Who really knows how MRNA works? We're at a point in understanding biology, where we're like a kid who can take apart a radio... and can kinda see which part might do what, but we can't put it back together.
Anyway, I don't think we had the last of the sudden heart attack dance parties. 🤔
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/actor-mike-heslin-dies-30-151535493.html
It's a slowburn genocide at this point.
I did a biology lab in high school where they claimed to split DNA and then sort it into sections by molecular length where the sections with longer molecular length are heavier and do not travel as far under electrophoresis if I remember correctly
Thinking back on the day has got me to start to doubt that we really know how to do DNA testing or that we really knew how to do DNA testing as a society when I was in high school
I think a lot of the DNA test results were fake
Back then, we still had the concept of junk DNA which essentially discounted large sections of DNA as redundant based on nothing more than a lack of understanding.
We've now discarded that idea since coming to the understanding that DNA is more informationally dense than we had thought. Junk DNA is bullshit.
If they were ignoring junk DNA when testing to compare two samples to see if they were from the same individual or two different individuals
Then they might have had a lot of incorrect results where they claimed someone's DNA matched another person's DNA when it did not
I think there are probably a lot of men who got found guilty on the basis of DNA who were not guilty in the past
I do not know if this problem continues today but it would not surprise me if it does
Computational bioinformatics and gentic analysis is an area where AI is actually useful.
Human analysis cannot compare to what's possible with narrow AI. It has the advantage of being able to recognize patterns and perform variant detection in information-dense data which makes it perfect for that field.
The big problem here is suppression of results. How much is being deliberately withheld?
Peer review and once-respected publishers like Nature are now captured and compromised.
Biology is now not only under a national security blanket, it's also ideologically captured and politically weaponized against domestic populations.
It's all asshoe. The way I see it, our only hope is that BRICS defeats this bullshit and their scientists publish suppressed science.
I think even if old articles were not censored that the methods of old articles were compromised
I think a big problem with the peer review process is their obsession with statistical significance testing and not showing the original data that they used to get the conclusion from the statistical significance testing results
For example it is common to show the mean, standard deviation and sample size of the data without showing the data they calculated the mean from
If Isaac Newton really existed he was one of the greatest scientists of all times & he used algebra, trigonometry & calculus to make models that you could predict results from & these predictions could be tested
Newton did not use statistical significance testing
Statistical significance testing is a very different approach
You do not really predict results usually
Usually you just predict whether or not two things will be different within a certain arbitrary alpha value
Dude, you need to stop the "X person didn't actually exist" bullshit. It's not doing you any favors.
Newton existed, and he was a legit MGTOW genius.
Isaac Newton did not use statistical significance testing
Sure. Neither Fisher nor Bayes was around in Newtons time.
It doesn't mean that frequentist or Bayesian statistics are bullshit. They are useful tools that Newton would have used if they were around in his time.
Statistics is used to confirm or refute hypotheses. For example, Newton might have used statistical methods to analyze data from his experiments to determine whether the results were consistent with the predictions of his laws.
Sadly I have looked at a lot of peer reviewed journal articles
And a large percent of them make no predictions
They might predict that something will be statistically significantly different than something else
But they make no predictions about what the actual values of numbers will be
Newtons laws were different in that they used algebra, trigonometry and calculus to predict what the actual values of numbers will be
You can combine the two styles with linear regression but that is rare
Also even when they use linear regression someone told me she read through a lot of articles to see if the people actually retested the conclusions in the articles and found that was done less than half the time ( I do not remember the percent she said ) but it was very rare
For example if they calculated a linear regression model they would not then rerun the test a second time to see if the linear regression model predicts results accurately
Usually they only know how to use one tool and that tool is the t test
That's what astrophysicists, cosmologists and theoretical physicists do. They actually use statistical methods correctly because their fields often lack direct testability.
And more than a few times they have been proven correct.
Percent Dark Matter = Percent Error in Matter calculations
Percent Dark Energy = Percent Error in Energy calculations
They do not want to admit that there model is wrong so they call the missing mass that would make their model work dark mass
That's an inference, not a deduction. Pure speculation.
That doesn't mean that the statisitical methods used in calculation are incorrect.
Their inferencea are still materialist-bound, but many scientists are now becoming more open to inferences that have to NECESSARILY include ontology, metaphysics and epistemology as they hit the limits of understanding.
More and more consciousness is playing a part in hypotheses. Personally I find this development fascinating.
I think they simply should admit that they do not know what they are doing and that is why there errors are so large instead of making up dark matter, dark energy and other outlandish stuff
And I am not convinced that they really measured the Universal Gravitational Constant
An average person can measure the local gravitational constant
But measuring the Universal Gravitational Constant without considering the mass of the person measuring and the building is laughable
> I think they simply should admit that they do not know what they are doing
Agreed!! That's the consequence of inference, not deduction.
Check out the TOE podcast (Theories of Everything) by Curt Jaimungal on youtube, and in particular those that feature pan-psychist scientists or Donald Hoffman, I promise you'll have a lot of fun diving into that rabbit hole.
It's nice to be able to talk with people here who appreciate this stuff.
That's dishonest whichever way you look at it, but it doesn't stop there.
Definition: The scientific method is a systematic approach to discovering and understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and theoretical explanation.
All of that has been gamed and is well documented. Eric Weinstein talks about this alot.
e.g. He and his wife's work on statisitcal economics proves the lie about CPI fuckery. It's all ideological.
Consumer Price Index. Just go and look it up, he's talked about it a ton.
@UncleIroh @YoMomz
I am going to guess that they did not use that type of analysis when a bunch of males got sent to jail based on DNA and that a lot of them are not guilty