705 pts ยท November 25, 2014
Fifth year PhD student in biochem here, good luck! Quals were nerve-wracking for me but it feels amazing when you pass
Density is also temperature dependent. The colder liquid is denser than the warmer one.
Either the trial is fundamentally biased or it's not. You can't pick both.
No, you're saying that the clinical trials are inherently wrong because the people they sample don't represent the general population.
Yeah, they give a placebo to half the participants to establish a baseline exposure rate and to control for the placebo effect.
That's why the vaccines are under an emergency use authorization. The clinical trials aren't over, data collection hasn't finished.
It's a double blind trial. How do you know if downplaying adverse effects is going to help or hurt?
And again, being pro or anti vax doesn't actually affect how well the vaccine works.
And now you're moving the goalposts. How is this at all relevant?
You still haven't explained what this bias is and how it's medically relevant
Dude, your hypothesis is that clinical trials that use volunteers are flawed and can't be applied to the general population.
Sampling bias where? How, medically, are clinical trial participants different than non-trial participants?
It's just that Republicans are overall more likely to get Covid because they aren't social distancing and quarantining
That's fine, but your argument is that the vaccine is less effective for Republicans. That's not true, it's equally effective.
How does distrust of science change the efficacy of a drug? What is the relevant physiological difference between these two groups?
Then why are you worried about post vaccine activity being different when both groups are equally concerned about the virus?
The trials are blind. Half the people enrolled get a placebo, and both groups are compared to each other, not to the general population.
Yeah. It's still possible, but the design and controls in the experiment are more complicated compared to just running one pair of primers.
I think you're missing a step here. It's not actually RNA that goes into a RT-PCR reaction, it gets reverse transcribed into DNA first.
probe the majority of fluorescent dyes interact nonspecifically with DNA. Plus probes are orders of magnitude more expensive
I was thinking mainly about real time PCR which can allow for relative quantification between samples, but unless you attach the dye to a
Also, not sure if the fluorescence signal would be different between different primers for quantification?
Theoretically yes, since only one set of primers should bind and amplify template, but there is a greater chance of primer dimers.
You can't use a contract term to overrule a federal or state law.
No, there are: https://pfizer.dejobs.org/jobs/?q=Scientist
It's NBC's version of Netflix
You know what, I realized I was thinking of Greene. Just ignore me.
Kinda hard to win when the dem candidate withdrew two months before the election and can't be replaced on the ballot.
Which means they'll flip to the opposite extreme starting in the 2022 elections. 2/2
Coincidentally, projections show that Montana will gain one seat and Rhode Island will lose a seat after the 2020 census is complete. 1/2
Fifth year PhD student in biochem here, good luck! Quals were nerve-wracking for me but it feels amazing when you pass
Density is also temperature dependent. The colder liquid is denser than the warmer one.
Either the trial is fundamentally biased or it's not. You can't pick both.
No, you're saying that the clinical trials are inherently wrong because the people they sample don't represent the general population.
Yeah, they give a placebo to half the participants to establish a baseline exposure rate and to control for the placebo effect.
That's why the vaccines are under an emergency use authorization. The clinical trials aren't over, data collection hasn't finished.
It's a double blind trial. How do you know if downplaying adverse effects is going to help or hurt?
And again, being pro or anti vax doesn't actually affect how well the vaccine works.
And now you're moving the goalposts. How is this at all relevant?
You still haven't explained what this bias is and how it's medically relevant
Dude, your hypothesis is that clinical trials that use volunteers are flawed and can't be applied to the general population.
Sampling bias where? How, medically, are clinical trial participants different than non-trial participants?
It's just that Republicans are overall more likely to get Covid because they aren't social distancing and quarantining
That's fine, but your argument is that the vaccine is less effective for Republicans. That's not true, it's equally effective.
How does distrust of science change the efficacy of a drug? What is the relevant physiological difference between these two groups?
Then why are you worried about post vaccine activity being different when both groups are equally concerned about the virus?
The trials are blind. Half the people enrolled get a placebo, and both groups are compared to each other, not to the general population.
Yeah. It's still possible, but the design and controls in the experiment are more complicated compared to just running one pair of primers.
I think you're missing a step here. It's not actually RNA that goes into a RT-PCR reaction, it gets reverse transcribed into DNA first.
probe the majority of fluorescent dyes interact nonspecifically with DNA. Plus probes are orders of magnitude more expensive
I was thinking mainly about real time PCR which can allow for relative quantification between samples, but unless you attach the dye to a
Also, not sure if the fluorescence signal would be different between different primers for quantification?
Theoretically yes, since only one set of primers should bind and amplify template, but there is a greater chance of primer dimers.
You can't use a contract term to overrule a federal or state law.
No, there are: https://pfizer.dejobs.org/jobs/?q=Scientist
It's NBC's version of Netflix
You know what, I realized I was thinking of Greene. Just ignore me.
Kinda hard to win when the dem candidate withdrew two months before the election and can't be replaced on the ballot.
Which means they'll flip to the opposite extreme starting in the 2022 elections. 2/2
Coincidentally, projections show that Montana will gain one seat and Rhode Island will lose a seat after the 2020 census is complete. 1/2