On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:04:44 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:07:08 -0700, John Larkin
> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 05:11:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> ><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:48:17 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> >><jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
> >><be8skhdna1j4ebn69...@4ax.com>:
> >>
> >>>And junk DNA. We don't understand it so it must be useless.
> >>
> >>It has a purpose
> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211018140504.htm
> >
> >So why was it called junk?
> Because people didn't understand what it did, and were not interested
> at the time. But they didn't know what they didn't know.

I can assure you they were very interested. They simply had little to work with to figure it out. Many discoveries take serious time. Science requires patience.

> It was clear from the statistical properties of junk DNA that it is
> not random noise - it had the same 1/f statistics as music and natural
> language, and of DNA whose purpose was at least partly known.
>
> It turned out to be the control system that decides when and where to
> make this or that protein.

We think of DNA as being a blueprint for protein. We found the code for amino acids and know how proteins are constructed, using the chemical machinery of the cell. But DNA is also part of the chemical machinery, and not just the blueprints to be copied over and over. It is part of the regulatory mechanism for determining when to express what gene.

Chemistry is really complex. Most people who work in it, touch only a tiny part.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 2022-10-19 00:56, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
[...]>
>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>> creator.)
>
> Huh? Critter is just some kind of living thing; no statement as to
> how or where it came from.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

'Critter' is a bastardization of 'creature'.

Jeroen Belleman

On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>> creator.)
>
> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
> makes sense.
>

Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?

Jeroen Belleman

On 19/10/2022 00:44, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>

>> Different rules apply to microscopic life. What about one having the
>> size of a rabbit or bigger?

Probably not possible unless they had very peculiar plumbing that could
reconnect. Closest you get is probably an owls head which can turn
through an amazing angle to face its prey without moving its body.

Engineering can do it but I don't think nature ever has (apart from at
the microscopic level) - the VLA had anti twister mechanisms on the
umbilical cords for the main dishes (in reality they were non ideal and
had to be untwisted before they tightened up too much).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-twister_mechanism

It avoided embarrassment when objects got too near the zenith. Being on
an altaz mount means that the spin rate for the azimuth driver becomes
unacceptably high the closer you go. Observations were pre checked to
avoid the danger zone where the scope could not keep up with the sky.

>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>> creator.)
>
> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
> makes sense.

Until you ask "who created the creator?". Pushing the problem back just
one level is the pathetic "just so story" of the Goddidit brigade.

If he got to do *anything* in this universe then it was choosing the 6
fundamental constants of nature at the moment of the Big Bang.

I find the multiverse explanation far more convincing (although it too
may still be inaccurate and/or incomplete). We will only know for sure
when we have a full GUT that merges gravity with all other forces.

Or find another previously undetected force of nature. This sort of
thing usually happens just after someone very senior in an after dinner
speech says words to the effect of "There is nothing new to be
discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise
measurement.". Then came radioactivity and quantum mechanics. Oops!

https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Last sentence first paragraph.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>> creator.)
>>
>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>> makes sense.
>>
>
>Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>
>Jeroen Belleman

Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
and could not have originated by itself on earth.

Something extraordinary certainly happened.

"There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
creator." Both put emotion ahead of thinking, which is of course the
normal human condition.

On a sunny day (Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:09:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<6b40lh58vacre6gqlqqfv5ahsqtplbn22l@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>>> creator.)
>>>
>>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>>> makes sense.
>>>
>>
>>Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>>of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>>
>>Jeroen Belleman
>
>Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
>Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
>and could not have originated by itself on earth.

Well if you look at the simple ape, then a human
then modern society with micro chips and smartphones and radio and TV
and space travel, is it not OBVIOUS that a growing complexity
is nature's way?

I am sure life is everywhere where the conditions allow.
It if fascinating that a few nuclear processes in stars have such a super complicated consequence
as our society.

All is self organizing.
from the electron orbiting a nucleus to us typing these messages,

Am 19.10.22 um 17:09 schrieb John Larkin:

> Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
> Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
> and could not have originated by itself on earth.

Shifting it to some other place does not remove the problem.

And avoiding life seems to be much harder than creating live.
Oh my goddess, what did my colleges at Verigy (ex HP) fill into
the cooling water of their wafer testers? Ugly things you would
not want in your house. And no, it did not help. A transparent
tube that did pass a bit of light, et voilà: green slime.

Intelligent life out there? Impossible to deny.
And the surest thing about that is the fact that they did not
try to contact us.

> "There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
> creator."

