[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: FBZkYkkVUAMQSdN.jpg (72 KB, 680x546)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
Are you smarter than an undergrad studying the immune system?
>>
Do viruses actually exist or are Lanka and all the rest of the growing number right that there is not actual proof?
>>
but why do the scientists who actually research vaccines refuse to acknowledge natural immunity
>>
>>13740842
That's more bureaucratic than scientific.
>>
>>13740852
What do you mean?
>>
>type the questions into google
>get the answers
>my "research" is now on par with """scientists""" who actually research vaccines
>>
Immunologists say my body is full of virgin killer T cells and yet I'm still typed this comment. Biology is a Marxist pseudoscience.
>>
>>13740824
>undergrad
>information learned in A & P
>>
>>13740824
guess how i know you're an amerinigger
>>
It's not just about biology, it's about politics. Even if all the biology is correct, if they feed you the wrong assumptions, your reasoning based on those assumptions will be wrong. Anyways many of the antivaxx assumptions are unfounded anyways, but normies should not blindly TRUST THE SCIENCE. They should question statements they're told by looking for contradictions, always finding sources of sources, revising their derivations when the statements they're based on are changed, don't blindly trust journals which are prone to corruption, etc
>>
File: 1611708424781.jpg (569 KB, 2264x2076)
569 KB
569 KB JPG
>>13740824
Irrelevant. You don't need to know anything about biology to know when you're being subjected to yet another propaganda campaign.
>>
>>13740824
>be midwit
>study biology
>dunning-kruger kicks in
>think you're competent enough to verify and corroborate the official narrative
>be surrounded by other gullible midwits all toeing the party line
>become highly biased
>spout retarded opinions based on your false sense of expertise

Vs.

>be intelligent
>know nothing about biology
>learn to recognize propaganda, corruption and political manipulation
>see it
>call it out
>>
person below has an even more inflated sense of false expertise considering they have zero knowledge about biology
>>
>>13740824
>multiple choice questions
I'm white, I don't need hints to answer any of these
>>
>>13740842
lol because natural immunity is literally full body health and if we start learning the immune system it trickles into discovering how literally everything you're being fed is a subtle poison

"safe levels!" yeah, over the course of your life, mixed with a thousand other poisons at "safe levels"
>>
>>13744547
that's not how poisoning works, schizo
>>
>>13740824
fuck this is my favorite game!!!
>>
File: part2.png (408 KB, 640x1138)
408 KB
408 KB PNG
>>13740824
>>
>>13740824
> Implying diseases are caused by viruses
>>
>>13744805
some are, yes. crazy I know.
>>
File: phil_beer.png (1.1 MB, 1000x622)
1.1 MB
1.1 MB PNG
>>13740824
i got "A" for all of them. what's my score?
>>
>>13740824
>Basic undergraduate biology trivia means that the basic statistics of PCR test selectivity and sensitivity are invalid
You're right at the top of the bell curve, bud :')
>>
>>13740824
lets make a deal, if i answer every single question correctly you will call me the king of scientists and you will do whatever i say no matter how absurd it sounds
>>
>>13740824
>IL-4
>lgA
>HLA Class II
>NF-xB
>CD44
>lgD
>IL-10

Seriously? Couldn't those faggot scientists come up with better names?
>>
>>13740824
A randomly selected educated person can make policy decisions just as well as a social "scientist."
>>
>>13740824
Tell you the truth I'd like to see an epidemiologist having a go at this.
>epidemiologist in our faculty was interviewed and bemoaned how certain parts of the department act like bullies and trolls
>meanwhile she posts alarmist bullshit against every policy that comes out which gets proved wrong time and time again when nothing bad happens

t. biochemist
>>
File: IL-2.jpg (203 KB, 640x640)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
>>13740824
>>13748464
>IL-4
>IL-10
>>
File: 1391235473481.gif (643 KB, 293x289)
643 KB
643 KB GIF
>>13750013
Nice.
>>
>>13740824
Imagine being such a braindead branch of STEM that you can ctrl+f the answers to "research" in a PDF of your textbook. That's why engineers are chads. You can have a textbook in front of you and it won't make a difference in understanding unless you sequentially work through the whole book and oftentimes one or two books before it.

