COVID-19 Mega-Thread

[Scholar]

I see a lot of threads being posted that could as well take place in a Coronavirus Mega-Thread, so to keep everything more tidy let's keep the general discussion in here.

 

Here are a list of a few resources:

Latest data on the virus:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

World-map:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

 

Dr. John Campbell, posting daily video updates on the Coronavirus, fairly reliable and accurate. He made good predictions in the beginning and has shown reasonable concern since the epidemic in China. If you watch the daily videos you should be well updated and educated on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg

 

MedCram, good source for gaining a deeper understanding of the biology of the virus. Very reliable academic source.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MEDCRAMvideos

 

 

Here is an old presentation from 2008 by Dr. Greger on the origin of infectious diseases such as the current pandemic.

Here is Bill Gates presentation on viruses in 2015:

 

[Aquarius]

Good idea. The whole subforum is full of threads on Corona.

[Applegarden]

 

[DrewNows]

 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

 

The guy is denying that HIV causes AIDS.

[Ferdi Le]

On 26.3.2020 at 0:24 PM, Shiva said:

For those who earn good money, how do you protect your assets from the coming inflation?

Assets are pretty much by definition protected from inflation. Not bonds, but stocks are a good protection from inflation.

[DrewNows]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The guy is denying that HIV causes AIDS.

Yeah...why would someone with his education and background see things so differently than the general public?

HIV is a fucking scam! Enjoy the rant it starts around 10 minutes in...

 

[DrewNows]

ANTIBODY THEORY

http://whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html?fbclid=IwAR3hB_lkewBnehZBYhJ3gnhtuhfGvleBc3J3vZ6I2iBsqvACvWCcmRC6h38

TRUTH ABOUT FLU AND VIRUSES 

https://drivenanddesired.com/truth-about-flu-virus-common-cold/?fbclid=IwAR0XVqsSqzu0PpL47xx6wH15NJRFXdbH7h_d3-kxus3k7gsDLiQ0wjWsTk8

GREAT ARTICLE LOOKING INTO THE ACTUAL OF GERMS (AND CORONA) 

https://phoreveryoung.wordpress.com/2020/02/12/do-germs-like-the-coronavirus-cause-disease/?fbclid=IwAR0xjb-oLlitlrqCGZ-Q_E7rd7lxExNsAzURBWaVrQ86NbVsD6lAx-L_rT4

[Forestluv]

@DrewNows Those links are criticizing science from below, not from above. Criticizing science from a higher conscious level would look when Deepak Chopra criticizes science. The links you are posting are at a lower conscious level than science. I am a trained molecular/cellular biologist and I can tell you that they are making misunderstood and inaccurate scientific/biological claims to promote an agenda. It is filled with misinformation. Spreading low conscious misinformation, such as anti-germ theory, can be dangerous to people. I know that is not your intention, yet that is the impact of spreading misinformation. You’ve been previously told not to do this. Please stop.

[Forestluv]

Roger Seheult, MD is producing high-quality daily updates. I’ve watched about 15 of his videos and can verify he understands the cell biology, human physiology and virology from a medical/scientific perspective.  

 

[Scholar]

@Serotoninluv

 

I struggle arguing with people who find this kind of thinking very appealing. I don't know how to explain to them why this is a limited way of approaching knowledge. What do you tell someone who does not understand the value of scientific consensus, and is very skeptical of mainstream views?

I usually find myself at a position where I tell someone that I simply do not agree with their epistemological standards. When I ask them to justify their positions, usually people get frustrated. When I explain that I do not have the time to understand these topics indepth and therefore rely on scientific consensus or some sort of intuition, I don't really feel like that is very appealing to them

From their perspective I look like someone who is simply believing the "elites" and playing into what the deep-state wants them to think. Especially because often I can tell very quickly whether someone is a higher quality source rather than a low quality source, yet I could not exactly articulate why that is.

I am not sure if my intuition is simply trained to be more accurate, or whether I use a different kind of intuition, or both? Because from their perspective it looks like they are doing the same I am.

[DrewNows]

@Serotoninluv I apologize for the insensitivity. I don't consider this information sharing to be conspiracy but i can understand how others might if they aren't open or looking into alternatives and other modalities of medicine. I wish to work together on these fragile issues involving theory, and not to be shut down. Anyways, time will tell, the issues at hand are here for a reason, best to let them unravel

@Scholar Aren't we all looking to gain the same sort of knowledge to move us forward in science/health? I seek knowledge/information not "trustworthy" sources because im not looking to adopt beliefs. I don't wish to argue. I am as new to the videos I shared as you are, only i am aware of other beliefs and experiences that shed a new light on the issues, but anyways, expanding awareness/perspective shouldn't be a bad thing right?