No. It is a religous statement as much as abstinence is a sex game.
(much like Christopher Hitchens, IIRC)

Gerhard

On 2022-10-19 17:09, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>>> creator.)
>>>
>>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>>> makes sense.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>> of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
> Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
> Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
> and could not have originated by itself on earth.

You shouldn't introduce extra levels of complexity if there is no
compelling reason. Occam's razor. Why would evolution elsewhere be
more probable than evolution down here on earth?

>
> Something extraordinary certainly happened.

That remains to be seen. Maybe life is inevitable, once certain
basic conditions are met.

>
> "There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
> creator." Both put emotion ahead of thinking, which is of course the
> normal human condition.

Nothing emotional about it. Postulating the existence of a creator
does not solve the problem of the existence of life. It just adds
an extra level of indirection. Evolution is a scientific theory
that does away with the need for a creator. The outline of what
must have happened for life to begin is pretty clear, even ifmany
details remain to be filled in. That's the way science works.

Jeroen Belleman

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:47:07 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2022-10-19 17:09, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>>>> creator.)
>>>>
>>>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>>>> makes sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>>> of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
>> Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
>> and could not have originated by itself on earth.
>
>You shouldn't introduce extra levels of complexity if there is no
>compelling reason. Occam's razor. Why would evolution elsewhere be
>more probable than evolution down here on earth?

Because life may have evolved in another environment and may not have
been blocked by irreducible complexity. What I'm suggesting is
simplicity.

The universe is roughly 12 billion years old. Earth was a molten blob
a few billion years ago. If life happens spontaneously, it's basically
guaranteed it happened many times, many billions of years ago.

We invented electronics a bit over 100 years ago. What might a
civilization do in a million or a billion years?

>
>>
>> Something extraordinary certainly happened.
>
>That remains to be seen. Maybe life is inevitable, once certain
>basic conditions are met.
>
>>
>> "There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
>> creator." Both put emotion ahead of thinking, which is of course the
>> normal human condition.
>
>Nothing emotional about it. Postulating the existence of a creator
>does not solve the problem of the existence of life. It just adds
>an extra level of indirection. Evolution is a scientific theory
>that does away with the need for a creator.

Actually, it is mostly hostile to the idea of a creator. Hostility
blinds people to possibilities.

Dawkins has said that he is an atheist first. His theories flow from
that. And like most zealots, he's very boring.

The outline of what
>must have happened for life to begin is pretty clear, even if many
>details remain to be filled in. That's the way science works.

Science hasn't explained how DNA life works or how it originated. Not
pretty clear. Both issues have gigantic problems and only fuzzy
hand-waving theories.

So keep an open mind. Allow yourself to be surprised and delighted.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:10:39 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:04:44 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:07:08 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 05:11:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> ><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:48:17 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>> >><jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
>> >><be8skhdna1j4ebn69...@4ax.com>:
>> >>
>> >>>And junk DNA. We don't understand it so it must be useless.
>> >>
>> >>It has a purpose
>> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211018140504.htm
>> >
>> >So why was it called junk?
>> Because people didn't understand what it did, and were not interested
>> at the time. But they didn't know what they didn't know.
>
>I can assure you they were very interested. They simply had little to work with to figure it out. Many discoveries take serious time. Science requires patience.
>
>
>> It was clear from the statistical properties of junk DNA that it is
>> not random noise - it had the same 1/f statistics as music and natural
>> language, and of DNA whose purpose was at least partly known.
>>
>> It turned out to be the control system that decides when and where to
>> make this or that protein.
>
>We think of DNA as being a blueprint for protein. We found the code for amino acids and know how proteins are constructed, using the chemical machinery of the cell. But DNA is also part of the chemical machinery, and not just the blueprints to be copied over and over. It is part of the regulatory mechanism for determining when to express what gene.

Wrong analogy. DNA is not a blueprint. It is a recipe.

Joe Gwinn

On 19/10/2022 23:46, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:47:07 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-19 17:09, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>>>>> creator.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>>>> of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
>>> Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
>>> and could not have originated by itself on earth.
>>
>> You shouldn't introduce extra levels of complexity if there is no
>> compelling reason. Occam's razor. Why would evolution elsewhere be
>> more probable than evolution down here on earth?
>
> Because life may have evolved in another environment and may not have
> been blocked by irreducible complexity. What I'm suggesting is
> simplicity.

For every complex problem there are always plenty of simple wrong
answers. You delight in finding them.

> The universe is roughly 12 billion years old. Earth was a molten blob
> a few billion years ago. If life happens spontaneously, it's basically
> guaranteed it happened many times, many billions of years ago.
>
> We invented electronics a bit over 100 years ago. What might a
> civilization do in a million or a billion years?

