pot kettle black lol
anyways, how have you turned a 9/11 CT thread into a CV thread.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
pot kettle black lol
anyways, how have you turned a 9/11 CT thread into a CV thread.
I would ask you where I've invented something and attributed it to you, but I know that once again you can't answer that because it never happened. 
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Chinese actually gaining surprisingly the greatest experience in small portable nuclear reactors. Suppose to power Gobi desert villages.
But one may draw some suspicions how and where some of those reactor can be used.
Can not tell anything in details because ASIO will wipe blank our SB server and kill all witnesses here.So I don't tell you where you could put such small portable nuclear reactors and how to use it to propel vessel under water... Possibly they don't even need 12 to target all our main cities...that just happen all to be on the sea bank located.100Mt per each our city that is Pear Harbor that one may should worry about. In such context - the fact if we even have some of those submarines or not becomes irrelevant.One correction required,.
Obviously nobody believe ( beside Tooth Fairy Believers ) that our nuclear subs will be toothless. They all will be equipped with ICBM obviously and nobody can verify, they are not. Obviously they will be hiding at NZ waters because obviously everybody know the NZ prohibit all nuclear ships, so nobody could expect them to be there. Poor Kiwi had no mean to verify where are subs are hidden.
So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." Did you just make that "fact" up because you thought it would make your claims look better?
Okay, so China may have small nuclear reactors. Do they have the ultra-silent cooling water pumps that you need to evade passive sonar? Do they have any means of controlling these drones? What sonar outfits do the drones have? How effective are they? How do you reckon the drones would just follow our subs when those subs can go into harbours in Australia and allied countries, and come out through another channel and with escorts that can search for the drone?
No, only the Tooth Fairy believers will think any nuclear subs we may get will have ICBMs (or SLBMs, to use the other title). It would be a breach of our obligations under the NPT, and would be likely to breach the New START Treaty we supported earlier this year. If we got SLBMs then it would likely to be seen as effectively giving our allies the UK and USA extra SLBMs so other countries would probably want more SLBMs too.
You can't just hide an SSBN. The whole hull shape and size is normally designed around the fact that you've got to have room for a bunch of enormous missiles and all the infrastructure of launch, maintenance and control. You can't just buy a bunch of SLBMs, stick them into a handy cupboard in an SSN, and leave them there till they are needed. We'd need shore facilities for maintenance, maintenance crews on shore, specialised crews on board, and an extra 25% or so on the budget to buy them. Only the Tooth Fairy reckons you could hide all that from the Australian public, the Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence services, and the NPT surveillance procedures.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said.. So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice."
I do but can't say it.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Macroscien said..
Chinese actually gaining surprisingly the greatest experience in small portable nuclear reactors. Suppose to power Gobi desert villages.
But one may draw some suspicions how and where some of those reactor can be used.
Can not tell anything in details because ASIO will wipe blank our SB server and kill all witnesses here.So I don't tell you where you could put such small portable nuclear reactors and how to use it to propel vessel under water... Possibly they don't even need 12 to target all our main cities...that just happen all to be on the sea bank located.100Mt per each our city that is Pear Harbor that one may should worry about. In such context - the fact if we even have some of those submarines or not becomes irrelevant.One correction required,.
Obviously nobody believe ( beside Tooth Fairy Believers ) that our nuclear subs will be toothless. They all will be equipped with ICBM obviously and nobody can verify, they are not. Obviously they will be hiding at NZ waters because obviously everybody know the NZ prohibit all nuclear ships, so nobody could expect them to be there. Poor Kiwi had no mean to verify where are subs are hidden.
So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." Did you just make that "fact" up because you thought it would make your claims look better?
Okay, so China may have small nuclear reactors. Do they have the ultra-silent cooling water pumps that you need to evade passive sonar? Do they have any means of controlling these drones? What sonar outfits do the drones have? How effective are they? How do you reckon the drones would just follow our subs when those subs can go into harbours in Australia and allied countries, and come out through another channel and with escorts that can search for the drone?
No, only the Tooth Fairy believers will think any nuclear subs we may get will have ICBMs (or SLBMs, to use the other title). It would be a breach of our obligations under the NPT, and would be likely to breach the New START Treaty we supported earlier this year. If we got SLBMs then it would likely to be seen as effectively giving our allies the UK and USA extra SLBMs so other countries would probably want more SLBMs too.
