Covid-19 vaccine: what if we never found it like HIV AIDS?

[Janic]

Let's wait and see the concrete results of the vaccines ... instead of speculating !!
It should be a matter of a few weeks!

you are very optimistic!

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 »21/11/20, 09:55

easy to call a charlatan and a crook is it fakenews, beliefs or truths?

it seems to me that it depends on who we call a charlatan, it can be true or false. If you call someone who spreads fake news a charlatan, isn't that true?

Clearly you recognize that you are a charlatan! it's a truth, isn't it?

in plain language, no, and as usual you completely transform what your interlocutors say - precisely what I describe in the JOE method which you claim not to apply.

and that is precisely the question I am asking you and that you are avoiding: how do you choose whether it is true or false?

It is not a matter of choice! When a person does not know anything about it, he cannot say if it is true or false by the only fact of his ignorance: you know something because it is your case.

so
a) so of course it's a matter of choice, or at least of decision if you prefer this word
b) Contrary to what you say, it is quite possible to judge the methods of validation of a domain of knowledge to know if they are valid or not, even without knowing the details of this system.

What do you know in H to qualify this medicine and its doctors as charlatans! And don't dodge the answer!

I can at least judge the reasoning methods of those who defend it like you, and I see that they have no rigor or no logic, that you spend your time transforming what your interlocutors say, that you are not not able to follow logical reasoning, that you do not respond to requests for references, and that you spend your time replacing arguments with insults, so basically your ability to convince others is close to zero (anyway , obviously it is not convincing who interests you, on the contrary, it is to maintain a sterile and endless debate based on insults that allows you to satisfy your compulsive need to insult everyone, c is the real motivation of the JOE method).

That alone is enough for me to doubt the value of H. But if you give me a link where I will find sensible, rational, not offensive, in short convincing arguments, I'm quite ready to change my mind. Except you don't give a link.

To say that it is not wrong to say that one could make a human arm grow back by drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ, for example, do you place it in the category of fanciful rantings or not?

on the one hand, this is not what C expressed,

for you he does not say that it is possible that an arm grows back while drinking juice and praying to Jesus Christ in this video?

For me, one cannot sum up in a concise sentence what was expressed, with clarity, It is a point of view that you and your friends intentionally distort.

still not understood where the distortion was, and even less where you see clarity, since he says that something and its opposite are both false (which logically is totally contradictory with what you said, that a stuff is either true or false).

In short, once again you line up empty sentences, without tail or head, and without any followed logic. Come on I'll put you 18/20 for the JOE method

[Obamot]

I asked you:

What, coming from you, is the relationship between religion and “Vaccine on Covid-19"

report, why do we think something is right or wrong? [/ quote]

It frankly had NO connection, you didn't demonstrate anything, you're just trying to trick people into what you suppose they are thinking about your flawed interpretation of what you read about them. Then you continue many repetitions on the background of the religious subject to the point of making it a form of harassment, and then I ask you:

Is your approach “toxic” to repeat the same things over and over again despite all the answers being given to you

(it's not a question)

Is your approach “toxic” to repeat the same things over and over again despite all the answers being given to you

(it's not a question)

beautiful example of self-contradictory post perfectly in the JOE method. You ask a question by saying right after that it's not a question. And you say that the answers have already been provided when you are stuck not knowing how to answer. Of the JOE method well followed, bravo Obamot you read it well. I put you 17/20, it's well deserved (it's still a little weak as an insult, "toxic", you can do much better).

Excuse me, but you're completely off the mark with your HS discussions.
And the JOE Method is right for a JOE like you. Because despite Christophe's warning, you continue.

For you, either we have an affiliation with I do not know what sect, or we are JOEs if we do not go in your direction.

And the questions about basic physics go unanswered with the cynicism that characterizes you.
- You still haven't contacted the physicists who discovered the autonomous graphene circuit that produces energy.
- You still have not given a satisfactory answer on the placebo effect,
- You were not able to tell us in detail, how many type / s of fluid dynamics are there ...

... and I forget ...

[Janic]

ABC2019 »21/11/20, 13:41

Janic wrote:
Clearly you recognize that you are a charlatan! it's a truth, isn't it?

clearly, no, and as usual you completely transform what your interlocutors say -

Only you would have the privilege of doing it, then, according to your habit?

precisely what I am describing in the JOE method that you claim not to apply.

