What is MKULTRA? - THREAD 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
CIA MKULTRA / Mind Control
Project MKUltra—sometimes referred to as the CIA’s mind control program—was the code name given to an illegal program of experiments on human subjects, designed and undertaken by the United States Central
More from Science
Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
I want to share my thoughts, as someone who has been so alarmed by the so-called "dissident" scientists like Gupta, Heneghan, Kuldorff, Bhattacharya, & Ioannidis who consider themselves brave Galileos unfairly treated by "establishment scientists." I will try not to swear. 1/n
I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n
These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!
RECEIPTS
They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.
We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
If this is true raises the question of why certain (fringe & unethical) views got access to No.10 while others were ignored... https://t.co/A75HrSEqo4
— Prof. Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) December 13, 2020
I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n
These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!
RECEIPTS
They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.
Focused Protection: The Middle Ground between Lockdowns and "Let-it-rip". An essay by Jay Bhattacharya (@Stanford), @SunetraGupta (@UniofOxford) and @MartinKulldorff (@Harvard). https://t.co/T8uLxSFwgh
— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) December 11, 2020
We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.
We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
The physicist Hugh Everett III was born #OTD in 1930. His \u201crelative state\u201d formulation of quantum mechanics, which we now call the \u201cMany Worlds Interpretation,\u201d was published in 1957. pic.twitter.com/ZqMsZcPJDG
— Robert McNees, the bastegod (@mcnees) November 11, 2020
We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
It was great to talk about reproducible workflows for @riotscienceclub @riotscience_wlv. You can watch the recording below, but if you don't want to listen to me talk for 40 minutes, I thought I would summarise my talk in a thread:
My inspiration was making open science accessible. I wanted to outline the mistakes I've made along the way so people would feel empowered to give it a go. Increased accountability is seen as a barrier to adopting open science practices as an ECR
It also comes across as all or nothing. You are either fully open science or your research won't get anywhere. However, that can be quite intimidating, so I wanted to emphasise this incremental approach to adapting your workflow
There are two sides to why you should work towards reproducibility. The first is communal. It's going to help the field if you or someone else can reproduce your whole pipeline.
There is also the selfish element of it's just going to help you do your work. If you can't remember what your work means after a lunch break, you're not going to remember months or years down the line
Thank you again @JamesEBartlett for a fantastic talk (with a really nice personal touch) on reproducible workflows!
— RIOT Science Club Wolverhampton (@riotscience_wlv) February 16, 2021
Thanks especially for the co-leads @IMLahart for co-hosting and @DrManiBhogal for nabbing James!
Slides: https://t.co/CNqxzOhch1
Video: https://t.co/YjHEHuRJlz
My inspiration was making open science accessible. I wanted to outline the mistakes I've made along the way so people would feel empowered to give it a go. Increased accountability is seen as a barrier to adopting open science practices as an ECR
It also comes across as all or nothing. You are either fully open science or your research won't get anywhere. However, that can be quite intimidating, so I wanted to emphasise this incremental approach to adapting your workflow
There are two sides to why you should work towards reproducibility. The first is communal. It's going to help the field if you or someone else can reproduce your whole pipeline.
There is also the selfish element of it's just going to help you do your work. If you can't remember what your work means after a lunch break, you're not going to remember months or years down the line
Why are lunch breaks important for #code?
— Dr Rebecca Hirst (@HirstRj) February 11, 2021
If you can't remember what your variable names refer to after lunch, you sure as hell won't remember in 3 months.
You May Also Like
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