You can't just hide an SSBN. The whole hull shape and size is normally designed around the fact that you've got to have room for a bunch of enormous missiles and all the infrastructure of launch, maintenance and control. You can't just buy a bunch of SLBMs, stick them into a handy cupboard in an SSN, and leave them there till they are needed. We'd need shore facilities for maintenance, maintenance crews on shore, specialised crews on board, and an extra 25% or so on the budget to buy them. Only the Tooth Fairy reckons you could hide all that from the Australian public, the Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence services, and the NPT surveillance procedures.
You know that most answers on your questions we could consider rather classified.
I could possibly go through one by one of your question and even suggest some improvement how things could be make better ( as usual)
but I doubt I do anybody favor to improve on war machines.
Whole topic should be always How to make our world a better place to live, not to destroy it.
Beside deception is the main weapon in every war, so you could not expect either side what capabilities they have.
I am not going to start new topic _ How to make nuclear powered torpedo better! -
but you could Google about Russian made nuclear powered ICBM and that give you some ideas what Chinese could do.
We know Chinese are masters in copycuts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik#:~:text=The%209M730%20Burevestnik%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA,to%20have%20virtually%20unlimited%20range.
www.9news.com.au/world/russian-skyfall-nuclear-missile-could-circle-world-for-years-warns-uk-general/d5b181b4-304d-4933-a13b-06227bd05495
I remember writing years ago about theoretical possibly for quantum engagements utilized to detect "stealth assets" . But look now Chinese quantum radar is a fact and no such thing like a stealth planes and missiles are anymore.
interestingengineering.com/china-reportedly-developing-quantum-radar-to-detect-stealth-jets
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Chris 249 said.. So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice."
I do but can't say it.
visitors to this forum may not understand your humour and may be reinstalling their tin foil hats right now.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." Did you just make that "fact" up because you thought it would make your claims look better?
Okay, so China may have small nuclear reactors. Do they have the ultra-silent cooling water pumps that you need to evade passive sonar? Do they have any means of controlling these drones? What sonar outfits do the drones have? How effective are they? How do you reckon the drones would just follow our subs when those subs can go into harbours in Australia and allied countries, and come out through another channel and with escorts that can search for the drone?
No, only the Tooth Fairy believers will think any nuclear subs we may get will have ICBMs (or SLBMs, to use the other title). It would be a breach of our obligations under the NPT, and would be likely to breach the New START Treaty we supported earlier this year. If we got SLBMs then it would likely to be seen as effectively giving our allies the UK and USA extra SLBMs so other countries would probably want more SLBMs too.
You can't just hide an SSBN. The whole hull shape and size is normally designed around the fact that you've got to have room for a bunch of enormous missiles and all the infrastructure of launch, maintenance and control. You can't just buy a bunch of SLBMs, stick them into a handy cupboard in an SSN, and leave them there till they are needed. We'd need shore facilities for maintenance, maintenance crews on shore, specialised crews on board, and an extra 25% or so on the budget to buy them. Only the Tooth Fairy reckons you could hide all that from the Australian public, the Russian, Chinese and Indian intelligence services, and the NPT surveillance procedures.
You know that most answers on your questions we could consider rather classified.
I could possibly go through one by one of your question and even suggest some improvement how things could be make better ( as usual)
but I doubt I do anybody favor to improve on war machines.
Whole topic should be always How to make our world a better place to live, not to destroy it.
Beside deception is the main weapon in every war, so you could not expect either side what capabilities they have.
I am not going to start new topic _ How to make nuclear powered torpedo better! -
but you could Google about Russian made nuclear powered ICBM and that give you some ideas what Chinese could do.
We know Chinese are masters in copycuts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik#:~:text=The%209M730%20Burevestnik%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%91%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA,to%20have%20virtually%20unlimited%20range.
www.9news.com.au/world/russian-skyfall-nuclear-missile-could-circle-world-for-years-warns-uk-general/d5b181b4-304d-4933-a13b-06227bd05495
I remember writing years ago about theoretical possibly for quantum engagements utilized to detect "stealth assets" . But look now Chinese quantum radar is a fact and no such thing like a stealth planes and missiles are anymore.
interestingengineering.com/china-reportedly-developing-quantum-radar-to-detect-stealth-jets
Why do you lie so much?