Obviously, this is why anybody can do their own research with biology and medicine while not needing to be able to regurgitate some part of a textbook via rote memorization. People successfully perform their own research on their own diseases all the time. I met a guy whose pyloric sphincter was fused or nearly fused shut at birth and his mom figured it out before the doctors.
>>
Pop quizzes are fucking retarded. Case study exams are where it's fucking at. Every time we are requested to do exams I leave extremely negative student feedback.
Only retarded teachers that don't understand the content give their students quizzes instead of thinking up case studies and grading students based on their thought process in real world situations.
>>
>>13750092
if you give oral exams, the class average will drop by at least 20%, which means that they know nothing off the tops of their heads
>>
>>13750101
Yeah no fucking shit. You can't just prop up the question "What is adermayoglyphia" which is a question I got in an oral genetics exam. We were told a funny story about this genetic disorder (adermayoglyphia) in week 2 and for some reason we were meant to remember this and remember exactly how it's caused? We were not even given hints as to whether it was autosomal dominant. At least with that information I could explain how it is caused.
Oral exams are retarded in undergraduate med degrees.
>>
>>13740824
>pop quiz will determine if you are qualified to say whatever the fuck you want even if it's absolutely not true
thats why is there no hope anymore
>>
>>13740824
>studied all this shit in undergrad
>majored in medicinal chemistry and physiology
>reread an immunology textbook last year for a mol bio project I was working on (amusingly covid related)
I'd still be guessing between 2-3 options for all of these questions lmao. I don't know if that's a indictment of the test or me. I got good marks at uni though.
>>
>>13740824
But where are the questions about pegylated lipid nanoparticles and modified rna?
>>
>>13750205
So you're implying a political meme from a heavily biased fear mongering alarmist, who wants a monopoly on information in order to control you, has invented an artificial and unrealistically high baseline of knowledge that we are supposed to meet before we can question the "science"?

Shocking.
>>
>>13750503
>Be me
>PhD holder
>Would fail that test
>>
>>13750515
That's exactly the point. All questions are intentionally far beyond anything reasonable to establish competence, just like OP pic.
>>
>>13750503
>>13750515
>>13750562
that test is easy as shit, what are you talking about?
>>
>>13750907
#6 has two objective ways to interpret it and the scorer chooses whichever way is "wrong." You will fail 100% guaranteed. You'll probably screw up a few others too because you seem like a tourist.
>>
>>13740824
>plasma cell
fukken kek'd
>>
>>13740824
Don't care, I'm still not taking it.
>>
>>13751124
>tourist
imagine considering oneself a resident of a message board
>>
>>13750073
Dunning kruger takes center stage
>>
You don't need to know the answers to these questions to perform relative risk analysis on vax/not vax
>>
>>13740824
>rote mem pop quiz
>>
File: images (1).jpg (9 KB, 244x207)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>13740824
>Guess at random
>83%
Hello my fellow researchers.
>>
>>13740824
>rote memory
>>
This post perfectly embodies the labcuck mindset. Imagine thinking benjamins are less important than knowing things and applying knowledge. Cash rules everything around you.
>>
>implying any of this matters, when it all boils down to just looking at some percentages
once again OP is a dimwit
>>
Probably not, but I can draw some curves and shit.
>>
>>13751352
>Dunning kruger
How you out yourself as a Redditor 101.
>>
>>13740824
Right, because the argument has always been about the intricacies of the theoretical mechanism of action for the vaccine and was never about the statistical outcomes, institutional overreach, or personal liberties. You can't possibly look at the vaccine as a black box, because that wouldn't leave any room for ambiguity and doesn't allow you to muddy the waters with irrelevant trivia.
>>
>>13740824
Half those questions are just vocabulary. If you understand the underlying the vocabulary isn't really that necessary.
>>
>>13750205
Most people forget a lot of the lower level materials when they get through school.
Really nothing wrong with that, it's how memory works. If you need the information you can always review it using the books on your shelf or the articles you've collected and you end up relearning it quickly and as a bonus you remember it better longer.
Learning something once allows you to relearn it very quickly. I think it's a disservice to students that they aren't explicitly told that it's okay to forget some material after finishing a course. Anyone who remembers 90+% of a course they've never encountered before is almost certainly an anomaly.
There are studies on memory and forgetting. I don't care enough to hunt shit down, but the book "make it stick" is a good introduction to this topic.
>>
>>13750503
>>13750515
>>13750562
>>13750907
>>13751124