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv I apologize for the insensitivity. I don't consider this information sharing to be conspiracy but i can understand how others might if they aren't open or looking into alternatives and other modalities of medicine. I wish to work together on these fragile issues involving theory, and not to be shut down. Anyways, time will tell, the issues at hand are here for a reason, best to let them unravel

It’s not about being open to alternatives and other modalities of medicine. The links you posted are making inaccurate, misinformed scientific claims. There are some kernels of truth within a mass of misinformation.

If someone posted a link to an article that claimed poisons don’t exist because chemical compounds are only produced in the lysosomes of phagocytic cells and as long as the pH level of extracellular peroxisomes are above 7.2, we are protected. . . <= that would get shut down. Not because it is an alternative view or because it is another modality of medicine. Rather, it would get shut down because it is inaccurate scientific claims and spreading misinformation that can potentially be harmful. 

@Scholar I would say cognitive stages of development. Rational thinking, logic and science is a developmental stage higher than some, yet keep in mind it’s still a relatively low level. Scientists are like children in a sandbox trying to figure out how the toy shovels and buckets work. If someone comes along and says the shovel is actually a bomb that will explode, that should be corrected. Yet the sandbox toys are still a relatively low level of development. 

And I agree with the fellow in the video you posted - there has been an red/blue level anti-science agenda for decades that have degraded the credibility of actual experts. Now Joe Shmo can make up shit on YT, call it a “theory” and 40% of Americans give him as much credibility as an actual expert. And this has infiltrated the highest levels of American politics. It’s really disheartening and we are paying the price in this crisis. 

[DrewNows]

@Serotoninluv if you have something against terrain theory I get it, good for you. I’ll discontinue jumping to conclusions in these scientific issues

[GGG]

not sure if this has been posted anywhere on the forum...

 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv if you have something against terrain theory I get it, good for you. 

I read a bit from some of the links and they are filled with inaccurate scientific misinformation. They have very little biological accuracy. They are trying to sound sciencey, yet do not understand even the basics of cell and molecular biology. It would be like someone trying to sound technical by saying a toaster oven combusts orange juice in a car. And then saying “It’s an alternative view and we should be open-minded”. That is misleading because it puts nonsense on the same level as those that have worked for decades to become experts. . . That is the recipe for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories: 1) Take 20% actual science and mix in 80% misinformation, 2) Make it sound sciencey to those that don’t understand the actual biology, 3) call it some theory that is an alternative view to “the mainstream”, which we should all be skeptical of. . . About 30% of the population will believe it because they can’t distinguish between fake science and actual science. And they are not willing to put in the effort to learn actual biology. I posted a link above of an expert who knows viral biology. That’s a great place to start for anyone that wants to learn the biological life cycle of viruses - in particular the coronavirus. 

Let’s not derail this thread any longer. There is way to much misinformation about the coronavirus. Let’s have a thread with accurate information. 

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

And I agree with the fellow in the video you posted - there has been an red/blue level anti-science agenda for decades that have degraded the credibility of actual experts. Now Joe Shmo can make up shit on YT, call it a “theory” and 40% of Americans give him as much credibility as an actual expert. And this has infiltrated the highest levels of American politics. It’s really disheartening and we are paying the price in this crisis. 

I should have probably explained, the person in the video to me is the one spreading misinformation. It is the person who claims that HIV is not proven, by the standard of a specific postulate to cause AIDS. He also claims that the only reason people fall sick to coronavirus is an compromised immune system and that it would be a good idea to let the young people continue life as is while we only isolate risk groups.

This is what worries me even more, because some of the thinking he provides about the limitations of current scientific methodology and systems thinking are valid, aswell as to some degree his claims about vaccination and the pharma industry. But I feel like it is a huge half-truth and mixed with dangerous misinformation.

I also don't see how his CytoSolve technology could possibly make true accurate predictions when we have such a limited view of the actual biological processes within the body, and therefore lack most mechanistic knowledge to truly simulate and predict outcomes.

https://cytosolve.com/

 

This is why I wanted to ask you about this, because his criticisism are valid to a certain degree, but what he is replacing it with is not at all an improvement in my eyes. This is my laymans perspective.

Edited March 28, 2020 by Scholar

[GGG]

 

[mark patrick]

What a wonderful opportunity we are being given. we have an enforced retreat and have to stand face to face with ourselves, mortality and what it means to be human....

 

 

enjoy, stay well and make the most of this time. brightest blessings,  Mark

[Forestluv]

@Scholar Imo, it looks like he has done some legit research science and has published in quality peer-reviewed journals. Yet he also has some unsubstantiated whacky ideas. Some scientists can be a mixed bag. Part of the problem is mixing “real science” with “fake science” - that recipe allows for a degree of credibility needed to spread misinformation. Misinformed science that spreads is rarely 100% BS, it almost always has some truth mixed in.