You claimed that "Chinese quantum radar is a fact" when all you can show is a web article that says that China claim they have created it, but that it's probably a bluff.
Your earlier claim was simple. You stated that AS A FACT that " "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." You have presented no evidence to back up that claim. You have shown zero evidence that MAD has developed that much, that passive or active sonar has developed that much, that anything has developed that much. Your claim runs against science.
You stated something AS A FACT. Give some evidence or admit that you are a liar. And don't move even more into lies by claiming that you know the answers but that they are classified.
Yes, in your cloud cuckoo-land and enormous egocentricity you would probably sit in front of your mirror, worship yourself and believe that you could come up with improvements. The problem with that is that every improvement you have promoted here is arrogant bull****.
The reality as far as you let us know is that you are a very mediocre windsurfer who bought a drought-stricken farm and weren't even smart enough to work out whether you could get the rest of us to pay for your bad decision through drought relief. In other words, everything we can see here indicates that you're a failure who should stop fantasizing about knowing more than far smarter people know about the areas in which they have been working for years.
And given what you have been vile and disgusting enough to foully spout lies about people I know, you are beyond contempt if you whine about my posts.
PS - last summer you were basking in your egocentricity and saying that you knew the answers to fighting bushfires. Have you joined your local fire brigade yet, or are you once again going to sit behind a keyboard and pour contempt at the people who actually get out there on the fireground and do the stuff that protects people like you?
When are you going to stop talking and start doing?
PPS - Of course, you've ignored the fact that SSBNs are very different from SSNs, you've ignored New START and the NPT, you've ignored all the other factors that show that your claims that we must end up with SLBMs are lies, lies, lies and ignorant lies.
I know you'll never give a proper answer, but can I ask why you lie so much? What is life like when you are such a dishonest person?
"One of the more unusual ideas proposed by the BIR involved dragging a dummy periscope behind a ship while food was discharged nearby. The aim was to attract a flock of seagulls to the periscope and, following repeated runs, condition the birds to associate periscopes with a good meal. Ergo, anytime a periscope popped above the surface, a flock of seagulls would beeline towards it giving the game away. "
physicsworld.com/a/hunting-submarines-from-the-air/
Sounds like an idea you'd come up with Macro?
Who was it that said "every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center" Formula Nova? Lotofwind? Doesn't matter if it's currently the case or not, but if not, I'd bet they're working on it.
Do you think the fellows who detected the collision of two black holes 1.4 billion light years away might apply for a bit of funding from the defence budget? When are our new submarines scheduled to be launched?
The idea of using the gravitational detection technology that detected the black holes to track subs isn't new. China has already claimed it's close to a working system and NATO looked into it deeply years ago before deciding that issues like background noise and the requirement for unprecedented sensitivity made it impractical.
The guys who run navies aren't morons, and they do a lot of funding of leading-edge science. They know about gravitational detection technology and they still came to the decision to go nukes. They are not perfect but they are not so stupid that they know less about their own job than people sitting on a sailing forum do. As a matter of interest, the guy who used to run the sub building side for the RAN was a sailor, and won a world title against a two-time Olympic medallist. I bet that's a better record than anyone on this forum has, and that's not even his job. These guys are not fools, and they have spent tens of thousands of hours each working on these issues.
Even if they can get gravitational detection to work, so what? Warfare, especially ASW, has always been a matter of technology challenge and counter. ASDIC (aka sonar) led to surface attacks. Surface attacks were countered by centimetric radar. Wolf pack tactics were countered by HF/DF. HF/DF was (to some extent) countered by Kurier. The combination of HF/DF, centimetric radar and asdic was countered by the Mk XXI etc, which would have been largely countered by Double Squid and depth-finding asdic.
One can easily say that abandoning a system because a potential enemy claimed they could counter it is not the way to defend anything. Time and time again, advances are met by successful responses.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
"One of the more unusual ideas proposed by the BIR involved dragging a dummy periscope behind a ship while food was discharged nearby. The aim was to attract a flock of seagulls to the periscope and, following repeated runs, condition the birds to associate periscopes with a good meal. Ergo, anytime a periscope popped above the surface, a flock of seagulls would beeline towards it giving the game away. "
physicsworld.com/a/hunting-submarines-from-the-air/
Sounds like an idea you'd come up with Macro?