wtf question 10 !?
>>
>>13752152
Yeah I know, without spaced repetition and recall you're not going to remember things. I just find it amusing that the quiz is basically stuff someone doing an undergrad bio/physiology course will absolutely nail but anyone before or past that point will probably struggle with unless they're actively using it in their day-to-day.
Hell, I had a manager who was the head of the R&D department of a large multinational detergent manufacturer who I had to remind that SDS and SLS are synonyms but SLES is a different chemical.
>>
ITT: lots of /x/tard and /pol/nigger excuses, no answers. Don't worry, I don't know the answers either. So I listen to those who do.
>>
>>13740842
>but why do the scientists who actually research vaccines refuse to acknowledge natural immunity
Elaborate on "refuse to acknowledge," and then show me a scientist "refus[ing] to acknowledge." Because I think I'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who doesn't believe the body has a natural immune system that can fight off many microorganisms including SARS-CoV-2 with varying degrees of success, so you can't possibly mean that.
>>
>>13743129
You do need to know a lot more than the /pol/fag Qboomer/Christkike redneck if you want people to take you seriously when you run your mouth on MUH GENE THERAPY and MUH MASS RED DEER DEATHS.
>>
>>13752902
To be more specific, they refuse to acknowledge that having natural immunity for covid is just as good as being vaccined. I don't need to show you a scientist actively refusing to, I need you to show me a (mainstream) scientist acknowledging it
>>
>>13740842
>>13752902
I don't know what Anon is talking about, plenty of scientists have studied what-if someone already recovered from COVID, do they need a vaccine? Do they need two doses?
The studies I read the answer was that a vaccine still helps but you only need one dose instead of two and then they'll be at the same level of immunity as someone COVID naive who had two doses.
When it was reported in nature it was also portrayed very positively because that means less shots needed so they could spread the doses further.
>>
>>13740824
>Are you smarter than a retard who can barely answer multiple choice questions?
Yes, unironically. Also, a vaccine researcher would know that these questions have little relevance to the more important administrative questions, such as, "Do you know whether this vaccine will have any side effects lasting more than a year?"
>>
>>13752943
>The studies I read the answer was that a vaccine still helps but you only need one dose instead of two and then they'll be at the same level of immunity as someone COVID naive who had two doses.
link
>>
>>13752943
>I don't know what Anon is talking about, plenty of scientists have studied what-if someone already recovered from COVID, do they need a vaccine?
They don't, yet health officials are still pushing for at least one dose of the vaccine.
>>
>>13752952
4chan is a piece of shit and thinks links are spam.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586
-021-01609-4
>Studies show that people with previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 tend to mount powerful immune responses to single shots, and gain little added benefit from another injection1,2,3. What’s more, for people with immunity gained through infection, one dose typically boosts antibody numbers to levels that are equal to, or often greater than, those found in individuals who have not been infected and have received double doses4.
>>
>>13752941
>why do the scientists who actually research vaccines refuse
> I need you to show me a (mainstream) scientist acknowledging it
That's not specific. It allows plenty of room for goalpost-shifting, especially with this vague 'mainstream', which could mean anything from a scientist who's published in a respected journal to some blue-checkmark scientist to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
>>
>>13752968
>or often greater than
there you go. How can a statistical result be "equal or often greater than" anyway? It's never going to be exactly equal
>>
>>13752990
"Find me a scientist refusing to acknowledge" also allows room for goalpost-shifting. I will point out that you are unable to name a scientist, mainstream or otherwise, who is acknowledging natural immunity is just as good as (and likely better than) vaccined immunity. I don't know how to prove to you that nobody is, but it would be very easy for you to prove to me that somebody is
>>
>>13753042
Did you just ignore the posts above yours?
>>
>>13753042
>who is acknowledging natural immunity is just as good as (and likely better than) vaccined immunity
Without relying on any scientists, "mainstream or otherwise," how do you know this?
>>
>>13753042
Maybe it's because /pol/niggers are so predictable, being niggers, and if someone linked you to journal research showing robust immunity in convalescent COVID patients, you'd unleash your nigger and whine that the scientist doesn't appear on CNN every three days or have a prolific Twitter stream that Redditors quote.
So I can perfectly understand why you're being asked to commit to specifics.
>>
>>13753411
Let us test your hypothesis
>>13753042
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
You see, this is doubly effective in that it is an Israeli study. For obvious reasons, this offsets shills.
>>
There sure are a lot of triggered poltards itt
>>
>>13750503
>Draw a line around the
>Circle the
What's the fucking difference?
>>
>>13753395
because it's the case for every other virus
>>
>>13753445
Excellent, thank you. There are indeed scientists willing to speak up about this (and >>13753395 you should read this study).
I'm not going to claim that this doesn't count because this scientist "doesn't appear on CNN every three days", but I will point out that when I google news the scientist's name, this study does not appear to be discussed in any large Western media outlets. Why is that?
>>
>>13740824
Lots of angry kids in this thread.