Unless they overthrow the laws of physics they are going to have a hard
time getting here. Interstellar distances are enormous.

>>> Something extraordinary certainly happened.
>>
>> That remains to be seen. Maybe life is inevitable, once certain
>> basic conditions are met.
>>
>>>
>>> "There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
>>> creator." Both put emotion ahead of thinking, which is of course the
>>> normal human condition.
>>
>> Nothing emotional about it. Postulating the existence of a creator
>> does not solve the problem of the existence of life. It just adds
>> an extra level of indirection. Evolution is a scientific theory
>> that does away with the need for a creator.
>
> Actually, it is mostly hostile to the idea of a creator. Hostility
> blinds people to possibilities.

A creator solves nothing and still leaves you with the problem of

"Who created the creator".

It only satisfies those who like "just so" stories.

> Dawkins has said that he is an atheist first. His theories flow from
> that. And like most zealots, he's very boring.

You should know.

> The outline of what
>> must have happened for life to begin is pretty clear, even if many
>> details remain to be filled in. That's the way science works.
>
> Science hasn't explained how DNA life works or how it originated. Not
> pretty clear. Both issues have gigantic problems and only fuzzy
> hand-waving theories.

Replicating peptides and RNA world look like very plausible beginnings.
We will know a lot more if we find should independently evolved life on
Mars, Europa or Enceladus all of which have liquid water.

The requirement for life to become complex are much stricter than those
for life as in some sort of coloured photosynthetic or chemosynthetic
extremophiles arising. I suspect every planet where that there is liquid
water then life will arise in its most basic form.

We may be in a position to test this hypothesis fairly soon since the
latest planet hunters can just about do spectroscopy of distant planets.
Find one that is seriously out of equilibrium or with recognisable
synthetic chemicals in its stratosphere and you have your proof.

> So keep an open mind. Allow yourself to be surprised and delighted.

Not so open that your brains fall out as yours seem to have done.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2022-10-20 10:47, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 19/10/2022 23:46, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 23:47:07 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-10-19 17:09, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:10:52 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-10-19 01:44, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:02:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman (Who doesn't like 'critter' because there was no
>>>>>>> creator.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't be sure about that either. I suspect that there was; it just
>>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming the existence of a creator does not solve the problem
>>>>> of the origin of life. How did the creator come to be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>
>>>> Evolution, somewhere else in the universe billions of years ago.
>>>> Likely not our DNA life form, which is arguably irreducibly complex
>>>> and could not have originated by itself on earth.
>>>
>>> You shouldn't introduce extra levels of complexity if there is no
>>> compelling reason. Occam's razor. Why would evolution elsewhere be
>>> more probable than evolution down here on earth?
>>
>> Because life may have evolved in another environment and may not have
>> been blocked by irreducible complexity. What I'm suggesting is
>> simplicity.
>
> For every complex problem there are always plenty of simple wrong answers. You delight in finding them.
>
>> The universe is roughly 12 billion years old. Earth was a molten blob
>> a few billion years ago. If life happens spontaneously, it's basically
>> guaranteed it happened many times, many billions of years ago.
>>
>> We invented electronics a bit over 100 years ago. What might a
>> civilization do in a million or a billion years?
>
> Unless they overthrow the laws of physics they are going to have a hard time getting here. Interstellar distances are enormous.
>
>>>> Something extraordinary certainly happened.
>>>
>>> That remains to be seen. Maybe life is inevitable, once certain
>>> basic conditions are met.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "There was no creator" is as religious a statement as "there was a
>>>> creator." Both put emotion ahead of thinking, which is of course the
>>>> normal human condition.
>>>
>>> Nothing emotional about it. Postulating the existence of a creator
>>> does not solve the problem of the existence of life. It just adds
>>> an extra level of indirection. Evolution is a scientific theory
>>> that does away with the need for a creator.
>>
>> Actually, it is mostly hostile to the idea of a creator. Hostility
>> blinds people to possibilities.
>
> A creator solves nothing and still leaves you with the problem of
>
> "Who created the creator".
>
> It only satisfies those who like "just so" stories.
>
>> Dawkins has said that he is an atheist first. His theories flow from
>> that. And like most zealots, he's very boring.
>
> You should know.
>
>> The outline of what
>>> must have happened for life to begin is pretty clear, even if many
>>> details remain to be filled in. That's the way science works.
>>
>> Science hasn't explained how DNA life works or how it originated. Not
>> pretty clear. Both issues have gigantic problems and only fuzzy
>> hand-waving theories.
>
> Replicating peptides and RNA world look like very plausible beginnings. We will know a lot more if we find should independently evolved life on Mars, Europa or Enceladus all of which have liquid water.
>
> The requirement for life to become complex are much stricter than those for life as in some sort of coloured photosynthetic or chemosynthetic extremophiles arising. I suspect every planet where that there is liquid water then life will arise in its most basic form.
>
> We may be in a position to test this hypothesis fairly soon since the latest planet hunters can just about do spectroscopy of distant planets. Find one that is seriously out of equilibrium or with recognisable synthetic chemicals in its stratosphere and you have your proof.
>
>> So keep an open mind. Allow yourself to be surprised and delighted.
>
> Not so open that your brains fall out as yours seem to have done.
>