Who was it that said "every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center" Formula Nova? Lotofwind? Doesn't matter if it's currently the case or not, but if not, I'd bet they're working on it.
Do you think the fellows who detected the collision of two black holes 1.4 billion light years away might apply for a bit of funding from the defence budget? When are our new submarines scheduled to be launched?
Looks like we have now new contender willing to take over from me some entertainment, a bit of education and geniue ideas here on SB.
Looks like Chris may enlighten all, since has some background in science , like family member washing dishes in the lab .
So no point for me to compete, I give up and leave it to the proper science team here on SB.
Bob,Chris,MenofWind,FN and few other know everything already better.
Somehow sad to see how nice forum converted inervertly from ideas exchange to abuse exchange.
I don't feel like I fit here.
PS. As to very interesting article you linked I have some improvements suggestion. Beside most popular methods to detect submarine I would also look at Achilles foot anything nuclear. Nuclear fission do produce quite nice signature particles, that are not really blocked by lead , concrete or water. But I doubt we read about it until is declassified in decade or two. I am sure your guys chasing Black holes and CERN,ers are smiling already.
Btw. We did write here about improved rocket engine utilizing detonation instead just burning fuel. Here it is last week first in the world Japanese rocket propelled by rotary continuous detonation.
interestingengineering.com/japan-tests-rotating-detonation-engine-in-space-for-the-first-time
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Rotating detonation engine - Mazda 12A / 13B in late 70's ????
yep, but only when you run on low octanes petrol
then you have detonation.
beside
continuous detonation is the key here as oppose to pulse detonation
The closest analogy that comes to mind will be:
difference between Nazi V1 an V2 rockets.
the first propelled by pulse rocket engine and second by continuous
>but that was still slow burning fuel not detonating it.
Select to expand quote
hChris 249 said..
something about bushfires....
dronelife.com/2021/04/28/drone-swarms-for-firefighting-the-future-of-fire-supression/
"Space colonization is largely a capitalist perception management op promoted by the likes of Musk and Bezos to strengthen the narrative that it's okay to continue the world-raping global capitalist principle of infinite growth on a finite world because we can escape the catastrophic ecological consequences of that paradigm by fleeing to space. Ecocidal capitalism is fine, we'll just go to space before it kills us!" is the message we're all meant to absorb. And too many do. A large obstacle to waking people up to the existential crises we are facing as a species is the blind faith that technology will save us from the consequences of our mass-scale behavior, and therefore we don't need to change. Which suits the world's richest men perfectly.
But it's a lie. Humanity will never colonize space. We are not separate or separable from this planet in that way."
caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/space-colonization-is-a-capitalist
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Ian K said..
"One of the more unusual ideas proposed by the BIR involved dragging a dummy periscope behind a ship while food was discharged nearby. The aim was to attract a flock of seagulls to the periscope and, following repeated runs, condition the birds to associate periscopes with a good meal. Ergo, anytime a periscope popped above the surface, a flock of seagulls would beeline towards it giving the game away. "
physicsworld.com/a/hunting-submarines-from-the-air/
Sounds like an idea you'd come up with Macro?
Who was it that said "every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center" Formula Nova? Lotofwind? Doesn't matter if it's currently the case or not, but if not, I'd bet they're working on it.
Do you think the fellows who detected the collision of two black holes 1.4 billion light years away might apply for a bit of funding from the defence budget? When are our new submarines scheduled to be launched?
Looks like we have now new contender willing to take over from me some entertainment, a bit of education and geniue ideas here on SB.
Looks like Chris may enlighten all, since has some background in science , like family member washing dishes in the lab .
So no point for me to compete, I give up and leave it to the proper science team here on SB.
Bob,Chris,MenofWind,FN and few other know everything already better.
Somehow sad to see how nice forum converted inervertly from ideas exchange to abuse exchange.
I don't feel like I fit here.
PS. As to very interesting article you linked I have some improvements suggestion. Beside most popular methods to detect submarine I would also look at Achilles foot anything nuclear. Nuclear fission do produce quite nice signature particles, that are not really blocked by lead , concrete or water. But I doubt we read about it until is declassified in decade or two. I am sure your guys chasing Black holes and CERN,ers are smiling already.
