Less a "starting point" than a hypothesis or conjecture. I know next to diddly-squat about how our immune system works, but a skim of a few relevant articles gives something to maybe justify that hypothesis:Service Dog wrote: ↑Ok, good, if you stipulate that as a starting-point, then you & I are on the same page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_immunology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen
From which one might surmise that our T-for-terminator-cells, our hunter-killer cells, are going attack any of our own cells that happen to exhibit any of those spike proteins. But our own immune systems have then been programmed to attack any virus "cells" with the same spike proteins: some of our cells have bravely sacrificed themselves so most of them will live - so to speak.
Not exactly beyond the realm of possibility as it seems that some cancer immunology therapies are likewise targetting some our cells that happen to be cancerous.
Now IF all of our cells were programmed to produce those spike proteins then, Houston, that may well be a serious problem. But the facts seem clear that that is not at all the case; there's only enough of the vaccine injected to cause only a small fraction of our cells to produce those proteins, to get sacrificed to produce an immune response. A great deal of what I've read from various biologists supports that contention, that point of view.
But you said later:
But the question there then is, how are you going to adjudicate those competing claims unless you go back to first principles, to a basic understanding of how the biology works, how the immune system works, at least in theory? How else will you do that? By who yells loudest?Service Dog wrote: ↑Given the immense global propaganda campaign in favor of the jabshots/ and against critics-- and the ethical lapses of the propagandists having-been exposed multiple times-- I'm inclined to side with giving Bridle voice FIRST --and vetting his controversial claims-- after.
Certainly not easy to do, particularly when the science gets intricate and convoluted. But if we don't make some efforts to do so then we're at the mercy of the charlatans and the deluded and those with an axe to grind. Then "we" wind up wearing masks out in the middle of a lake - as described in the Federalist article that Matt linked to - or drinking bleach because of "misunderstanding" politicians:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po ... 113754708/
As I've mentioned before, Sagan argued that most of us are scientifically illiterate - more interested in what feels good than what is actually true. And on more than a few issues:
Rectifying that seems to be Job Number 1 - assuming we survive Covid and the responses to it, that is ... ;)