On the subject of Dawkins: My original judgement of the fellow was based
on an article in Scientific American, maybe 30 years ago. The article
conveyed the impression that Dawkins was an irritating twit. I didn't
know at the time that the US was --and still is-- a bastion of religious
zealots believing in the literal truth of the bible, or I would have
suspected that article to have had an agenda.

Since then, I've read some of Dawkins' work and listened to some of his
talks and arguments, and I've changed my mind. He's actually a serious
scientist with very good arguments and a knack for presenting them well.
You might just argue that crossing swords with creationists and religious
zealots is a waste of time, because none of those will ever change their
minds.

I also used to believe that religious troubles were a diminishing
phenomenon in this illuminated age, but I've changed my mind there too.

Jeroen Belleman

On 20/10/2022 10:59, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

> On the subject of Dawkins: My original judgement of the fellow was based
> on an article in Scientific American, maybe 30 years ago. The article
> conveyed the impression that Dawkins was an irritating twit. I didn't
> know at the time that the US was --and still is-- a bastion of religious
> zealots believing in the literal truth of the bible, or I would have
> suspected that article to have had an agenda.

Back in the 70's Scientific American was still a high quality popular
science journal with top researchers explaining their work with very
high quality graphics. Unfortunately it went downhill in the late 80's.

I used to like Amateur Scientist (and have the CD) and Mathematical
Games (and even made the odd small contribution to that). On one of the
puzzles I came second to a Cray 2 using a brute force algorithm with a
smart algorithm running for days on a humble Epson V30 based PC.

> Since then, I've read some of Dawkins' work and listened to some of his
> talks and arguments, and I've changed my mind. He's actually a serious
> scientist with very good arguments and a knack for presenting them well.

He picks fights with the Creationists that he knows he can't win but
gets quite a few best selling books out of it so must enjoy doing it.

> You might just argue that crossing swords with creationists and religious
> zealots is a waste of time, because none of those will ever change their
> minds.

He is doing his best to prevent the rise of superstitious anti-science.

> I also used to believe that religious troubles were a diminishing
> phenomenon in this illuminated age, but I've changed my mind there too.

Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tiria5$asn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
>superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(

Many vaccins against covid created and pushed on the poor people by the US Medical Industrial Complex and UK labs
killed and permanently disabled many thousands.

5G does not make your brain work better either, it is just interference

Brain is very sensitive, much more than you may think:
Our brains use quantum computation
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221019090732.htm

:-)

On 20/10/2022 14:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tiria5$asn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>> Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
>> superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(
>
> Many vaccins against covid created and pushed on the poor people by the US Medical Industrial Complex and UK labs
> killed and permanently disabled many thousands.

There are about a dozen major vaccines all up. All of them apart from
possibly the Russian Sputnik and Chinese ones work pretty well too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02796-w

AZ has a ~1ppm chance of causing blood clots in the young so Pfizer was
used preferentially for them.

There is no free lunch every vaccine has a small risk of side effects.

But when compared to several million dead worldwide from Covid-19
infections the vaccines are a very good bet especially if you are older.

> 5G does not make your brain work better either, it is just interference
>
> Brain is very sensitive, much more than you may think:
> Our brains use quantum computation
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221019090732.htm
>
> :-)

If we were using nuclear spin coupling like that then an NMR body scan
would be even more disturbing than it already is. Noise of the windings
creaking and groaning musically is quite deafening as the field ramps.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:42:04 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <titm0s$1kfc$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 20/10/2022 14:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tiria5$asn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>> Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
>>> superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(
>>
>> Many vaccins against covid created and pushed on the poor people by the US Medical Industrial Complex and UK labs
>> killed and permanently disabled many thousands.
>
>There are about a dozen major vaccines all up. All of them apart from
>possibly the Russian Sputnik and Chinese ones work pretty well too.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02796-w
>
>AZ has a ~1ppm chance of causing blood clots in the young so Pfizer was
>used preferentially for them.
>
>There is no free lunch every vaccine has a small risk of side effects.

