Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

RE: "I'm a 40 year old Republican that started listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 3rd grade." And did you finish 3rd grade?
4
@karaokehammick5215 How would you know who is right? Do you know anything about viruses? Do you know the difference between t-RNA and m-RNA (without looking it up)? Can you explain the difference between the life-cycle of a coronavirus and the life-cycle of a retrovirus, and what effect the difference has on the course of a typical infection with the one or the other?
3
@karaokehammick5215 NO, dear, you cannot do virology with "common sense and gumption" and bravery to form her own opinion (about subjects which she knew well enough about to have an opinion). That is why my grandmother, bless her heart and memory, never invented a vaccine or discovered a virus, even though she had plenty of common sense and gumption. You don't know enough about viruses to think for yourself about viruses. Just as, no matter how many popular astrophysics/cosmology books you read you still don't know enough to understand black holes unless you know how to do the math. There are probably a hundred different possible reasons why the virus might have originated in a cave somewhere and only been discovered at the wet market. The Chinese may well be covering something up - that would not be surprising as a general thing. But to infer that the virus originated in a lab and leaked is mere guesswork.
3
Or maybe they do know, and you don't.
3
If he was right, he was right the way a stopped clock is right twice per day: random good luck.
2
@Srekwah Well, when I was in third grade, I listened to what we now call an audiobook - a set of vinyl records of an actor reading aloud - of Alice in Wonderland a lot. I didn't get into politics until later. And I think I didn't get into Tom Lehrer until later. But I do remember that my third grade teacher used to read aloud to us sometimes. She read "Rikky-Tikki-Tavi" and also recited some poetry by Ogden Nash: "The Adventures of Isabel". You remember: "Isabel met an enormous bear; Isabel, Isabel, didn't care, the bear was hungry, the bear was ravenous, the bear's big mouth was cruel and cavernous." Childish, certainly, but a damm site more thought-provoking than Rush Limbaugh.
2
You should read more history. There is a very good reason.
2
How would you know what the most objective explanation is?
1
What did the proud boys do? They violently attacked passers by in front of the Yale club in NYC.
1
Jon Stewart deserved the backlash, not for supporting the lab-leak theory rather than the natural-origin theory, but for pretending that he knew enough about virology and epidemiology and immunology for his opinion to matter.
1
How would you know that?
1
What's the point in you thinking, when you know nothing about the subject?
1
Yes. Science changes as new events unfold. That makes the science MORE reliable, not less reliable.
1
@rickydee5863 Does he have any experience working in virology or epidemiology?
1
@karaokehammick5215 Yes, dear, I know all about the appeal to authority fallacy. It's not a fallacy, though, when the subject really is one in which you need training and experience to understand something, like in virology or epidemiology or immunology. It's funny. You don't do the same thing with other subjects, do you? Suppose someone asked you to be the referee in a professional boxing match. What would you say? You'd say: "I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about boxing to serve as a referee; you'll have to ask someone else." That's what you'd say, right? You wouldn't imagine that you could read a few articles on the internet and just go do it, using common sense and gumption, would you? Or what would you say if someone asked you to evaluate a blueprint for a new race-car? You'd say "I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about auto mechanics to say whether the blueprint is good or bad, whether it really represents a race-car or whether it would work if it were assembled as the blueprint depicts." But when the subject is virology and immunology and epidemiology, which are all much more complicated than boxing or auto mechanics, you think that you are capable of forming an opinion worth reading. Weird, and,well, stupid. "A man's gotta know his limitations" -- Clint Eastwood
1
@karaokehammick5215 It could be that people had been dying of it for months in other places before the first case was documented at Wuhan. Suppose you're a doctor in some rural rice-paddy-zone somewhere in China that doesn't have a handy-dandy virus lab a stone's throw down the road. OK a couple of old people call in with pneumonia. It's not unusual for old people to get pneumonia. Would you be able to diagnose the virus as the cause of symptoms, before it was known, or sequenced, and before antibodies for detecting it were available? There's too much we still don't know for you to assume that the place where it was first detected is also the place where it originated. Also, there are probably some things about medicine as it is practiced in China which you don't know, and which could easily cause them to first detect the virus somewhere other than where it actually originated. And this is just one possible explanation. A real virologist could likely come up with many others. (I'm not a virologist; I'm only a retired antibody-chemist. So I know a little bit of immunology. Viral origin mechanisms aren't my specialty, although antibodies are such versatile tools in science that antibody-chemists like me tend to be generalists and know a little bit about many things. Ask me about catalytic antibodies some time.)