RARR RARRR ME NOT LIKEY I'M MORE SMARTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!
>>
s-sure are a lot of pissed off people in here! no I won't quote any specific examples
>>
>>13753865
>There are indeed scientists willing to speak up about this (and >>13753395 (You) you should read this study).
I don't need to read it, because I was already aware that such studies existed. What was in question was whether you'd accept the studies vs. "THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS A SCIENTIST ACKNOWLEDGE NATURAL IMMUNITY"
>but I will point out
Oh, here we go. :-(
>that when I google news the scientist's name, this study does not appear to be discussed in any large Western media outlets. Why is that?
So is your issue with scientists or Western media? These are two different things. Everyone knows -- or should know, whether admitting to it or not -- that the Western MSM is absolute trash.
>>
>>13753880
>ACKNOWLEDGE
ACKNOWLEDGING*
>>
Crackpots BTFO.
>>
Yes; I'm smart enough to not major in biology.
>>
>>13751529
Based C.R.E.A.M. poster
>>
>>13753880
That's what I get for morningposting. Now that I'm more awake, I will point out that you are not refuting my intended interpretation, which is that *most* scientists refuse to acknowledge natural immunity.
>SEE YOUR MOVING THE GOALPOSTS
It's not moving the goalposts, it's elaboration on the original intention of the sentence for someone who is too autistic or ESL to have understood. Consider the following imagined argument
>Person A: Scientists say the vaccines are safe and effective
>Person B: No, watch this Bitchute video of Robert Malone. Since there is a scientist who says the vaccines are not safe, you are wrong
Do you genuinely believe Person B made a good point there?
If you do, then I actually will move goalposts (is it so wrong to make a moderate concession without conceding the entire point?) and say that I do not have faith in scientists like Anthony Fauci who refuse to acknowledge superior natural immmunity.
>So is your issue with scientists or Western media?
Both, retard
>>
>>13754146
I think a lot of what is going around has to do with a bunch of people trying to move in lockstep. It is weird because there is absolutely no incentive for those not among the usual suspects(idiots in media) to be in such derangement. There is a survivorship bias with the natural immunized, where a risk assessment can determine a vaccine that maintains effectiveness is better than natural immunity because the risks are lower. Of course, the covid threat is almost non-existent for people under 50, and it gets extremely reduced when controlling for obesity in all groups. This doesn't suitably answer the natural immunity question, as they are a real crowd that doesn't have privilege of a time machine to go back and choose between vaccination or infection.
I am waiting around for the studies that accurately categorize the relative risk of even just covid as I am currently not capable of trusting the numbers that are out there. Testing methods produced huge false positives, which should appear to keep covid death rates down, but inaccurate reporting of covid deaths because of comorbidities keeps the whole thing in the muck.
>>
>>13740824
I don't know any of those because I don't care about biology
>>
People much more qualified than me have confirmed that the spike proteins that give the coronavirus its name are responsible for potentially deadly cardiovascular symptoms that contribute to the mortality of the disease.

Official sources confirm that the mechanism by which the vaccine functions is to cause my body to produce those spike proteins in the hopes of provoking an immune response.

With this in mind, how is it not dangerous for me to deliberately expose my cardiovascular system to these spike proteins?

The only official attempt I have seen at reconciling this discrepancy was a vague claim that the spike proteins the vaccine produces are different, so they won't produce negative cardiovascular symptoms. If the spike proteins are different than the ones on the coronavirus though, then why would exposing my body to them cause my immune system to recognize the allegedly entirely different spike proteins on the virus s a threat?
>>
>>13753527
A circle is closed, a "line around" is open. A line around should look like C and a circle like O. It flip flops between asking for a line around and a circle on purpose to trick you into just circling everything but when they score it they'll be hyper literal and say a line around is different than a circle so you didn't read it properly. It's quite clever actually.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.