An ass torch! No thanks !

and that is precisely the question I am asking you and that you are avoiding: how do you choose whether it is true or false?

janic wrote: It's not a matter of choice! When a person does not know anything about it, (like you therefore) he cannot say whether it is true or false simply because of his ignorance: you know something about it since it is your case.

so
a) so of course it's a matter of choice, or at least of decision if you prefer this word

You really are really big, you are able to choose to insult when you don't know anything about it!

b) contrary to what you say, it is quite possible to judge the methods of validation of a field of knowledge to know if they are valid or not, even without knowing the details of this system.

more and more balèze, Mr. Superman! As Klein says, "you don't trust a butcher to validate astrophysics"

What do you know in H to qualify this medicine and its doctors as charlatans! And don't dodge the answer!

I can at least judge the reasoning methods of those who defend it like you, (…) this is the real motivation of the JOE method).

The only possible defense can only come from the professionals you call charlatans, not from me! And there your butcher's methods are no match for:
And hop, one more dodge to not answer! therefore : What do you know in H to qualify this medicine and its doctors as charlatans! And don't dodge the answer!

That alone is enough for me to doubt the value of H.

except that you called them charlatans, before any discussion.

But if you give me a link where I will find sensible, rational, not offensive, in short convincing arguments, I'm quite ready to change my mind. Except you don't give a link.

already seen!
Another 998 times: no! Go on your own or keep cursing medicine H and its doctors, but I'm sure you'll stick to the second proposition.

To say that it is not wrong to say that one could make a human arm grow back by drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ, for example, do you place it in the category of fanciful rantings or not?

on the one hand, this is not what C expressed,

for you he does not say that it is possible that an arm grows back while drinking juice and praying to Jesus Christ in this video?

For me, one cannot sum up in a concise sentence what was expressed, with clarity, It is a point of view that you and your friends intentionally distort.

still not understood where the deformation was,

to distort it consists in extracting small pieces of a video, not to select what one wants to make them say. Where have the scrambled areas gone? favorite methods of sects!

and even less where you see any clarity, since he says that a trick and its opposite are both false (which logically is totally contradictory with what you said, that a thing is either true or false).

already seen and reviewed!
When we are as blocked and sectarian as you and your sect, you will never understand anything! No wonder, given the discourse of sects like AFIS which promotes militant atheism and therefore which are as impervious as you to a "spiritual" (or metaphysical) discourse and which you repeat without thinking! like your exnihilism buddy!

[ABC2019]

I asked you:

What, coming from you, is the relationship between religion and “Vaccine on Covid-19"

the relation is why do we think something is right or wrong?

It frankly had NO connection,
[/ Quote]
you ask me for my opinion, I give it to you, you have the right to disagree. I'm telling you that Janic's advice on how to get an idea of ​​the value of H. are the same as those we could give for a religion (and in fact fundamentalist Muslims tell you the same thing when he talks about Islam: go read the Koran, you cannot judge without knowing, it's been centuries that this religion is followed by hundreds of millions of people ...). So for me it has a relation, and I give it to you.

For you, either we have an affiliation with I do not know what sect, or we are JOEs if we do not go in your direction.

no no, not at all, we are a good JOE when we apply the JOE method well that's all. It often happens to me to argue with people with whom I do not agree, but not in the tone of the JOE method.

And the questions about basic physics go unanswered with the cynicism that characterizes you.
- You still haven't contacted the physicists who discovered the autonomous graphene circuit that produces energy.

simply because they do not exist, since it is not written anywhere in a scientific article that an autonomous graphene circuit produces energy. It's like the 0,004%, it's you who invented.

- You still have not given a satisfactory answer on the placebo effect,

answer to what question? but I don't necessarily have the answer, I am not a specialist in the placebo effect and I do not claim to be one. I'm not asking you questions about quantum mechanics either, I only ask questions about what my interlocutors say themselves, which is not the case with your questions.

- You were not able to tell us in detail, how many type / s of fluid dynamics are there ...

because the question is not at all an "objective" question (and besides I don't see why you ask it to me since I didn't speak about it) nor to ask how many languages ​​there are in the world: it all depends on what you consider to be a "type" of theory. We can very well have different answers with different criteria. I do not see why you ask these discursive questions without interest, apart from the obvious one to escape the serious questions that one asks you.

[Obamot]

In this case, it is YOU who do not answer! Don't reverse the roles!

It is you who claim to be a physicist, I do not see what such a simple question could have of subjective ...?

(the rest is out of date, we note that you have no response on the placebo, the same as for the "H", hush, the silence is golden.)

