Has Germany really moved on from it's Nazi Past?

[rogue06]

Presumably that was not carried out by third parties.

A condition you didn't bother listing when you made your definitive statement.

[tabibito]

The alleles are not "diluted" as in thinned down in some manner. As far as I can discern dilution genetics is primarily used for animal coat or hair colour. And we do not breed humans for specific traits.

Not usually, though eugenics does have a way of cropping up at irregular intervals.
Not deliberately, though there does tend to be some selection for attractiveness in the choice of partners. Concepts of attractiveness tend to be fickle, which works against selection for traits, but if one concept continued long enough there might tend to be a reduced variation.

The "Reubenesque" figure might make a comeback and replace the "Barbie Doll" figure.

[rogue06]

Not usually, though eugenics does have a way of cropping up at irregular intervals.
Not deliberately, though there does tend to be some selection for attractiveness in the choice of partners. Concepts of attractiveness tend to be fickle, which works against selection for traits, but if one concept continued long enough there might tend to be a reduced variation.

The "Reubenesque" figure might make a comeback and replace the "Barbie Doll" figure.

I don't think you'll find too many Polynesian cultures that embraced the "Barbie Doll" figure. FWIU, among them big has always corresponded to beautiful. IF that is the case and given the natural robustness of so many Polynesians, I wonder if that could count as a result of selective breeding among a population of humans. smiley hmm.gif

[tabibito]

I don't think you'll find too many Polynesian cultures that embraced the "Barbie Doll" figure. FWIU, among them big has always corresponded to beautiful. IF that is the case and given the natural robustness of so many Polynesians, I wonder if that could count as a result of selective breeding among a population of humans. smiley hmm.gif

Accepted. Aesthetics might play some part in a variety of racial characteristics, now that you mention it.

[Gondwanaland]

. Contrary to your notion natural immunity infers no greater benefits than does vaccination as both work in exactly the same way on the immune system.

Oopsie.....

P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1

Last I checked, a 13fold higher risk for vaccinated compared to naturally immune sure sounds like an awful large amount. And a 13fold less chance of breakthrough infection for naturally immune, as well as a much less chance at symptomatic disease...... sure sounds like a great deal of 'greater benefits', hun.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oopsie.....


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1

Last I checked, a 13fold higher risk for vaccinated compared to naturally immune sure sounds like an awful large amount. And a 13fold less chance of breakthrough infection for naturally immune, as well as a much less chance at symptomatic disease...... sure sounds like a great deal of 'greater benefits', hun.

"This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [My emphasis]

That comment leads to this:

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing

other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

[My emphasis]

[Cow Poke]

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."[/I]

[My emphasis]

And therein lies the problem -- the "experts" are constantly releasing information that has not been evaluated by the medical community, and the information often is chock full of errors.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Also, 100% of researchers agree with the entity that funds them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And therein lies the problem -- the "experts" are constantly releasing information that has not been evaluated by the medical community, and the information often is chock full of errors.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Also, 100% of researchers agree with the entity that funds them.

Take it up with Gondwanaland. He posted the original link to an overview of a paper that has not yet been reviewed.

[Gondwanaland]

"This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [My emphasis]

That comment leads to this:

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing

other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

[My emphasis]

Lookit you desperately grasping at straws when you got shown to be utterly full of it.

You're welcome to show us what they got wrong, hun.

[Cow Poke]

Take it up with Gondwanaland. He posted the original link to an overview of a paper that has not yet been reviewed.

Just like a Nazi - trying to turn friends against one another.

[rogue06]

Just like a Nazi - trying to turn friends against one another.

I've called her out several times for seeking to pit posters against one another. She typically does it after she's dug herself into a hole as a way to hopefully distract attention.

[Cow Poke]

I've called her out several times for seeking to pit posters against one another. She typically does it after she's dug herself into a hole as a way to hopefully distract attention.

Yup --- don't blame ME - talk to that OTHER guy!!!! Very Bidenistic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Lookit you desperately grasping at straws when you got shown to be utterly full of it.

You're welcome to show us what they got wrong, hun.

The section I posted in blue is at the first page of your link.. This paper has yet to be peer reviewed and its findings and methodology assessed.

The Abstract makes clear that: "Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear." [My emphasis]

In the Discussion the authors also acknowledged the limitations of their research:

"Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second, our analysis addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in Israel."

However, you and others here have found this unpublished academic paper that gives [or appears to give] support to your own prior beliefs and opinions and you now appear to be suggesting that this paper proves the veracity of those prior beliefs and opinions. That is generally known as "confirmation bias".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And therein lies the problem -- the "experts" are constantly releasing information that has not been evaluated by the medical community, and the information often is chock full of errors.

The medical community and science work in partnership. However, remember that many of the advances in medical science were not always made by members of the medical fraternity. They were discovered by, for example, chemists or bacteriologists. The invention of the electron microscope [an essential tool in virology] is generally credited, not to someone from the medical community, but to two Germans, a physicist and an engineer.

Furthermore this present pandemic is still in its early stages. Scientific research into this virus and its variants is therefore ongoing.

[Gondwanaland]

The section I posted in blue is at the first page of your link.. This paper has yet to be peer reviewed and its findings and methodology assessed.

The Abstract makes clear that: "Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear." [My emphasis]

In the Discussion the authors also acknowledged the limitations of their research:

"Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second, our analysis addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in Israel."

However, you and others here have found this unpublished academic paper that gives [or appears to give] support to your own prior beliefs and opinions and you now appear to be suggesting that this paper proves the veracity of those prior beliefs and opinions. That is generally known as "confirmation bias".

So you here admit that natural immunity is indeed better against Delta than the vaccine.

This is one of dozens of studies showing the same thing, hun. I get that you can't handle being wrong, but good grief.