World population 2022 7.87 billion
7 870 000 000
7870 death or brain injuries by vaccines?

>But when compared to several million dead worldwide from Covid-19
>infections the vaccines are a very good bet especially if you are older.
>
>> 5G does not make your brain work better either, it is just interference
>>
>> Brain is very sensitive, much more than you may think:
>> Our brains use quantum computation
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221019090732.htm
>>
>> :-)
>
>If we were using nuclear spin coupling like that then an NMR body scan
>would be even more disturbing than it already is. Noise of the windings
>creaking and groaning musically is quite deafening as the field ramps.

That is a short time exposure
Having a 5G mast next to your home is much longer.
I even have WiFi off here.

On 21/10/2022 09:57, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:42:04 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <titm0s$1kfc$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>> On 20/10/2022 14:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tiria5$asn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>
>>>> Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
>>>> superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(
>>>
>>> Many vaccins against covid created and pushed on the poor people by the US Medical Industrial Complex and UK labs
>>> killed and permanently disabled many thousands.
>>
>> There are about a dozen major vaccines all up. All of them apart from
>> possibly the Russian Sputnik and Chinese ones work pretty well too.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02796-w
>>
>> AZ has a ~1ppm chance of causing blood clots in the young so Pfizer was
>> used preferentially for them.
>>
>> There is no free lunch every vaccine has a small risk of side effects.
>
> World population 2022 7.87 billion
> 7 870 000 000
> 7870 death or brain injuries by vaccines?

About that many with side effects needing treatment in hospital some of
whom do die (not sure perhaps 1/10 to 1/3 depending on the vaccine).

A particularly notable bad example was the anti swine flu vaccine of
1976 which caused 10ppm of GBS side effects in those who had it. GBS is
really very nasty - a friend had it natural form and was off work for
over a year unable to stand or walk for some considerable time.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html

In a normal year it is a 1-2ppm flu vaccine side effect in a few unlucky
individuals. Again the benefits still outweight the small risks.

By comparison risk of death from driving in the USA is 124ppm.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:24:09 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <titofp$otj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 21/10/2022 09:57, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:42:04 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <titm0s$1kfc$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>> On 20/10/2022 14:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:26:28 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
>>>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tiria5$asn$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Anti-vaxxers burning of 5G masts demonstrates just how stupid and
>>>>> superstitious some people are today. Anti social media makes it worse :(
>>>>
>>>> Many vaccins against covid created and pushed on the poor people by the US Medical Industrial Complex and UK labs
>>>> killed and permanently disabled many thousands.
>>>
>>> There are about a dozen major vaccines all up. All of them apart from
>>> possibly the Russian Sputnik and Chinese ones work pretty well too.
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02796-w
>>>
>>> AZ has a ~1ppm chance of causing blood clots in the young so Pfizer was
>>> used preferentially for them.
>>>
>>> There is no free lunch every vaccine has a small risk of side effects.
>>
>> World population 2022 7.87 billion
>> 7 870 000 000
>> 7870 death or brain injuries by vaccines?
>
>About that many with side effects needing treatment in hospital some of
>whom do die (not sure perhaps 1/10 to 1/3 depending on the vaccine).
>
>A particularly notable bad example was the anti swine flu vaccine of
>1976 which caused 10ppm of GBS side effects in those who had it. GBS is
>really very nasty - a friend had it natural form and was off work for
>over a year unable to stand or walk for some considerable time.
>
>https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html
>
>In a normal year it is a 1-2ppm flu vaccine side effect in a few unlucky
>individuals. Again the benefits still outweight the small risks.
>
>By comparison risk of death from driving in the USA is 124ppm.

Sure, but the error in reasoning is this:
Many of those people would have experienced NO ill effect from covid
I am one of those, never had a shot, never a cold in my life since 12 years old or so
and can still smell!
So it would be a silly risk, much worse than playing the lottery for the big price,
as many do,
A lot is still unknown about how our defences against sicknesses work,
I think I know how mine work.
Most of those covid medicines were just quickly, nearly untested, put on the market.
I remeber the first test in the UK in some hospital on just a few workers,,
2 got ill, one died later from the vaccin,
seems a much bigger chance than 1 ppm to me.