Btw. We did write here about improved rocket engine utilizing detonation instead just burning fuel. Here it is last week first in the world Japanese rocket propelled by rotary continuous detonation.
Well, that departure lasted all of 30 seconds. 
Macro, it's utterly hypocritical of you to slag off people as you do, and then whine when you cop it in return.
The sad thing is that you're not even honest enough to admit your lies, like your claim that the world's military could spot submarines
everywhere.
Oh, and once again, if you're actually interested in firefighting why don't you stop sitting around and pretending that you know more than the people who do it, when you could simply join your local brigade and do something useful?
Ultrasonar exists. It's just really really bad to use it. Given the damage it did it may have been covered up. No, I won't be naming a source.
French mans should not worry too much due to lost contract.
They should even thanks us all ! 
Thank to those new 6 sub ships we could finish quickly Yellow Imperium
and
to celebrate the Victory
order quickly the best Champaign in the world for total of 60 bln USD !
ok
Let do it 50 bln in Champaign and 10 bln in truffle ( to snack a bit ) while Cellarbrating.
financesonline.com/top-10-most-expensive-champagne-bottles-in-the-world/#taste
For
$50,000,000,000
divided by
$2,000,000
should give us 25,000 bottles of the best Champagne money could buy.
Not enough for everybody in country of 25 mln people ,
but remember not all deserve that reward for Victory.
The rest could cellarbrate and get drunk on our card boxed vine, that we have nowhere to send.
So win /win.
\For Frenchmans preparing 25,000 bottles , fill them up and cork should be easier then build
submarines.
They should start thanking us already in advance
Dish prepared for our PM by best French Chef.
I had a nuclear sub the other day.
12 inch hot pepper chicken sub with extra Jalapeno and pickles, topped with double helping of Habanero hot sauce.
The old missile chute felt primed all arvo.
Im not sure of the point of this thread either,
but pretty sure it wasnt to talk about your missile chute.
but I will let the yanks know we have found a weapon of mass destruction
.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Ultrasonar exists. It's just really really bad to use it. Given the damage it did it may have been covered up. No, I won't be naming a source.
Ultra Sonar (TM) exists, if that's what you mean. The Ultra group's latest sonar has recently passed trials in the RN.
Given that they already use ultrasonar for some sub maintenance, and some sonar is already ultrasonic, it's hard to understand what else "ultrasonar" could be. Ultra high frequency sonar as now used suffers from short range. But if it's something else, and given that you know it exists, it seems extremely unlikely that no one in the Royal, US or Australian navies is aware of it. Given that they have not stopped making subs, it seems that they don't believe it has made them obsolete as some seem to believe.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Ultrasonar exists. It's just really really bad to use it. Given the damage it did it may have been covered up. No, I won't be naming a source.
Ultra Sonar (TM) exists, if that's what you mean. The Ultra group's latest sonar has recently passed trials in the RN.
Given that they already use ultrasonar for some sub maintenance, and some sonar is already ultrasonic, it's hard to understand what else "ultrasonar" could be. Ultra high frequency sonar as now used suffers from short range. But if it's something else, and given that you know it exists, it seems extremely unlikely that no one in the Royal, US or Australian navies is aware of it. Given that they have not stopped making subs, it seems that they don't believe it has made them obsolete as some seem to believe.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Given that they have not stopped making subs, it seems that they don't believe it has made them obsolete as some seem to believe.
They'll only stop making subs when nobody wants to buy them. Not saying we shouldn't, what would I know. But the opposition is not kicking up much of a fuss so all we can say is all the people with more information than us think it's the way we've got to go.
But I'd guess all the experts also know that it's not a sure thing, that it's quite possible 20 years down the track ASW will finally come out on top of the 100 year Sub vs. ASW battle and they will be obsolete. What's your best guess Macro?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Chris 249 said..
Given that they have not stopped making subs, it seems that they don't believe it has made them obsolete as some seem to believe.
They'll only stop making subs when nobody wants to buy them. Not saying we shouldn't, what would I know. But the opposition is not kicking up much of a fuss so all we can say is all the people with more information than us think it's the way we've got to go.