1
@carlodefalco7930 Fauci never said it definitely came from animals or nature, dumb-dumb. He consistently said that that was most likely, but not certain.
1
@Availablehandle-i1k I'm sorry, but at this time you are not smart enough to understand this issue. Good luck in your efforts to improve your intelligence, if you decide to try to do that.
1
@madeforstreets Nothing in particular happens when you mix mRNA and DNA. They don't react with each other, as a general thing. The point of asking about the difference between tRNA and mRNA is to show that most people commenting here don't know the first thing about either.
1
@spockers It's lucky that the observer asks "is it right at this moment" at the exact moment when it happens to be right!
1
@carlodefalco7930 You're right, of course. And we know why they did it, too. The Chinese government unleashed the virus on us in order to prevent the opera houses in Europe and USA and South America from staging Puccini's last opera, Turandot (if you are familiar with the aria "Nessun dorma", that's from Turandot) because it is set in Beijing (Pekino) and depicts the Chinese people as brutal savages ruled by a sadistic tyrant. Turandot had become trendy again (the opera world is very faddish) and numerous opera houses, great (La Scala, the Met, Chicago Lyric Opera) and small (Regina Opera in Brooklyn, West Bay Opera in Palo Alto) were getting ready to do it. The current government of China - Xi - couldn't stand for that. Now that the pandemic has more or less resolved (not just temporarily, we hope) the companies are doing operas by Puccini, but, notably, not Turandot. They're doing La bohème and Il Trittico. So the Chinese strategy seems to have worked. This is why the pathology of COVID is so harmless, relative to what it could have been. The Chinese government didn’t want to kill a lot of people, only to sicken us enough to shut down the opera houses and get the companies to choose a new repertoire.
1
@cutiebuu5424 The trouble with natural immunity is, you only get it if you get the virus and suffer the consequences (including, passing it on to others who may be vulnerable because of co-morbidities). So trying to use natural immunity as a strategy is like saying "let's let some skunks come in and stink up the living room, in order to prevent skunks from coming in and stinking up the living room!" No good.
1
Probably they just don't like you. The "Narrative" is just an excuse.
1
There's nothing wrong with questioning something, so long as you acknowledge that you don't know enough about it for your opinion to matter.
1
"Experimental drug"? What experimental drug?
1
@jeffatkinson3288 Athletes dropping dead of heart failure has been well-known for decades. It's because their hearts get so large that the nervous signals which are supposed to keep the muscle-fiber contractions synchronized, fail.
1
@joshuastavos4376 No, they didn't bribe Congress. They started withdrawing from the market and threatened to stop making vaccines available in USA. The message was: "if you don't protect us from these morons, we will walk away. Ask your constituents whether they want to start worrying about whooping cough, measles, and polio again."
1
@wilberwhateley7569 You don't have to speculate. The history is a matter of public record. Look it up! You can start at Wikipedia (which does not PROVE anything, but is a good place to begin researching, as it summarizes things pretty well and links to some good sources), the article on "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program". And go from there. Spend an hour or two learning the facts, and then you won't have to guess about donations and that kind of thing, and you might actually know a little bit about what you are talking about. Most people find that knowing makes discussing stuff more fun.
1
Re:” the cost of the war overall” It’ll pay for itself if we help Ukraine win, in the form of preferred-buyer access to Ukraine’s rich deposits of lithium and rare earth metals. And Iraq and Afghanistan were completely different from this. The Iraqi and Afghan people were not begging us for help the way the Ukrainians are.
1
@crhu319 They do want USA's weapons and assistance.
1
Yes, but then you have to deal with an infection.
1