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

@YoMomz

It's a slowburn genocide at this point.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

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

@shortstories @YoMomz

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.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

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

@shortstories @YoMomz

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.

@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

@shortstories @YoMomz

I'd guess not.

The bill for that is going to paid one way or another.

#TWRA

@shortstories @YoMomz

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.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

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

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

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

@shortstories @YoMomz

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.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

Isaac Newton did not use statistical significance testing

@shortstories @YoMomz

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.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz

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