But I'd guess all the experts also know that it's not a sure thing, that it's quite possible 20 years down the track ASW will finally come out on top of the 100 year Sub vs. ASW battle and they will be obsolete. What's your best guess Macro?
I hope then in few years, decades or so wars becomes obsolete. We could release all those military around the world to feed on food stamps.
War is archaic mean to achieve things that you could do by different way.
Speaking of declassification...
And slowly the truth seeps out...
edition.cnn.com/2021/09/17/health/fda-advisers-booster-five-things/index.html
(CNN)Vaccine advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration declined Friday to recommend the agency approve Covid-19 booster doses for everyone who got vaccinated six months ago or longer.
They (FDA) would like a lot more data and a chance to look for mistaken conclusions
Dr. Philip Krause, deputy director of the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review, noted that Pfizer was using data that had not been reviewed by experts.
"One of the issues in this is that much of the data that's been presented and being discussed today is not peer-reviewed and has not been reviewed by FDA," Krause said.
Hmmm...where have seen this type of behaviour before?
Oh, that's right, from the same company that has the record of the largest fine in pharmacuetical history for lying about the health benefits of their products.
Yet here we are, goverments and companies blindly bringing in mandates for 'vaccines' and booster shots...based on 'the science (TM)'.
"Trust in the science (TM)!" they loudly proclaim. And the pro-experimenters lap up this 'advice' to regurgitate onto all those around them.
Yes, trust in the 'science' from a company that is proven to have committed mass fraud.
So, where is this 'science'?
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
pot kettle black lol
anyways, how have you turned a 9/11 CT thread into a CV thread.
Yep, we are back on track!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
We need kiteboy's law.
What's the rule? That kiterboy must lie in every post?
No, Kiter, the governments did not "blindly" bring in vaccines. They did it after doing research far deeper than you can understand.
Yes, some of the experts in the FDA disagree with PART of the evidence that Pfizer has brought forward for PART of the use of the vaccines. And some of them have shown their disagreement with the booster plan pretty publicly.
So all these claims that government scientists are pawns who ignore the science and their conscience are shown to be bull****. In a case like this, top scientists in regulatory bodies have shown that they will publicly disagree with plans that will increase Pfizer's profits, and take all the steps they can to stop those plans.
That's pretty good proof that there has been no giant conspiracy to smother over the science. When a giant like Pfizer brings in what they think are bad ideas, top scientists shoot them down. That's the way it's meant to happen.
So where is the science? Well, we know he says that guys like Krause were "blind" when they accepted the vaccines and that anti-vaxxers think we should do our research, so I'm sure Kiterboy can give us a full analysis of Krause et al's analyisis in J Virol Methods. 2008 Sep; 152(1): 18-24, where he refers to "Binding of mAb41, anti-peptide antisera and NMS to the p41_3 mutant peptide W14L15L18; W25L26L29 (C), and to the p41_4 mutant peptide W13L14L17; W26L27L30 (D). ELISA was performed as described in Fig. 5".It may be very interesting that Krause et all found " It is possible that pA presents the critical residues in a less favorable manner either due to the loss of optimal conformation when removed from its native context (Fibriansah et al., 2014), or the lack of mAb41 preferred features (duplicated W(L/I)XX(L/I) motif and acidic residues). This is evidenced by the absence of detectable mAb41-like antibodies in anti-pA polyclonal sera".
Oh, you gotta love the way those anti-PA polyclonal sera hanker after their duplicatred W(L/I)XX(L/I) friends.
So come on Kiter, since you are such an expert, do you agree with that use of W1415L18? What peptide should they have used? What result would you expect from that binding? What's your view of polyclonal sera and mAb41 antibody detection?
What do you think would have happened if Krause at al had modified the MBD41 by increasing PRD above 0,400 by 5%, PBW by 4% above 0,105 and PIPA 11.2% above 0,0033? Do you think the GPH would have risen to over 590? What would have happened to the AVS?*
There's the sort of science you're asking for. Since you're such an expert and we are so blind, surely your infinite wisdom will allow you to explain that passage easily, oh wise one?
* Here's a hint - the answer is no, and nothing. But an expert like you who knows the science so well would have guessed that.
PS - Can anyone explain why poor old al doesn't get a Nobel Prize? Al is a co-author on so many papers, but no one seems to give him any credit.
