study being underpowered. Sure, we might as well stick the eyes of science and statistical probability deep into the sand and declare confidently that significant data are quite as likely due to astrological syzygy.
The weakness of OD measurements (from experience of having performed tens of thousands of them, including designing, building and calibrating radiometric instruments for the purpose) is that they are almost always resolution-poor. They are aggregative measurements, from a specific sample area, which usually leads to either oversampling or undersampling errors. Impressions of medical instrumentation used for OD measurement (most of my work is with remote sensor instrumentation) are that they are typically poorly designed, engineered, and calibrated, with no flexibility to vary spatial nor temporal sampling. This tends to increase random errors, never decreasing them in my experience. That fact alone, which is clearly visible on the data chart, adds significance to the observed effect of syncytin reactivity.
Seems to me you know what you're talking about. But you're too much in love with writing and English and too unrestrained to get your message across to us.
The discourse appears to be about three things:
The people who did the test and how the did it
The author himself
The results of the test.
And in the finish I don't know the unequivocal scientific message as pertains to the result.
Which is actually the only thing I'm concerned about.
So I seize upon this:
" as regards the biggest question of all, the study could never have possibly told us anything"
and use that as the take home message: the test is meaningless.
Right?
Thank you for your critique. Bear in mind this was posted in June, a different world.
To most who would potentially read the essay then, and indeed to the author (myself), the idea that low-level, guppy-in-a-pond researchers could value the reputation of a novel drug over their duty to report a clear fact about reality was a hard sell. Now it's just obvious. In that respect, the essay has not "aged well." The contemporary audience assumes the credentialed researchers are lying, and just wants to cut to the punchline.
In either case, "the message" faces an uphill battle. Either the reader wants to be challenged, leading to an expansion of knowledge, or not. Please feel free to take my findings and present them in a more easily-digestible document; I would probably do the same if I were to write the essay from scratch today.
Well thanks for that. It's an abnormally human and reasonable response, in my experience.
I'm not sure about your findings. is the thing. I think that's what I said - that I take it the take home message is that the study is worthless. To us. Who look for declaration or proofs of influence good or bad on fertility.
I think you could reduce your essay to a few lines quite easily.
If I were to follow all the science you went to the trouble to explore and understand then I could too, but I don't think I'm going to get to do that. Spirit might be willing but the flesh is weak. You did a sterling job.
But yep, you said it: 'essay'. You produced an essay.
What would be better would be a report.
Not as pretty.
Nowhere as beautiful.
Lacking all demonstration of your fluid command of English and ability to turn a phrase, mastery of metaphor, simile, whatever.
Terse, maybe ugly even, but to the point and accurate.
It's a bit of a hassle often because it looks like most venues are a bit like the newspapers of old: they call upon the journalist to write 'a piece' about something '500' words or 'six column inches' or whatever.
Like they write to fill space. The content must match the space.
Rather than adjusting the space to fit the content.
You're better than that, I think. :)
For *my* money (ok, so I don't pay-subscribe...yet), I want the essay. If I want to persuade family and friends (one of whom is double-jabbed and once-boosted, and cannot conceive despite trying and trying) that the jabs are dangerous, I need more than a few sentences to wave under their noses.
Something short, sweet, and brief would be summarily dismissed as part of a he-said she-said thing. "Who is that clown, to write a few words that contradict the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and all the rest of the alphabet governmental agencies??"
Yeah, that won't do squat.
But showing them THIS - its exhaustive nature and its reference to known adverse results - cannot be brushed aside except by the most ideological Leftists and Democrats among us.
And maybe that describes some of my friends and family. But in doing so - in brushing aside this yeoman's work - they will at least be subject to the cognitive dissonance of reading something compelling and intelligent and well-researched and documented...while simultaneously refusing to consider that the CDC et al are not only wrong, but evil.
That's worth more than nothing, IMNSHO.
Yep, well I'm not arguing with you. Everything helps is my opinion. And in a war you often can't tell which is going to be the most effective weapon. The brass think up things that cost millions etc. etc. and something as simple as a bangalore torpedo actually turns the tide.
I actually think people certainly will 'brush aside' any kind of 'scholarly' dissertation at all.
Just like children they get turned off when you start in on the boring logic - the 'lecture' - and would far rather you give them a quick message and get it over with.
And it's not only the 'children', either. For the 'parents ' won't listen to other parents either.
You get that, don't you?
Common spectacle. Parents lecturing their bored, angry, upset kids who've just trying to get away and other parents trying to put their ten cents in and being brushed off.
Don't know what the psychologists or sociologists or whoever call this mechanism but it is clearly very common
And we see it in the covid thing.
I think it is not the 'most ideological' at all. It is in fact 'the normal' who brush aside.
There's tons and tons and tons of factual evidence, dissertations, explanations, analyses and has been since it all began.
John Ioannidis laid it all out two years ago. The definitive analysis of the actual disease was done by that superb 'study' the Diamond Princess.
He and all the evidence was and is 'brushed aside'.
There's a collection of Links to further 'evidence' etc. on covidhonesty.com well over 1000 strong.
How many of 'them' will even look at the site? Much less see, read, think and bush aside?
How more dismissive can you be than to refuse to even look at the spines of the books on the shelf, so to speak?
And that's not just them, either, is it? It is also 'us', we the 'enlightened'.
How many of those links have many of us ever seen, absorbed, thought about?
Thank you - and yes, that is essentially the product I was attempting to create. It was probably naive even at the time. As an experiment, I had already tried walking through the jama "asymptomatic spread" paper that was used for government claims, showing the same thing that Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying had discussed: look, this paper says it shows this, but it just links to three other studies that are only models, so do you see how the government is just lying when they say things? No use, haha.
Y'know how Berenson, or is it el gato malo?, keeps saying "keep the receipts"?
That's what I'm doing. I'm flagging particular Substacks from Alex and el gato and Kirsch and Childers and eugyppius and Marc Girardot , and many others - now including yours - that speak to the fraud that has been perpetrated on mankind.
And not just "speak" in the sense of expressing an opinion that is contrary to the official, only-allowed narrative.
"Speak" in the sense of exhaustive research and analysis that cannot easily be dismissed by those who have been captured by the evil among us. To be sure, plenty of those folks WANT to believe the jabs are safe, especially since they now have it coursing through their bodies. They'll never come around.
But you never know who among us is open to persuasion. That's why your analyses, and the others' on the same subject, are so vitally important.
THEY are the receipts. #KeepTheReceipts
Check out Karen Kingston's substack
I understand your point about the two graphs not having comparable Y axes. Can you make them comparable?
After revisiting the study and the GenScript site, a solid no. Since the GenScript test provides default dilutions according to titer, the authors don't report either titers or dilutions for the samples in 1a. Moreover, results of 100% inhibition (no RBD binding to the ACE-2 plate) mean that at the given calibration, some or most of the anti-RBD antibodies were washed off - i.e., the sample was "over-exposed."
I don't think so. Actually I'm a bit certain I slightly misread the GenScript design at the time of writing this essay, not that it's instrumental to the conclusions. It had no value to the design of the study; but had value to visually downplaying their results. So they used it in the latter mold.
Thank you for this important critique, also entertainingly written.
"rather than on the mRNA package, or the epithelial cell generation and expression of SARS-CoV-2 s-protein that it induces"
Does this sentence say the mRNA vaccine generates epithelial cells?
The generation (ante expression) of spike protein by epithelial cells. I am not looking at the post right now to see the context of the quote, but it’s interesting that I had such an early instinct that would later turn into Liquid Cancer (maybe there were already rumors of “shedding spike” in June...)
Ah ok understood - thanks.