If we're talking about the same link, it is not leading you to a real publication, but someone talking about a hypothetical situation and an issue they are interested in. I would like to see the rest of the context of their work before getting excited.
Its the FDA from a US government website: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-...valuating-potential-threat-posed-transmission
The thing that he points out was something I could verify for myself: there are no authors or credentials listed for those authors, and in one of the references they listed as supporting a point I could not find the data they claimed to be there. That was when I actually thought to look up this Swiss outfit. As I say, read with caution. Could be a mixture of truth and fiction.
Yes that I get, but this appears to be a general description of the research interests of one lab. It is dated 2018. These tend to be something handed in to the higher ups to make the potential research applications sound more exciting. For a better idea read the papers listed at the bottom of the page and then do a lit search to see what the guys in that lab have done since 2017..
No I am arguing against the validity of the citation as it was used. I know it is easier to insult me than read the references and make an informed decision for yourself. It is just plain hard work to do that and some people don't want to do that. D2s comment could be valid, or not, but you can't tell if you don't want to do the work.
Well she has been doing it for 80+ pages, you don't expect her to change do you?
I should hope not!
. I spent 40 years being an honest scientist and I have no intention of changing now. My skillset does not include rebuilding engines, and I admire those who can, but it does include evaluating the literature, doing experiments, and publishing the results. If what I have to say is useful to someone out there good. If you don't like it that is your privilege.
I agree with everything you said in that post. What creates the real conflict and divide it think is where you chose to err on the side of caution which im sure you have your reasons. I and many others chose to err on the OTHER side of caution where freedoms, jobs, livelyhoods and future health are the priority. Not neccesarily individual safeties.
Except that you are perfectly happy ramming your way down our throats and we are mean, irresponsible, dumb, etc. if we dont agree.
How saying "you're deflecting again" insulting; especially since that's exactly what you are doing?
www.instashieldusa.com
It would offer far more "protection"' than ANY mask.Guess I could run around wearing my welding hood...
www.orangetractortalks.com
