RE: How I spent 5 hours trying to make a pressable button

avatar
(Edited)

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

What do you think about that?

I'm not a biologist lol. (I also don't think you are, though you could prove me wrong) Anything we say is just talk.

However, I will indulge you and analyze the video because why not.

The video you show has some potential issues, mostly argumentative. I'm a writer, not a biologist, so the arguments are the only thing I can talk about. Let's go point by point:

1. He cherry-picks whatever he wants in his first piece of evidence. Read the full text:

He grabs the "more distant" one. It had already been said before in the paragraph that it was 88% similar to another SARS virus, etc. And he grabs the 79% out of the blue and says that this number is evidence that the virus was too dissimilar to establish an identity. But that's not the only piece of data, obviously, as can be seen by the rest of the text, so what he says has no value here.

imagen.png

He goes on to clarify that this is too much of a difference because if we compare humans and chimpanzees we're very dissimilar but have around 96% DNA similarity. This is a fallacy because it says "if x is true, then y must also be true", but that is a false association. Humans are extremely similar to chimpanzees, in the sense that we're not only mammals but also have four extremities with 5 fingers each, eyes in the same place, blabla, and they're in the same family line. So when he says that 96% is too dissimilar, he's not saying anything valuable because that's an outright lie, and even then, that is the X in "if x is true then y is true", but in this case, Y has nothing to do with X. It's a discussion about viruses, not primates. So even if chimpanzees were as dissimilar as he claims to humans, this fact has no repercussion on a conclusion about the identity of a virus.

2. He doesn't show any evidence about his claims that the people who made the studies were irresponsible

He only showed one case, and even then he pointed at some things and said that these things proved that everything that had been done was for naught. Since he shows absolutely no evidence and doesn't back up his claims except with a picture, it's basically his word against their word. That is simply not the way trustworthy research is published. If you really want to find evidence, look for published research.

3. He makes claims about the disease without any evidence, where the existing evidence points to the opposite side

In the last part, he says "if you look more broadly at the data of mortality, and such, you'll see that there is no evidence of a new disease either". This is simply wrong. First, all doctors all around the world agree that this is called COVID-19, so whether this virus can also be called ASDOASD-123 is irrelevant.

Why? Because what matters are three things: (1) what the symptoms and consequences are for the person, (2) how to treat it and (3) how to make people invulnerable to it. If you have people with new symptoms and there is a pandemic, then you know that there is something that humans are not prepared for.

If you understand antibodies and immunity, you know that people can become immune to a virus, and that these viruses that people are immune to are not the ones that make rounds killing people (simply, because people are immune to them). Therefore, if there is a virus making rounds and killing people, it's clear that it's something new against which people are not prepared.

If you see that the symptoms are uncommon but shared among all the people who have the same disease, you know that these people have gotten sick, and you know that what they have is not what was there before in the ecosystem. You can make note about the symptoms and the consequences so that you can treat people better and protect the most vulnerable people (those with asthma, weak lungs, lung cancer, etc.)

Once you test the virus, whether it's called COVID-19 or ASDOASD-123, if you can create appropriate reactions in the antibodies so that they start rejecting the virus, or reacting to it in a way that diminishes the harm to the individual, you are succeeding, regardless of whether the virus is new or not (though we've already established that if no one is immune to it, then it has to be something that they haven't been infected with before, so either really new, really old or really foreign).

Then the objective is simply to make people immune to it. If a researcher manages to create a treatment that makes a person's immune system not-infectable by the disease, isn't that a success regardless of whether the virus was called COVID-19 or ASDOASD-123?

So, when this dude, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, says that "if you look more broadly at the data of mortality, and such, you'll see that there is no evidence of a new disease either", he is speaking nonsense, because the medical consensus is that there IS evidence of new symptoms in a disease that is making rounds killing people. He shows absolutely nothing that disproves this in any way.

Additionally, I already showed you pictures of the virus, so it has been isolated. This video is from 2 months ago. That's a long time for a research field that moves forward so fast.

So, while he may have been right or wrong, this video says nothing about whether what he says is reliable. He makes so many argumentative mistakes that any effort he may have made is rendered useless.

edit: as I said above, I'm not a biologist, or a scientist, or in any way an activist regarding Covid. So I have absolutely no idea why you're showing me this, and debating with me. I'm not interested in the topic. The only reason I'm responding to you is because you're on my comments section and I can't just leave you hanging, but if you want someone who's really intimate with the topic, find a doctor, a nurse, a biologist, a scientist of some sort. You have #steemstem. Why come to the blog of a random Venezuelan writer and start debating about whether Covid exists or not? Lol. It makes no sense to me.

Instead of talking about biological research with a linguist, why don't you talk about it with a biologist? There are plenty of research centers. I'm sure your country must have some. Contact them! I'm sure there are many public forums where you can engage with people from the area who will give you more reliable information about the virus.

edit2: and stay way from pseudoscientific forums. There are plenty, but they'll only give you partial unpublished and untested information. If you want reliable information, you have to go to specialists who actually know about the topic.



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

Additionally, I already showed you pictures of the virus, so it has been isolated.

We all have viruses in our body, so in what way is a picture of a virus relevant?

i asked you what's the proof because something doesn't add up: last year we didn't wear masks and so far

  • nobody proved that this year virus is different than last year.
  • nobody proved that the mortality rate for this year's flu is different than last year.
  • nobody established a causation between people who died and a virus that's so dangerous that we have to wear masks, because the testing procedures they use are not designed for diagnostic.

Without a proof a theory is just a speculation, pseudoscience.
Do you believe a theory without proof or do you need a proof?
Without a proof why are we losing our freedom?

0
0
0.000