Sid,you start being funny, please go on. In these difficult times, humour brings some smiles on the face of your readers, if they find time to read you, ....
You wrote on this forum you had a scientific education, If so, I now seriously doubt you believe in what you write in this forum, or you maybe have forgotten what you've learnt during your youth? You probably have time to write always the same things and like reading comments from others. It could explain why you continue sending texts you find on Internet to support your point. I am sure it takes a lot of time. Why not, you as others are free to write and we are free to read or not. Personally, when I have time, I have many other things to do than forwarding news (on a chess forum) which are obviously biased (very right and conservative oriented) and absolutely not scientifically proved. But why no, if you like it, as long as the moderator accepts it.
A scientist does not believe, he analyzes the facts with a methodoly conform to what it should be. He thinks with his brain and rejects biased information. Scientists could disagree when something new appears, this is perfectly sound and normal. Finding the correct explanation (we can't have two true explanations at the end), having the good understanding of new phenomena, new viruses, new bacteria, new chemical reactions,...can take time. However, at the end of these normal scientific processes and debates, all scientists (= recognized by peer reviewed papers in high impact scientific journals) agree. You surely remember all papers which were published in 1989 and in the following years on cold fusion. It took time to explain and find a reasonable explanation proving this was not a proof of the existence of a new energy. It is not always instantaneous to find explanations, and sometimes, after many years scientists could ever change their mind after new experiments. This is the way science progresses. Einstein himself was more than skeptical about some concepts in quantum physics ('God does not play dice with the universe').
We are not living anymore in the 17th century when Galileo had to fight against the religious authorities. In the 21st century, news spread all over the World in less than 24 h via Internet and other modern communication tools. Internet is a useful tool for all of us. People can write anything they want on Internet and there will always be someone, somewhere believing that it is true, Normally, it shouldn't be dangerous, but sometimes, for obscure reasons, fear of unknown, lack of education, etc, more and more people believe (not think, they only believe as if it was religious) that what they read on Internet is true.
I don't say you believe in all you read, but I have concerns about the choice of Internet links or texts you quote in your messages on this chess forum. Did you use your critical mind before publishing?
I like debating with people who don't agree with me. The purpose is not to convince that I am right. It could of course occur that I am wrong, too, the point is not there. First of al, I need to understand why two persons having received a scientific education (should be similar) have a point of view so opposite. Is it useful I say I do not work for any pharma company, neither any institutions or company related to health.
.
So, in order to help me understanding your point of view, I have 2 questions for you. I expect clears answers, no grey answers as policians usually do. Facts and only facts as established by science. Could you please quote in this forum peer-reviewed papers (page, volume, issue, , authors) prooving that:
1. getting the Covid vaccines (2 shots of Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, or one shot of Johnson and Johsnon) is stastically more dangerous for human beings (all health, age conditions in Canada or other developed countries let's say G7 countries ) than being infected by Covid-19 (including all existing variants up to know).
2. early treatments (to be defined, what is early?) using HCQ, Ivermectine or other treatments you suggest on this forum are more efficient that treatments authorized in Canada for hospitalized patients. Statistics is important here, the papers should be able to compare apples with apples (same age, same health conditions, same 'early' definition). Comparison can easily be biased if the method is not good.
These papers should have been already officially published (not pre printed) and not already retracted by the journal editor. In order to compare high quality papers, these papers should be published in one of the 10 best scientific journals in immunology or virology. We could agree to rank these journals based on their impact factor, which is not perfect to compare quality of papers but it gives a rather good idea:
https://www.immunofrontiers.com/top-...urnals-of-2021
https://www.immunofrontiers.com/top-...urnals-of-2021
I am already impatient to read the papers you will quote. We'll discuss after.
Thanks for reading and I apologize for my mistakes in English
You wrote on this forum you had a scientific education, If so, I now seriously doubt you believe in what you write in this forum, or you maybe have forgotten what you've learnt during your youth? You probably have time to write always the same things and like reading comments from others. It could explain why you continue sending texts you find on Internet to support your point. I am sure it takes a lot of time. Why not, you as others are free to write and we are free to read or not. Personally, when I have time, I have many other things to do than forwarding news (on a chess forum) which are obviously biased (very right and conservative oriented) and absolutely not scientifically proved. But why no, if you like it, as long as the moderator accepts it.
A scientist does not believe, he analyzes the facts with a methodoly conform to what it should be. He thinks with his brain and rejects biased information. Scientists could disagree when something new appears, this is perfectly sound and normal. Finding the correct explanation (we can't have two true explanations at the end), having the good understanding of new phenomena, new viruses, new bacteria, new chemical reactions,...can take time. However, at the end of these normal scientific processes and debates, all scientists (= recognized by peer reviewed papers in high impact scientific journals) agree. You surely remember all papers which were published in 1989 and in the following years on cold fusion. It took time to explain and find a reasonable explanation proving this was not a proof of the existence of a new energy. It is not always instantaneous to find explanations, and sometimes, after many years scientists could ever change their mind after new experiments. This is the way science progresses. Einstein himself was more than skeptical about some concepts in quantum physics ('God does not play dice with the universe').
We are not living anymore in the 17th century when Galileo had to fight against the religious authorities. In the 21st century, news spread all over the World in less than 24 h via Internet and other modern communication tools. Internet is a useful tool for all of us. People can write anything they want on Internet and there will always be someone, somewhere believing that it is true, Normally, it shouldn't be dangerous, but sometimes, for obscure reasons, fear of unknown, lack of education, etc, more and more people believe (not think, they only believe as if it was religious) that what they read on Internet is true.
I don't say you believe in all you read, but I have concerns about the choice of Internet links or texts you quote in your messages on this chess forum. Did you use your critical mind before publishing?
I like debating with people who don't agree with me. The purpose is not to convince that I am right. It could of course occur that I am wrong, too, the point is not there. First of al, I need to understand why two persons having received a scientific education (should be similar) have a point of view so opposite. Is it useful I say I do not work for any pharma company, neither any institutions or company related to health.
.
So, in order to help me understanding your point of view, I have 2 questions for you. I expect clears answers, no grey answers as policians usually do. Facts and only facts as established by science. Could you please quote in this forum peer-reviewed papers (page, volume, issue, , authors) prooving that:
1. getting the Covid vaccines (2 shots of Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, or one shot of Johnson and Johsnon) is stastically more dangerous for human beings (all health, age conditions in Canada or other developed countries let's say G7 countries ) than being infected by Covid-19 (including all existing variants up to know).
2. early treatments (to be defined, what is early?) using HCQ, Ivermectine or other treatments you suggest on this forum are more efficient that treatments authorized in Canada for hospitalized patients. Statistics is important here, the papers should be able to compare apples with apples (same age, same health conditions, same 'early' definition). Comparison can easily be biased if the method is not good.
These papers should have been already officially published (not pre printed) and not already retracted by the journal editor. In order to compare high quality papers, these papers should be published in one of the 10 best scientific journals in immunology or virology. We could agree to rank these journals based on their impact factor, which is not perfect to compare quality of papers but it gives a rather good idea:
https://www.immunofrontiers.com/top-...urnals-of-2021
https://www.immunofrontiers.com/top-...urnals-of-2021
I am already impatient to read the papers you will quote. We'll discuss after.
Thanks for reading and I apologize for my mistakes in English
Comment