No, PhDs are not the most mRNA resistant group. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to provide the statistical evidence to support your views. Also, perhaps you can enlighten us about your understanding of mRNA, and also if you took the trouble to peruse the references in the article.
In the article Malone received credit for his pioneering work, but no credit was given for his taking honors for the work of other real scientists who actually did the work. For example Katalin Karikó, the first to synthesize RNA at the University of Szeged in the eighties. Or Norbert Pardi, her colleague at the self-same university, later at PA, who holds the patents for the nanoparticle delivery system. Nor Drew Weissman who put it all together and made the technology feasible.
Au contraire, we do know a great deal about Dr. Malone. Much of it unfortunately for the good doctor, not complimentary.
Dr. Malone had nothing to do with the current vaccine, he did not work for, nor was he employed by, nor funded nor contributed to the technology developed at BioN-Tech in Germany that made the vaccines possible - based on the work of the cited above. Calling the messenger who documents these facts as thoroughly as you see in the article a "robot" only proves the terrifying (your word) effect that make ideologues who follow the antivaxxine narratives into "robots" (your word) and into the cultists they have become. In other words, the True Believers in a religion that isn't worth 1 minute of any sensible man's time.
Moreover, "skeptical" is a mild, inoffensive word used, in the world of the antivaxxers, for paranoid, uninformed, ideological, and not too intelligent. Not that skepticism isn't intelligent. It is.
What makes it unintelligent in this case is the lack of proportion.
1. Regular coffee drinking causes a myriad of physical and medical problems, and can alter the human genome far more than the minuscule amount in the mRNA vaccine.
2. Alcohol can do likewise, and even is the smallest amount is far more harmful.
3. Salt and sugar in your diet can also do it, at a thousandfold greater degree than might regular coffee drinking.
In fact the two in 3 are the greatest killers of humanity.
And these facts make the "skeptical" dodge of the antivaxxer unintelligent and paranoid.
The world is filled with terrifying robots like this author. The entire premise of the rant is destroyed with the comical and predictable slur 'antivaxers', which virtually none of them are, including Malone, nor is anyone else Ive ever met who was skeptical of the mrna. Calling a trained, professional vaccine scientist who got 2 mrna shots and godknowshow many actual vaccines an antivaxxer is pure comedy and reveals everything you need to know about this person. As for his profiling those skeptical of novel mrna technology 'dim bulbs', Arent PhD's the most Mrna resistant group...those 'dim bulbs' they?
which contains peer reviewed references to the fact that he was very involved in the early part of the invention of mRNA tech. For instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001631/ from which I quote:
In animals, the first data of the use of successful in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA was reported in 1990, while reporter mRNAs were administered into in vivo mice model, and subsequently, protein expression was identified [5].
The reference at the bottom is to this article:
5. Wolff J.A., Malone R.W., Williams P., Chong W., Acsadi G., Jani A., Agnes F., Philip L. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science (80-) 1990;247:1465–1468. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.
Malone R.W. is Robert Malone.
Furthermore your article claims there is nothing about him in a reputable source - I would call Nature magazine a reputable source, wouldn’t you?
Also your article claims that Robert Malone was responsible for a newspaper headline he did not write. This is essentially the straw man fallacy.
Also you use the term anti vaxxers- this is another logical fallacy - the ad hominem attack. Most people who oppose the coronavirus oppose it for the reason that it is not a vaccine in the traditional sense and because it is an experimental medication that does more harm than good.
I encourage you to have the integrity to correct the errors in your article. Bless you.
And to enumerate those corrections in a change log also.
No, PhDs are not the most mRNA resistant group. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to provide the statistical evidence to support your views. Also, perhaps you can enlighten us about your understanding of mRNA, and also if you took the trouble to peruse the references in the article.
In the article Malone received credit for his pioneering work, but no credit was given for his taking honors for the work of other real scientists who actually did the work. For example Katalin Karikó, the first to synthesize RNA at the University of Szeged in the eighties. Or Norbert Pardi, her colleague at the self-same university, later at PA, who holds the patents for the nanoparticle delivery system. Nor Drew Weissman who put it all together and made the technology feasible.
Au contraire, we do know a great deal about Dr. Malone. Much of it unfortunately for the good doctor, not complimentary.
Dr. Malone had nothing to do with the current vaccine, he did not work for, nor was he employed by, nor funded nor contributed to the technology developed at BioN-Tech in Germany that made the vaccines possible - based on the work of the cited above. Calling the messenger who documents these facts as thoroughly as you see in the article a "robot" only proves the terrifying (your word) effect that make ideologues who follow the antivaxxine narratives into "robots" (your word) and into the cultists they have become. In other words, the True Believers in a religion that isn't worth 1 minute of any sensible man's time.
Moreover, "skeptical" is a mild, inoffensive word used, in the world of the antivaxxers, for paranoid, uninformed, ideological, and not too intelligent. Not that skepticism isn't intelligent. It is.
What makes it unintelligent in this case is the lack of proportion.
1. Regular coffee drinking causes a myriad of physical and medical problems, and can alter the human genome far more than the minuscule amount in the mRNA vaccine.
2. Alcohol can do likewise, and even is the smallest amount is far more harmful.
3. Salt and sugar in your diet can also do it, at a thousandfold greater degree than might regular coffee drinking.
In fact the two in 3 are the greatest killers of humanity.
And these facts make the "skeptical" dodge of the antivaxxer unintelligent and paranoid.
The world is filled with terrifying robots like this author. The entire premise of the rant is destroyed with the comical and predictable slur 'antivaxers', which virtually none of them are, including Malone, nor is anyone else Ive ever met who was skeptical of the mrna. Calling a trained, professional vaccine scientist who got 2 mrna shots and godknowshow many actual vaccines an antivaxxer is pure comedy and reveals everything you need to know about this person. As for his profiling those skeptical of novel mrna technology 'dim bulbs', Arent PhD's the most Mrna resistant group...those 'dim bulbs' they?
Your article contains logical errors. You obviously did not read my fact check
https://firstfactcheck.substack.com/p/fact-check-robert-malone-is-a-fraud
which contains peer reviewed references to the fact that he was very involved in the early part of the invention of mRNA tech. For instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001631/ from which I quote:
In animals, the first data of the use of successful in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA was reported in 1990, while reporter mRNAs were administered into in vivo mice model, and subsequently, protein expression was identified [5].
The reference at the bottom is to this article:
5. Wolff J.A., Malone R.W., Williams P., Chong W., Acsadi G., Jani A., Agnes F., Philip L. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science (80-) 1990;247:1465–1468. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.
Malone R.W. is Robert Malone.
Furthermore your article claims there is nothing about him in a reputable source - I would call Nature magazine a reputable source, wouldn’t you?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
Also your article claims that Robert Malone was responsible for a newspaper headline he did not write. This is essentially the straw man fallacy.
Also you use the term anti vaxxers- this is another logical fallacy - the ad hominem attack. Most people who oppose the coronavirus oppose it for the reason that it is not a vaccine in the traditional sense and because it is an experimental medication that does more harm than good.
I encourage you to have the integrity to correct the errors in your article. Bless you.
And to enumerate those corrections in a change log also.