r_wraith

The same news got posted to reddit over a year ago(https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pd5v8r/antibody_found_that_neutralizes_all_known_strains/) and someone commented something similar to your comment. Because I am lazy, I am simply quoting, whatI wrote back then:

That is not how vaccinations work! If it did, fighting viruses would be far easier.

If you inject a load of mRNA that forces your cells to produce this antibody, you are basically doing the same as if you only inject the antibody itself. Itcan fight off a covid infection for as long as this one "wave" of antibodies is active in your body.

What you need is an mRNA-sequence that forces your cells to produce something or a part of the original virus that makes your immune system react in such a way that it will produce this specific antibody on its own and "remeber the blueprint". Then you have an immunity.

If they can find out what part of the SAARS-virus led to this immune reaction in the original patient and this proves to be reproducible and safe in other patients, then we would have a vaccination.

The antibody itself is a great hope as a treatment for already infected patients and maybe even as a short time prevention for infection.

True, but also maybe they remember the Black September?

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute something to malice that can as easily be explained by stupidity."

"... where scientists were able to draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating." Ah! Gibberish!

So they are really arguing that the 14th Amendment only applies to the people participating in an insurrection and that the instigator of an insurrection is protected by the 1st amendment? That one will be interesting, becuse as far as I understand it, US legal tradition also holds that the instigator of a crime is as guilty as the perpetrator. The one who orders a murder is as guilty of murder as the one committing it. Or am I wrong?
Also, did they just admit that January 6th was an insurrection attempt and not a peaceful tourist viait?

That is just the thing. It was the same with GB and the IRA. Terrorist organization and the hard-line governments they oppose have a simbiotic relationship to their mutual benefit and the detriment of anybody else.

If you think "we" are ignoring a conflict that is never out of the news in western nations for more than a few weeks at most and never at all in the Arab nations, what do you call what "we" do to the numerous other conflicst in Africa, the Middle East, Central and South-East Asia and South America?

Conspiracy Theory. Then why not do it earlier, when the protests were still in international news instead of now when everyone intenationally already lost interest and turned back to watching the Golden Bachelor?

Constant praise by sycophants and people wanting to believe in a better future at the hand of high tech billionaires also does the trick. It works like a pump for inflatable egos.

What is it about trees? Any time someone posts something about the problems of some plans to fight climate change on Lemmy or Reddit, someone posts a reply like yours. And every tine news about climate activists are posted, someone else posts something about that they had better planted some trees. Planting trees is a commendable effort and a great first step, but you do know that (if I understand earth's climate history correctly) earth was covered in trees when CO2-levels were as high as today or even higher? Only by sequestrating fallen trees underground through sedimentation (and converting them to coal and later oil) did CO2-levels in the atmosphere begin to drop.

Me too.

Do you still not see it? Republicans claim not to believe in Climate Change because they are all Lizard People!
/s if it isn't obvious enough.

Incorrect, indigenous Australians used fire extensively for land management. They were the first society in the world that we have evidence of milling seed for flour (36k years ago), they had yam plantations, built stone weirs for fish farming, and a bunch of other things.

Interesting. Any sources I could look up?

1. Is this (world) news?
2. Where does your friend get their news? It has been reported on by multiple large US news outlets.
3. Is it also "everywhere in Russia" that China has been releasing Tritium into the sea for years, as has South Korea?
4. Is it also "everywhere in Russia" that it seems that a Rosatom subsidiary from. St. Petersburg, called Atomproekt (?) was involved in developing the filtering process for Fukushima Daiichi's release of contaminated waste water?

To say the Catholic church and they pope supported Nazism is a bit of a stretch.

They may not have actively supported the Nazis the whole time, but all in all I would count them as supporting, rather than opposing or being neutral. The main goal they worked for in Germany during the Third Reich was to legally secure their special institutional rights.

The Nazi Party was anti religious in ideology.

As any totalitarian thought system must see other such systems as competitors, National Socialism too saw Religions as a competittion and began working to supplant it as soon as it was entrenched enough in Germany. Before that though, Hitler took care to be especially friendly with the Catholic Church, even praising them as "the most important factor in sustaining our nations identity" in his Declaration on Governmenance in March of 1933. Even late in the war, Hitler always declared himself sent and guided by Divine Providence, without going into detail about which god or gods he was refering to.

Did Pius XII do enough, seen the circumstances of what he knew and his power? Not at all. Even the Catholic network get used for protecting nazi wat criminals.

Agreed. And he and his Church never got punished for that.

But there was at least some verbal resistance, ...

By the Catholic Church as a whole mainly from 1930 until the NSDAP was given power and Hitler showed himself to be friendly to the Catholic Church and again after the German Government failed to honor parts of the "Reichskonkordat" (a contract that assured the Church many of its institutional rights and which richly compensated it for anything it did loose and which is still in force today) but evern then only in the form of one Encyclica by the Pope mostly denouncing the loss of adherence to Catholic/Christian Dogma in Germany and only in one part denouncing the Nazi Race Theory. Aside from that, there was only resistance by singular priests.

... which was braver back then, as the pope actually lived in occupied territory

... from September 1943 until April 1945. At which time and with their already overstreched ressources no "sane" German commander would have dared attacking the Pope directly and risking public uprisings in most European (occupied and unoccupied) countries.

Thank you very much for the information. I will check it out.

I must confess that I did not read the abstract of the new paper but the paper from last year said (IIRC) that the antibody in question attaches to a structure in Coronaviruses that, should it mutate to change it so that the antibody was no longer effective, the experts were qiite sure that as a result, the virus would no longer be infectous to humans.

1. Not my government (Not from the US).
2. If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today's "tyranical government" is that much more restrained than Lincoln's government was?

As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:

1. "The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants"
2. "(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death."

So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.

I argued that fighting the US government's forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.

So where exactly is my Straw Man?

The 2A may have been meant to protect a "free state" but in today's reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.

Of course it is a shitty picture. You ask leave to where? Right question, I don't have an easy answer, as Egypt obviously won't allow them in.

Let me post a different question: What should Israel have done after the 7th? What would any other country in the world have done differently?

You can behead the king or members of an aristocracy who's source of wealth and power are stiuated in one coutry, but how do you want to manage that with a billionaire whose wealth is spread all over the world? He will just move to a friendlier country.

And there I thought the young man's testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.

There is a difference between a military bombardement, where civilians were warned to leave the area beforehand and a suprise raid in which civilians and children were the only targets and people were raped abducted and tortured.

So? He is a biilionaire. What, besides his reputation among the rabble does he have to loose? Why should he care? Does he need to fear that you will boycot his companies? Not even a bloody revolution in the US could touch him. He will just move to another country.

So for you being a "refugee in their own home" makes it ok to deliberately murder civiluans, women and children, rape and abduct?

Lets be clear on one thing, both sides were killibg people long before this. No side in this conflict is innocent, no side is fighting purely for freedom, no side is right.

Still, I see a difference in a military bombardement, where civilians were warned to leave the area beforehand and a suprise raid in which civilians and children were the only targets and people were raped abducted and tortured.

If you do not see that difference (without condoning either), it is you who is blind.

Never said that nor implied it.

I still think that there is a difference in intent between killing children in a bombing campaign and directly and individually targeting them in an armed raid.