[ABC2019]

janic wrote: It's not a matter of choice! When a person does not know anything about it, (like you therefore) he cannot say whether it is true or false simply because of his ignorance: you know something about it since it is your case.

so
a) so of course it's a matter of choice, or at least of decision if you prefer this word

You really are really big, you are able to choose to insult when you don't know anything about it!

uh sorry? I ask you "how do you go about choosing if it is true or false?" , and you take that for an insult?

b) contrary to what you say, it is quite possible to judge the methods of validation of a field of knowledge to know if they are valid or not, even without knowing the details of this system.

more and more balèze, Mr. Superman! As Klein says, "you don't trust a butcher to validate astrophysics"

no, but scientists are not pork butchers, they know the general methods of science, and they are perfectly capable of judging whether it is applied seriously or not, because the criteria are quite simple: existence of verified observations, with a correct statistical treatment, description of documented protocols, known history of subsequent discoveries, who made them and under what circumstances ... all these criteria are very easy to verify and do not require any in-depth knowledge of the field .

What do you know in H to qualify this medicine and its doctors as charlatans! And don't dodge the answer! [/ I]

precisely, I know the lack of response to the above criteria, which I cannot find anywhere described in the literature devoted to H. that I have consulted.

still not understood where the deformation was,

to distort it consists in extracting small pieces of a video, not to select what one wants to make them say. Where have the scrambled areas gone? favorite methods of sects!

[/ Quote]
I do not see what is not clear in the selected extracts, it is perfectly expressed and I do not see any other interpretation given to them, but if you have one, explain yourself then instead of spending your time in utter your insults.

[ABC2019]

In this case, it is YOU who do not answer! Don't reverse the roles!

It is you who claim to be a physicist, I do not see what such a simple question could have of subjective ...?

However, I have just explained it to you, what you call a "type of fluid mechanics" is not at all formalized in an objective manner.

"How many languages ​​are there in the world" is also a very simple question but there is no simple answer, because it all depends on what you consider to be one language different from another.

[Janic]

uh sorry? I ask you "how do you go about choosing if it is true or false?" , and you take that for an insult?

uh, sorry! are you sure you follow the subject?

b) contrary to what you say, it is quite possible to judge the methods of validation of a field of knowledge to know if they are valid or not, even without knowing the details of this system.

more and more balèze, Mr. Superman! As Klein says, "we don't trust a butcher to validate astrophysics "

no, but scientists are not pork butchers, they know the general methods of science, and they are perfectly capable of judging whether it is applied seriously or not, because the criteria are quite simple: existence of verified observations, with a correct statistical treatment, description of documented protocols, known history of subsequent discoveries, who made them and under what circumstances ... all these criteria are very easy to verify and do not require any in-depth knowledge of the field .

All professions have methods, but they are not the same for everyone. Idem A vs H!
How beautiful is YOUR vision of YOUR science. Except that YOUR scientists in A, in question, have no competence to apply this kind of methods to a science other than theirs which is H. Only they are competent to do this (re-comparison between aviation and navy).

What do you know in H to qualify this medicine and its doctors as charlatans! And don't dodge the answer! [/ I]

precisely, I know the lack of response to the above criteria, which I cannot find anywhere described in the literature devoted to H. that I have consulted.

Ah yes ?!
and which, for example, since previously, you affirmed not to have consulted any, since that does not interest you and that you do not have time to waste it. Are you splitting yourself?
If you have looked in a method A, a method H, no wonder you found nothing there since it is not suitable for it, as it is!

still not understood where the deformation was,

to distort it consists in extracting small pieces of a video, not to select what one wants to make them say. Where have the scrambled areas gone? favorite methods of sects!

I do not see what is not clear in the selected extracts, it is perfectly expressed and I do not see any other interpretation given to them, but if you have one, explain yourself then instead of spending your time in utter your insults.

these were largely explained to you, previously, but you do not read or reread anything, except the fakenews of your sect.
So it is a common practice in politics to make this type of cut to give the impression that a certain politician said - (and with these cuts it seems fair) but not at all when the totality of a document is respected. Your other alterego Pedro is a specialist.

[Obamot]

In this case, it is YOU who do not answer! Don't reverse the roles!

It is you who claim to be a physicist, I do not see what such a simple question could have of subjective ...?

However, I have just explained it to you, what you call a "type of fluid mechanics" is not at all formalized in an objective manner.

"How many languages ​​are there in the world" is also a very simple question but there is no simple answer, because it all depends on what you consider to be one language different from another.

Yet it was easy to answer ... do you agree with that?

Fluid mechanics
Fluid mechanics is the branch of physics concerned with the mechanics of fluids (liquids, gases, and plasmas) and the forces on them. It has applications in a wide range of disciplines, including mechanical, civil, chemical and biomedical engineering, geophysics, oceanography, meteorology, astrophysics, and biology.
It can be divided into fluid statics, the study of fluids at rest; and fluid dynamics, the study of the effect of forces on fluid motion.