That heat is kinda overshadowed by the giant ass ball of fusion shitting metric shit tons of energy at us.

It got a bit technical in the middle. Hit me up if you need that ELI:5.

Finding covid’s spike protein in someone means that they currently have or are recovering from a covid infection. Finding covid’s spike protein in someone does not mean anything about their vaccination status.

So a recently vaxxed person that’s never had covid would not have any trace of a spike protein?

If that’s what you’re saying I’d love a source. The “friend” prolly won’t read it, but I’ll at least peruse it and file it away for the inevitable next time he drops this claim.

Sure… but the “friend” is regurgitating that it’s specifically the spike protein that was found in these areas. I can find plenty of articles about finding the spike protein in various parts of the body cause that happens with catching covid. I haven’t found an article saying they’ve found spike proteins associated with the vaccine specifically. This is nowhere near convincing enough for him cause the evil gubment could suppress that or some stupid bullshit.

He also pushed the claim the infamous “they” said the “spike protein wouldn’t leave the delts”. For this I imagine it was the vaccine itself that wouldn’t leave the muscle but that says nothing of the spike proteins induced by the vaccine.

So the overarching questions are of they can actually tell the difference in the spike proteins found in other parts of the body? If that’s possible, is that something employed? I could see it being possible, but maybe not done normally for reasons (too expensive to just test for every time or no need to tell the difference). And lastly, was the claim ever pushed that the spike proteins in response to the vaccine wouldn’t leave the arm/delt/muscle?

Taking a shot in the dark.

What specifically are they finding to say covid was found in the brain? Can they tell the difference between covid vs vaccine in whatever they find?

I have a Facebook “friend” running the “they found vaccine spike proteins in the brain” line, and “they said it would only stay in the deltoids”. I’m imagining he confused the “vaccine should stay in the muscle” as opposed to the spike protein which I could see traveling with blood. As for finding it in the brain or heart, could we tell the difference? Would we?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/where-does-the-nitrogen-in-the-air-come-from

This says most of earth’s nitrogen was present when earth formed. The nitrogen cycle eventually leads to atmospheric nitrogen which can be stripped by solar winds except earth has a magnetosphere that shields us. So planets with no or a weak induced magnetosphere lose nitrogen. Earth does not.

No, it is the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is the church followed by most Christians on this planet.

Are you espousing views you don’t believe in? Or is it still your personal interpretation as well?

It seems to me that you are trying to explain God through science, and I’m not sure whether that is possible.

No. Apologists do that. I’m simply correcting the errors in their claims. There is no argument without apologists first trying to claim there is a god.

Science, from a Christian perspective, is the study of God’s creation.

Alright, you do you then. Meanwhile science from a science perspective doesn’t include the supernatural.

Once we are both on the same page that a higher being exist

I’ve heard all the apologists argument and remain unconvinced. If you’re still flogging Aquinas, you clearly have not heard all the rebuttals. Your move.

But first you would need to accept religion(s) in general.

That needs to be proven for me to accept.

So your original comment asked what are apologists, then you go into typical apologetics arguments? Quite funny really.

Everything before your last sentence presupposes your personal interpretation of your god.

I’m not looking for philosophical evidence. I’m looking for objective evidence. And Aquinas is catastrophically out of his depth with his “5 Ways”. Pretty much every line has some error. Further, even if it were true, to take the end result of each of those individually and then say “Clearly this is the Christian god of the Bible and definitely not any other god humans have believed in or a coincidence or have any rational explanation.” is the height of arrogance.

All of what you just said has zero evidence to support it.

Apologetics is essentially “defending” something as opposed to say proselytizing (in the example of Christianity). It’s frequently used for indefensible topics like rape apologists (the type to suggest the victim was asking for it or could have tried harder to say no) or Nazi’s (the usual propaganda). Christian apologists tend to hand wave or ignore the atrocities because “god is an absolute “good”” therefore anything he does is by definition “good” and us mere mortals can’t understand the divine plan. Babies dying? God is good. Babies dying and going to hell because they are unable to accept Jesus because they literally are unable to understand the concept? God is good.

I mean the times when they’re 100% guilty. Like caught on camera. There are still some people who will blame the cops.

100% this. Patient likely knows he’s the cause of most of his problems. But it’s so much easier to to not acknowledge that. Therefore his problems must be caused by someone else, likely the medical professionals, because they can’t just give him a pill to fix everything.

You see the same behavior in police videos of criminals blaming the cops for arresting them or judges for sentencing them.

I mean, he does know a thing or two about rigged elections.

I’d love to hit a few qultists I know with the “dIeD sUdDeNlY!!” bullshit they spew if trump died before the election.

not waiting for Trump to resurrect three days later.

I hadn’t thought of this. Now there’s no question in my mind there would be those adamant this would happen. Then on the fourth day, blame the democrats somehow.

Don’t forget the infighting. I imagine it would be glorious. Like watching the inbred redneck family having an all out brawl at Walmart.

Important to note that the speaker only takes over if the president and vp died together. If the president dies, the vp takes over and picks a new vp, who would then be first in the line of succession.

It’s not about choosing the right facts. It’s about how the information is presented. One such case I can recall involved covid propaganda. A qultist anti-vaxxer I know posted an article with the headline (paraphrasing) “70% of covid deaths in hospital were vaccinated”. Turns out that was true. Except the article was presented as if this was evidence of the vaccine failing. Unfortunately for the qultist idiot, that’s an expected outcome. The area it happened in, had pushed hard for early vaccination. The population was like 90% vaccinated and vulnerable people were targeted early. Quite the opposite to the tone of the article, reality is that the vaccine was massively effective. But the facts were presented with an ignorant and incorrect interpretation.

That’s how facts can be used in propaganda.

https://imgur.com/gallery/zHSo5

Not a hospital worker, but here’s my suggestion. The moment a threat or threatening behavior (eg getting 3 inches from someone’s face) comes out, they should be banned, full stop. Even if you kinda think they are full of shit and won’t do anything, someone else might feel threatened and that shit needs to be nipped in the bud. Prior to that if they are just raising their voices or otherwise being loud and obnoxious, just start talking slower and more deliberately. Never raise your voice. Just keep to the dullest, most monotonous tone and cadence you can manage. Think Ben Stein going “Bueller?” Never explain reasoning beyond “that’s the rules” or “patient safety” or otherwise vague and void of nuance.

If you see a colleague in those situations, make your presence known. Follow the same guidelines (except if you hear a threat, before engaging you can call security/cops without alerting them). Generally don’t undermine anything a colleague says unless it’s illegal or unsafe. For instance if they say “that’s the rules” but it’s not actually the rules, let that stand. The aggressors would use that to try to divide you and your colleagues and continue to argue/escalate.

That’s better than a horse and carriage.